NationStates Jolt Archive

And it is in a patient's best interests to have an abortion... how? Like I said before we got around to insulting me about it, I can see it under a couple circumstances, but we could remove those possibilities and make it better for the mother to have the child. I can also see how abortion is in the best interests of the world, what with overpopulation and all, but not in the best interests of the patient.

I hope you were not insulted by me Vivelo that was not may aim.

Ok again getting we are getting somewhere….
You can see how and abortion can be warranted in some instances… rape, health etc
And you can see how abortion can be in the best interests of the world (in terms of population numbers etc).

How is abortion in the best interests of the patient? If that patient does not have the desire to have a baby, for whatever reason, I don’t see how forcing them to do so would be in the best interests of the child. They may be born into economic hardship; un-loved and un-wanted surely you would not wish this on anyone? It is not in the best interests of the patient to have a child they do not want, or are not ready for. Again the lesser of two evils that is the judgement I would allow that person to make. They will decide if the psychological trauma of an abortion preferable to a child they do not want or have any capacity to look after.

The point is you don’t have to see why an abortion is in a patient’s best interest unless you are the patient, and Tony you never will be. If someone only sees the foetus as a lump of cells and feels no guilt by removing it why does that affect you?

By banning abortion you are forcing someone into a course of action, which has the possibility of an increase in suffering for them and their child. By allowing the choice, you still have the opportunity to convince them through your strength of argument. If you cannot then they are aware of the consequences and THEY have judged those to be less than the consequences of an unwanted child.

Answer me this who are you, what qualification or power are you evoking, what experience do you have that gives you the right to take away a persons right to judge their own actions?

Dammit man, you know as well as I that abortion is murder either way, but we need some grounds for compromise or these SOB's will never concede.

SOB = sons of bitches I think. I am the son of a loving mother and a planned pregnancy and as such am happy and well adjusted. It will be those son conceived in a drunken one night stand in a society were abortion is banned that will be more likely describe their mothers as bitches.

Until 20 week a feotus is considered to have such a minimal chance of becoming a viable human being that it is not one.

I could become Prime Minister but I doubt anybody will give me the respect attention or even the abuse a Prime Minister would recieve. This is because I am not the Prime Minister and my chance of being such is so minimal as to be insignificant.

Get the point, sperm is not alive neither is the egg, neither most importantly is an embryo or feotus. Yet due to the drastically increased chances of a feotus becoming a living being after it has survived the first 20 weeks it is accorded protection akin to that normally reserved for living human beings.

Any argument based on the feotus being alive or a human being is emotional nonsense which pay no heed to the simple facts.

To any pro-lifers out there who use these arguments I ask please in the name of God or whatever you believe in attend a biology course do some research in real scientific journals and at least fight facts with facts

Until 20 week a feotus is considered to have such a minimal chance of becoming a viable human being that it is not one.

WHAT?! Are you even listning to yourself? Find me the statistic that says most women miscarry within 20 weeks!

Dammit man, you know as well as I that abortion is murder either way, but we need some grounds for compromise or these SOB's will never concede.

SOB = sons of bitches I think. I am the son of a loving mother and a planned pregnancy and as such am happy and well adjusted. It will be those son conceived in a drunken one night stand in a society were abortion is banned that will be more likely describe their mothers as bitches.

well if you arent a sob then you would have been brought up correctly and realize that baby killing is wrong.

Many women miscarry before 4 weeks whilst the 'potential baby' (pb) is still an embryo and before women even know they are pregnant. This will exhibit as a particularly heavy and/or painful period.

At twenty week the embryo has become recognisable as a developing human, sex can be determined (if the pb will sit still and face the right way during the scan), it is also at this stage that all gross developmental problems should have become apparrent (really nasty ones are usually picked up at 12 weeks). As such it is an approximate time by which most pb can be identified as human and their existance protected as such.

At 20 weeks the pb could be delievered successfully, all be it with intensive care and special care baby units, yet some of these still don't survive. Prior to 20 weeks many essential internal structures (kidneys, liver, lungs etc.) have not successfully formed and as such may not. This array of potential problems amounts to a greatly increased chance of one or more not developing and thus the pb being stillborn or miscarriaged.

I understand how it is not a person, by your descriptions, but it is a separate and unique human from conception. No child has an identical chromosomal structure to its parents or anyone else and that starts at conception when two separate cells with half the necessary chromosomes join to create a new being. It is not able to communicate its will yet, but it is still a unique human. Surely that must count for something.

Unique chromosomes... That isn't a very good definition of Human life since if we followed that...

1.) Can't Kill Damaged Cells
2.) Can't Kill Cells Infected with Viruses
3.) An identical twin does not have rights

It counts for it being alive, maybe, but then again humans are made up of billions of things that are alive. But the body can act to kill any one of them and this is not murder. Being alive doesn't make you a person, having unique chromosomes does not give you rights.

1.) Can't Kill Damaged Cells
2.) Can't Kill Cells Infected with Viruses


These cells can be replaced with similar ones. A fetal mixing cannot regenerate to the same mixing.

3.) An identical twin does not have rights

Twins do not live within one another's bodies, so the question doesn't even come up.

AnteNicea is Pro-Choice!!!!

That Choice is Made when the woman willingly spreads her legs or that choice is made by the man who forces himeslf upon a woman ( for which, upon being found guilty,he is publicly castrated befor he is put to death under our law)

The only time Abortion is permisable, under our laws, in when the "Physical LIFE of the Mother is in Danger of Exspiration" due to the natual procedure of Child birth.

The causes of rape and incest although horrendous as they are Do Not incriminate the Child and "state authorized killing" also known as execution is reserved for those that have been found guilty of only the most horrible crimes and being concieved falls far short of any such crimes.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

If your mom wasn't a bitch I think she probably would have raised you with some moral decency.

Hrmm funny how the pro-lifers have not only complained about their beliefs being made fun of, but have also now turned to insulting our mothers.

Master debaters obviously :wink:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You know, we have no control over those first two examples. Both killing damaged cells and killing infected cells are involuntary actions. They're like reflexes; we don't even realize they are happening and can not stop them. Besides the differences in chromosomes produced when two people have sex is far more unique than the difference between individual cells in your body. These cells will never amount to anything more than tissue, an unborn child will amount to something much more significant (I don't think anyone will argue that a human being is less significant than a tissue sample). As for identiacal twins. They may be similar, but they are not exact copies. They have different thought processes (personalities) and, through their own actions, could make themselves look very different from their twin. Therefore, a twin isn't a viable argument.

How do we really know when the neurological functions start? Way back in the first abortion debate, someone argued that thoughts had been detected very early in the pregnancy. This was rebutted by pointing out that we are unable to detect the electrical charges until far later than that. What a very human idea, we can't see it, it must not be there. By that logic, since none of you is capable of detecting my neurological processes as I sit here at my computer, I too must not be human.

Ah but many cancer treatments we do have control over. And it has been mentioned you can but stem cells in the solutions and end up with another human being. Identical twins have exact copies of the chromosomes. The will develop differently, they will have different experiences and become different people, but they are practically clones of each other.


We don't know precisely when the brain starts to function as it would in a developed human. However, we do know that when a clump of cells lacks a brain, it is not going to be thinking. If it cannot produce the chemicals necesary then it won't have any feelings.

But one can detect your own neurological processes.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am merely pointing out the fallacies in these definitions for something being a human being. I don't think you would support the removal of rights from twins, but that is the logical extension of using unique chromosomes as the basis for something being a human being. Since while twins don't have the different chromosomes, some cells in your body do. Should killing the twin be allowed and killing the cell be murder? I think the answer is obviously no.

If you use birth as the standard you don't run into the same problems.

Now even if we are using the basis that birth is the basis of life a nation can still be compasionate towards the poor. Since once the child is born it can be afforded rights, be granted social mobility and a chance.

But to give unborn or an embryo or fetus in the first 6 months of pregnancy rights is dangerous since there is no definitive line. If it's because its a potential person, then shouldn't it be illegal to waste sperm and egg? they are also potential life.

But to give rights to something at the moment it can be safely removed from the mother or rights to it at birth you do not have the same problems

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

"Teach the girl some responsibility" was posted a while back. ^

Would you like to ruin a child's life because you're trying to "teach the girl some responsibility"? Instead of thinking of a way to get back at the girl getting pregnant, think of the child's life. Having a baby does NOT teach you responsibility.

Tampering with your body should be choice. What's next? Outlawing condoms? Because they sure do kill 'potential babies'. :idea:

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

So we can all just go around having irresponsible sex? Alright I'm off to the nearest whore house to impregnate every prostitute I can.

So basically, we all either live in total celibacy except for 2 or 3 times when we make a baby with one other person, or we screw everything that moves?

I have realized that those of you who are pro-choice, when you make your arguments about why the unborn child does not have rights, your claims can also be applied to groups of people who have already been born. Proper amount of chromosomes- people with down's syndrome. Ability to voice rights- mutes and illiterates. Ability to differentiate self from environment- mentally handicapped people often cannot do this (at least not as easily as the rest of us). I'm sure there are others. Are you saying that these people do not have rights either? Of course not, you are basing your arguments on level of physical development. Essentially this is merely agiesm. Although I can not forcibly change your opinion on that matter, I can point out that it is not useful for arguements any more than you can argue against the rights of an African by saying they are not human, or the same thing to a woman or a Jew. Jews and non-whites both had scientific "proof" that they were not human. This science was falsified for the sake of getting proof that was appealing to the scientists. I do not know if this is how it was proved for or against abortion, but both sides seem to have some semblance of science on their sides. Therefore one, the other, both, or niether side could be falsified and their science not trusted.

Sperm and egg. I am sick of seeing this brought up when potential life is mentioned. Most sperm cells die anyways. Most eggs are expelled if not fertilized. Through your exaggeration it is illegal to not have sex. Even then there are situations where the embryo fails to attach. These deaths are all unavoidable. The abortion of an unborn child is, except in miscarriages. This removes the sperm and eggs from the potential life arguement.

I never claimed the chromosomes made it a human being or gave it rigths, I said that happened at birth, and down-syndrome still uses human dna.

The science cannot be trusted? Surely when something lacks a brain this is not falsified. Without a brain you don't feel, at all. And unless you the entire belief of how the human body functions is a hoax that neerves arent the way we feel pain, and nerves aren't the way we store information. This seems a bit more credible then cramming beans into dead peoples skulls.

Yes most eggs and sperm die, most pregnencies end in miscarriage, yet you make it seem like theres a difference. Both are potential human beings, but we dont afford rights to either.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

hrmm well looks like this debates done then...

This is exactly my point. Just Ziliarn and I have been incessantly arguing for at least a half of a page. We are constantly managing to shoot down each other's arguements. We will never come to a decision on this. Even when one side can flawlessly prove their point there are those who will choose to ignore the blatant facts in front front of them in favor of their moral standards. I would be one of those people should it come to being forcing a pro-choice standard upon the entire UN. I think that to avoid unrest within the UN, abortion should become an issue of national sovereignty.

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

natural law??? The human body starts abortions on its own, hawks will crush the eggs of their young if there is not enough food, many parents will eat their children in the wild. I suppose these must be an offense to this imaginary natural law of yours.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

natural law??? The human body starts abortions on its own, hawks will crush the eggs of their young if there is not enough food, many parents will eat their children in the wild. I suppose these must be an offense to this imaginary natural law of yours.

well i dont know about you but idont compare myself to wild animals you can lower yourseld if u wish but i am not an animal.

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

natural law??? The human body starts abortions on its own, hawks will crush the eggs of their young if there is not enough food, many parents will eat their children in the wild. I suppose these must be an offense to this imaginary natural law of yours.

well i dont know about you but idont compare myself to wild animals you can lower yourseld if u wish but i am not an animal.

I believe you are the one that mentioned natural law.

Abortion should be legal.
-What happens if your having 'safe sex' and the condom breaks? You fall pregnant but you didn't mean to?
- Or if you're on the pill and you fall pregnant anyway?
I could never get an abortion, not if my life depended on it. I'm not the type of person that can kill my own flesh and blood and then live with myself afterwards. I don't have the stomach for it.
But some people can. If they 'accidently' fall pregnant and they aren't ready to become parents then I think people should be able to have an abortion. Or if the baby was caused by rape, many women can't bear the thought of having their rapists child and some even blame the child afterwards. In that instance getting an abortion would be easier on both the mother and child in the long run.

Hey I say abortion is wrong. And partial birth abortion is nothing short of murder. I am not saying that people who get abortions are damned to hell. I am saying that it is a sin just like speeding or using marijuana. And I would also like to point out that everyone that has voted for abortion was allowed to be born.


J. Pigg

Hey I say abortion is wrong. And partial birth abortion is nothing short of murder. I am not saying that people who get abortions are damned to hell. I am saying that it is a sin just like speeding or using marijuana. And I would also like to point out that everyone that has voted for abortion was allowed to be born.


J. Pigg

Actually, speeding and using marijuana are not (by the bible) sins, espescially not using marijuana, since we are supposed to be able to use all the "herbs" god gave us.

And I, personally, was not allowed to be born, I was forced, it's not like I swam out of my mom by choice, the contracting of her uderine wall forced me out.

The real issue here is "quality" of life.

From an extremist's perspective, pro-lifers would deny a woman the ability to terminate the existence of their unborn child, thereby forcing them to give birth regardless of the conditions into which the child would be exposed to, humane or otherwise. That's when we get our orphans, babies thrown into dumpsters (or worse), child labor in undeveloped countries, etc. Granted, some turn out okay, but at the expense of the parents who probably ended up on Welfare.

On the other hand, an extreme pro-choicer would bring abortion abuse into society. A message would be sent to young teens informing them that it's okay to have unprotected sex because in the event of impregnation the pregnancy can be aborted. I strongly doubt this is the intent of pro-choice advocates, but it seems to me that the under-educated youth of the world would see this as one less reason to buy condoms or the pill (still considering STDs). Even adults could decide they want a child, get pregnant, and then decide they weren't themselves or that they want to wait a few more years and abort. Such a fickle attitude toward the life and death of the next generation is a deplorable disregard for human morality.

The decision for abortions should be decided based on the best interests of the CHILDREN. They are the real heart of this issue.

(Feel free to criticize. I know I made some over-generalizations and stereotypes to make my point.)

Dammit man, you know as well as I that abortion is murder either way, but we need some grounds for compromise or these SOB's will never concede.

SOB = sons of bitches I think. I am the son of a loving mother and a planned pregnancy and as such am happy and well adjusted. It will be those son conceived in a drunken one night stand in a society were abortion is banned that will be more likely describe their mothers as bitches.

well if you arent a sob then you would have been brought up correctly and realize that baby killing is wrong.

Baby killing is wrong.... abortion is not baby killing... a foetus is not a baby but i think we've covered this one already

To the The real Mcoy I would say that is a fair summary of the points from either side raised. As I have previously suggested it is a decision based on the “lesser of two evils”.
I would prefer to live in a world where abortion is legal and rarely or never used than one where it is illegal and the option is not there.

I agree with vivelo is right when he says this should be a matter of national sovereignty, this is largely what I have been arguing. However this game is surely a metaphor for the real world.

It is the natural extension of your reasoning, that this is a matter for national sovereignty, that in the real world that it is a person own choice, based on the fact that no one can agree in that world either!

I all really comes down to the question you chose to ignore in my last (but one) post:


Answer me this who are you, what qualification or power are you evoking, what experience do you have that gives you the right to take away a persons right to judge their own actions?

In the real would if you had the option you would ban abortion that is clear.

Will you attempt to answer? Or would you like to continue the insults against my mother…. For you info she had me christened and sent me to Sunday school im sure you would approve (I for one will not be doing the same with my children) but I have reached the conclusions I have based on balancing the available information on my own. Can you say the same?

I have realized that those of you who are pro-choice, when you make your arguments about why the unborn child does not have rights, your claims can also be applied to groups of people who have already been born. Proper amount of chromosomes- people with down's syndrome. Ability to voice rights- mutes and illiterates. Ability to differentiate self from environment- mentally handicapped people often cannot do this (at least not as easily as the rest of us).


Well no. A foetus is not human, it has not had sufficient development to be a human. Feeling pain is one of the things all your examples have in common… a foetus does not (before the Xth week when abortion is acceptable)


I'm sure there are others. Are you saying that these people do not have rights either?


No we are not it is that you have not understood the argument correctly.


Of course not, you are basing your arguments on level of physical development.


yes,yes I think you may have got it….


Essentially this is merely agiesm. Although I can not forcibly change your opinion on that matter, I can point out that it is not useful for arguements any more than you can argue against the rights of an African by saying they are not human, or the same thing to a woman or a Jew.


oh no…. so close keep trying.

Ageism? Are you sure, I am not discriminating on the basis of a foetuses age! Age has been used (in these arguments) as a way of describing their physical development so you could say I am “developmentalist” (if you would like) but this has no other example for which you can vilify me. (see below Jews ect comment). The foetus is the only example of this stage of development, if they were outside the mothers body they would be dead! It is unarguable that development occurs it is only ageism if you believe conception gives a tiny but fully formed human that just grows bigger by the day. Is that your argument? It is on the basis they have not developed to the level of a human. It is one thing to say something, but another to prove it… you can say all white, black, green people are sub human if you want this does not make it so. So it is not useful for you to point this out as it just a misunderstanding about the argument on your part.


Jews and non-whites both had scientific "proof" that they were not human. This science was falsified for the sake of getting proof that was appealing to the scientists. I do not know if this is how it was proved for or against abortion, but both sides seem to have some semblance of science on their sides. Therefore one, the other, both, or niether side could be falsified and their science not trusted.


I have not seen any science from the anti-abortion side (maybe I was not looking hard enough). And again you bring comparisons to the holocaust. In Nazi Germany the doctors were under political pressure to prove the political dogma correct… This is very different from abortion. Germany is one country, at the time the non-German scientific community did not agree with, nor had verified any of the conclusions made by German doctors. This was NOT the whole of the scientific community. Now Abortion how is this different? Can you see it yet? Yes there is a level of agreement over most developed countries on the science of foetal development.

Science is a pursuit that is open to scrutiny, it evolves and changes towards a goal of greater knowledge and acknowledges when it is wrong. Falsification is encouraged it strengthens the knowledge that cannot be falsified; religion is dogmatic, rarely admits it is wrong and is based on a blind belief in a supreme deity. I know which one I choose.



We should make sexual education courses mandatory to inform teens of the potential dangers of both an unexpected pregnancy and an abortion. Once fear has been instilled, we should have far fewer teens getting pregnant with unwanted babies to begin with.


I do not want to install fear into anyone, there is a religious theme here again. Just as you need a fear in hell. But ok I’ll go with it. Far fewer teens…. NOT none what about them. Also why only teens adult women get pregnant, sometimes those pregnancies are unwanted


Unfortunately I cannot offer a solution to the problem of the unwanted pregnancies already begun, that will not get me horribly insulted by both sides.


Why because it displays your true colours? Because you have no such solution? Or because you are so suborn that you would make people suffer rather than admit you were misguided.

Even when one side can flawlessly prove their point there are those who will choose to ignore the blatant facts in front of them in favour of their moral standards.

If you can see it why do you continue to ignore the basic facts?

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

Ah, of Portugal. The last resort of all religious when rational debate is lost, Natural Law.
What you see is natural law is based on your religious beliefs. It cannot be used to justify them!

You see it as “common sense” but this sense is just common to you because it is what you have been told all your life. If you mean natural law as in what happens in nature then you are still wrong, nature (or GOD as you believe) is extremely cruel. Those who are conceived and unwanted will be left to starve. Infanticide (killing ones children) is common in nature (lions are a favourite example) again this happens after the infant can feel pain, after it is born. Abortion is not infanticide either.

We are animals you fool, don’t tell me you are a creationist as well.

It is hard to take someone seriously who does not enter a debate with an open mind, I am willing to change what I think and believe if the evidence and facts are such that it is obvious I am wrong, I do not believe that is how you enter any debate. You have you opinion set from the start. This suggests to me that when you were told to think this way you never questioned it. If you never question your beliefs you are just a mouthpiece for someone else’s dogma. You will get no respect from me or anyone if all you can say is “its just wrong” try to ask your self why you believe that and if all you can come up with is “it just is” try again. If you are truly right then you must be able to do better than that, if not don’t be surprised if people stop listening.

Two things that I don't think have been covered yet;

1) Some abortions are carried out on feotus with gross abnormalities (which will render the resulting baby, if it makes it that far, incapable of surviving outside the womb) in order to ensure that the parents don't have to go through the extremely emotionally traumatic prossess of birthing a dead or dying baby. Where do the pro-lifers come down on this?

2) Paternal rights over the unborn. Should fathers have any say over the descision to abort?

I think anyone who has read my posts so far thinks they know which side of the argument I'm on, but I would like to say that I'm not sure if I (Having already had one of my potential offspring aborted without my consent of knowledge prior to the event) would or could allow my potential offspring to be aborted in the future, but I support wholly any individuals right to make that choice for themselves.

I don't think the UN should ever put in place a ban on abortion, either here or in real life as it prevents people of all beliefs to following their own paths. Only by the UN leaving well alone can individuals be free to make the difficult choice their own way. I strongly support massively increased education on the subject, and not just within schools.

As a closing point how damaging do the prolifers think it is for a child to know or even suspect that it only exists because its parents were legally prevented from doing anything else? Possiblily destroying their hopes and aspirations in the progress?

Actually I've not finished I also wanted to say that making it illegal is only likely to prevent the poor from having safe abortions, the rich still be able to afford to pay 'sympathetic' doctors to perform abortions whilst the poor rely on back street quacks, yet another tool to slap the poor back down.

Thats it, enough of my spleen has now been vented, carry on.

Abortion debate can be tracked as long as there has been writing. :roll: I think it's sick and it really grosses me out, and I would probably never abort my baby even if I was raped. However, in my opinion, an "yuck" factor is not a good basis for telling someone they can't do something. So I'm pro-choice.

"Paternal rights over the unborn. Should fathers have any say over the descision to abort?"

Yes, in some cases. If the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep and take care of the baby, I think that should have some weight. But if the health of the mother is in danger, I think that's a totally different story.

Abortion debate can be tracked as long as there has been writing. :roll: I think it's sick and it really grosses me out, and I would probably never abort my baby even if I was raped. However, in my opinion, an "yuck" factor is not a good basis for telling someone they can't do something. So I'm pro-choice.

"Paternal rights over the unborn. Should fathers have any say over the descision to abort?"

Yes, in some cases. If the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep and take care of the baby, I think that should have some weight. But if the health of the mother is in danger, I think that's a totally different story.

do you have any ide how rarely there is a life threatening situation???

You know why many situations don't become lifethreatening? abortions...

But we all know how the tiny clump of cells uses its *magical* powers to be sentient when it lacks a brain. And how it really *wants* to live despite it not knowing it's alive

Going off onto an OOC reply here...

The answer to the whole 'debate' is easy really. Instead of both sides (well, three..I wont discuss how there's three sides to the issue) pointing fingers, showing off stats and links how about this instead:

someone turn it into an issue :shock:

Result :
1. Players who think it should be banned, can ban it.
2. Players who think it should be legal, can legalize it.
3. Players who really dont give a [censored] can dismiss it.

That way, everybody gets a fair and equal say on how it's handled in their country. As for other countries? Well, have your nation invade, seize control of the other nation and then establish your rules there as long as you rule the new country.

There ya go..a simple, easy way to resolve this issue w/out flaming anyone, or people thinking an IC comment is an OOC comment, etc..

Now onto real issues..like on whether or not tying a piece of buttered toast (butter side up) onto the back of a cat and dropping both from a height of 3ft to create an energy free, natural anti-gravitation unit is animal abuse or not... ;)

-the OOC me

I think fathers should have a choice as to whether or not they wish to abort the kid beforehand. If they for example sign a paper, urging their wife to have an abortion, I don't think they should pay child support. But they should also get no custody rights at all. It's a form of disowning.

At that point a woman either has a choice to go ahead with the pregnancy, or have an abortion.

There must be a reliable way to make sure the woman has and does inform the "father" of course.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Fuck the unborn. Abortion rights for all!

Hail Eris!

And answer this. Why is suicide illegal and baby killing legal? I mean it is the womens body so therfore it should be the suicide victims body.

Same goes for prostitution and streaking.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I believe that masturbation and menstruating should be illegal and punishable by death; because thereby potential human life is detroyed. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irrate - sing with me, all you pro life people...
Let the heathen spill his on the dusty ground...

Christ, what's wrong with you pro life people? All people have the right to do what they want with their own body, if they want to do the same as you want them to? Sure, that's real freedom (real sarcasme)

ABORTION IS MURDER! It is a child from the moment of conception. It doesn't matter if they've come out of the womb they are still living! Also God created that child and not for the intention for it to die off before it can enter the world. Abortion is a sin!!!

"... god shall make them pay, for each sperm that can't be found"

Monty Python is great

ABORTION IS MURDER! It is a child from the moment of conception. It doesn't matter if they've come out of the womb they are still living! Also God created that child and not for the intention for it to die off before it can enter the world. Abortion is a sin!!!


Sadly, that's where 95% of Pro-lifers loose the argument/debate. When god is brought in. Hey! Here's an idea, let's make people angry! Let's tell them how the government and/or some special interest group with tax exempt status can tell them what they can and cant do to their bodies. And to top it off, lets ignore their religionus freedoms and shove christianity down their throats. Yes, that will irritate alot of folks and make us seem like the victims.

Please, if you feel so strongly about someone else teling you what you can and cant do to your body, then ask yourself this. What if someone were to tell you, no more tattoos, no more haircuts for women, no nail polish, no piercings of anysort, no hair coloring, no makeup, only government approved perfume and cologne, women have to wear burlap dresses, men have to wear wool three piece suits, parents can not 'correct' their child but will have a live in governmental monitor to ensure all governmental rules are being enforced AND said monitor will be the one to punish your child for wrongdoing.

Wouldnt like that would you? You would cry out your rights were violated. Guess what? Abortion falls under the same catageory. Pro-lifers only care about their own rights and not the rights of others. They dont care what the ramifications of their actions are. They only see one side and not the whole picture.

As for sin? Please, in christianity *all* sin is forgivable except blasphomey so what's your point?

ABORTION IS MURDER! It is a child from the moment of conception. It doesn't matter if they've come out of the womb they are still living! Also God created that child and not for the intention for it to die off before it can enter the world. Abortion is a sin!!!

So adobt the child. Now. Yes, right now. And take care of it.

heh... so many people bitch about abortion but don't actually do a damn thing. adoption? how many pro-lifers actually adopt children? not that i'm for abortion, but so many people are such hypocrits.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Look at the definitions for person and human that I posted. They say nothing about being conscious or having a brain. According to the dictionary, everyone we euthanize, abort, or execute, is still a person, and should be treated as such.

Why would they? You have offered only someones dictonary definition of human. This is only a classification system for words, it is what some one has defined a human to be in liturary terms it is not the definitive answer in a philosopical discussion! If you wish to define what a PERSON is i.e. define personhood that may be more useful, but i suggest you take into account scientific, philosophical, psychological, legal and medical factors as well as reading one dictonary.

I didn't find the part in the dictonary where it said everyone we euthanize, abort or execute is still a person... you just infured this on the basis of a lituary definition. I agree a person before they are executed is still a person i agree a person before they are euthanised is a person.... a foetus has never been a person.

"... god shall make them pay, for each sperm that can't be found"

Monty Python is great

Monty Python is great, but if you base an arguement on him, that is just sad. (That's from Meaning of Life right?)

You've seen my arguement across the more then 40 pages of this debate (mark 1 too)

I believe that masturbation and menstruating should be illegal and punishable by death; because thereby potential human life is detroyed. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irrate - sing with me, all you pro life people...
Let the heathen spill his on the dusty ground...

Christ, what's wrong with you pro life people? All people have the right to do what they want with their own body, if they want to do the same as you want them to? Sure, that's real freedom (real sarcasme)

Freedom is the ability to what is right! and last time i checked murder is not a good thing and the child in the womb is a person seperate of the mother but at that point is still relyant upon her.

Why talk about this, neither side is going to be convinced... Apologetics never converted anyone.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

He isn't shoving Christianity down your throats, many religions worship one God; they call Him by different names, but He is the same God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

I don't care what religion you're in, but that's just not true. The Muslim god is different than the Christian god, just as the decayed god of is different from that of the Christians'... This doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but I just wanted to let you know that you're just plain wrong. 8)

He isn't shoving Christianity down your throats, many religions worship one God; they call Him by different names, but He is the same God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

I don't care what religion you're in, but that's just not true. The Muslim god is different than the Christian god, just as the decayed god of is different from that of the Christians'... This doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but I just wanted to let you know that you're just plain wrong. 8)


No, they are all the semitic god, since they are all semitic religions.

I don't see why anyone would argue that they're different, Jesus worshiped the Jewish god, Mohammad taught that they were all the same god but that the jews and christians were misguided in their teachings / ways, hence the reason why they are protected in the koran.

Same god, different methods

And your still shoving your semitic religion down our throats.

Posted my moral thoughts on abortion on another topic. Thought they were equally applicable here.

I believe the issue of abortion can be put simplest in this manner: Suppose there is a man of 85 years old who has had a stroke. He is pronounced brain-dead and is a vegetable. Keeping him alive is a tremendous financial burden to his family and he is essentially not a human being. He cannot breathe on his own and requires IV injections to keep him nourished. He cannot think, feel pain, and responds to nothing. However, imagine also, that this man will awake from his brain-dead state in 9 months and become fully-functional again. I do not believe that any moral man would claim that the family of this man has a RIGHT to kill him. This situation is analagous to that of an abortion and I challenge the "pro choice" members of this organization to stand in favor of killing the man in the scenario just presented and to propose a coherent argument as to why he should die. As a nation, we would argue that any human being who believes that the family of this man has some sort of "right to choose" whether he should die, should be labelled a hedonist.

The Holy Republic of Novakistan thanks its colleagues on the floor of this chamber for the time allotted to give these brief thoughts.

The family isn't required to pay for it. The family doesnt need to visit, and he isn't going to put a family member into excruciating pain, but wait theres more, he won't remain the families obligation for the next 18 years.

If all this was true, then yes i'd say the family had every right to pull the plug. They shouldn't be forced to put up money for some half-dead vegetable simply because it was at one time a human.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.

If they can go have sex then they can go take care of a baby. Teach the girl some responsibility. And if you can't take care of the baby, you can donate him/her to the government to take care of and find a home for.

You have already contradicted your opinion. You say abortion is wrong. It is murder. That I agree with. But why stop there? Murder is murder. What difference does it make how the baby came about? All you are doing is comprising.

The ONLY reason a baby should be aborted is if it growing in the wrong place (i.e., placents) where it wuld end up killing both the baby and the mother.
I do not think "donate" is a good word. Try another.

I think that a woman who has conceved a child that she beleives she cannot provide a good life for has every right to save her child from a miserable life. Also, if it is possible that the child could be born with severe difficiancies then I think that if the parents think that the child would live a miserable life then they should have a right to save it from suffering. The featus in the womb cannot feel pain as a conceious feeling and does not have any feelings in the matter. However, the parents do. Banniong abortions is nothing more than a violation of human rights.

Its always been my opinion, if you consent to have sex with someone then you must take care of the baby. It is your responsibility, but of course if there is no way you could do that then give it up for adoption. The fact of the matter is, it is murder when you destroy a life while that life may not be aware that is it alive, does that make it dead? No. Adults who are in comas may not be aware that they are alive, but they aren't dead and if you pull the plug on them then you'll be charged for murder. Hmmm, something tells me that they aren't comparing these sort of actions. In the case of being raped, or something along that lines. I'd say definately give it up for adoption if you don't want it. Just don't kill it for God's sake

Exactly what kind of excruciating pain are you talking about Ziliarn? Of course the old man won't be putting thefamily in any physical pain, but seeig him like this could cause extreme emotional pain, which I'm sure some people out there could compare to giving birth.

He could very well remain his families obligation until he dies. Considering his medical history (at the very least a nine month coma, but chances are there's more) they would probably not want to risk him living out on his own. They would most likely take him into their home or put him in a retirement home, only the sickest family would pull the plug on a relative in his condition. Either way they, or their insurance, would be paying for him.

Why should the family have to pay for him? They can leave him not pay for anything and leave it to the hospital to decide what to do.

The family isn't required to pay for it. The family doesnt need to visit, and he isn't going to put a family member into excruciating pain, but wait theres more, he won't remain the families obligation for the next 18 years.

If all this was true, then yes i'd say the family had every right to pull the plug. They shouldn't be forced to put up money for some half-dead vegetable simply because it was at one time a human.

I believe that the delegate of Ziliarn lacks knowledge of the way human society has functioned since humans began living to the age of feebleness and senility (or perhaps Ziliarn is simply an extreme outgrowth of the 'pro choice' platform). When a child is born, it relies on its parents for care while it is in the state of growing to adulthood. However, when the child reaches adulthood, it then becomes its job to take care of its parents in their time approaching death. It is actually quite common for a parent whose spouse has died and can no longer take care of himself to live with their grown child. Now, supposing the child cannot afford or is for some reason not able to house/clothe/feed their feeble parent, they are sent to a nursing home (the equivalent of an orphanage).

Because of this, I still consider the analogy I proposed to be completely valid to that of an abortion. Perhaps in some societies the family will not have to pay for the man remaining alive in the coma, but the family of the comatose man would be obliged to help him out when he emerges from the 9 month coma. However, if they could not afford to or were not able to, he could be sent to a nursing home where his pension could pay for care. Let's bring this full circle and back to abortion. Many abortion advocates whine about the financial stability or "horrible life" that the child will be born in to. Pregnancy does not cost anything to support financially and if the financial conditions are SO terrible, then the child can be put up for adoption so that parents who are able to can raise the child. So no, parents are NOT required necessarily to support the child for 18 years.

As to the delegate who claimed that making abortion illegal would be a human rights violation on the basis of "terrible lives" that the non-aborted child would live, I think it is a mighty dangerous proposition to plot out a life before it is fully developed. What you also admitted, in the process, was that humans are not able to achieve if they come from financially unstable households, a deeply flawed and shocking belief. The only human rights violation is that we continue to end lives at their most fragile stage- a stage where the life can be demurred with phrases like "guppy" and "just a bunch of cells". The issue of abortion is so simple that a high school biology student could understand it. Life undoubtedly begins at conception when the chromosomes of the male and female parent unite to create a separate being. Once again, the ONLY human rights violation associated with abortion is its continued existence as a procedure- with a death toll exceeding that of the Holocaust.

I once again challenge the people of this body to explain their reasoning to the analogy posed by the people of Novakistan and how they could possibly explain remaining in favor of abortions-on-demand (because, as already stated by several fans of this grisly procedure, it is all about convenience; financial or emotional).

"You would cry out your rights were violated. Guess what? Abortion falls under the same catageory. Pro-lifers only care about their own rights and not the rights of others. They dont care what the ramifications of their actions are. They only see one side and not the whole picture."

It is shocking to Novakistan as a nation that someone could possibly claim that abortion "falls under the same category" as body piercings. It has always been amazing to this nation that someone could consistently justify abortion by the ridiculous notion of "you cant tell me what to do with my body!". Even though abortion is not a matter of someone doing something with their body, let me say this- the government can and should be able to tell people what to do with their bodies. This is how bestiality, prostitution, pedophilia, public nudity, adult to child sex, etc. are kept illegal in civilized societies.

But regardless, the point of keeping abortions illlegal is NOT to prevent someone from doing as they choose with their body, but to prevent precisely that- to save the life of a child whose mother wishes to destroy its life for the sake of convenience. Prattle on all you wish about your pre-conceptions about how a child might turn out living in a financially unstable household; but what you are doing is denying the child the opportunity to live. Equality of opportunity... Something I hear the left whine about quite often, actually...

I would love to know when it became a God-granted RIGHT for a mother to terminate her pregnancy and kill her unborn child. No constitution on this planet grants that as a "right".

"Let's tell them how the government and/or some special interest group with tax exempt status can tell them what they can and cant do to their bodies. And to top it off, lets ignore their religionus freedoms and shove christianity down their throats."

Now is this similar to the religion of feminism being shoved down the throats of an appalled public? This grim cult of death demands that they be allowed to kill their unborn child because it is "their body". In actuality, the fetus is only composed 50% of the woman's "body". Also, I would struggle to name a single (educated) doctor who would claim that the fetus is nothing but an organ in the woman- an organ that grows into a human and suddenly becomes independent of her. I would love to have explained to me when this "piece of a woman's body" becomes human. Where is the line drawn by the "body" rights activists? Does this organ only become human when it is berthed? Does this organ NEVER become human and remain a woman's body forever? What is the transition line where a "woman's body" magically transforms into a human being? And how exactly, does life NOT begin at conception? What DOES begin at conception? I don't believe you could call it "non-life".

Perhaps the line that struck my people most was this one "You would cry out your rights were violated". I am sure that a child would cry out when he found out that his mother would have him exterminated for convenience- if he were able to. Instead, the cult of death executes its will with grand, sweeping proclamations about "women's bodies", "masses of cells", and "rights". Atleast recognize your point of view for what it is- the act of condemning millions to death without least respect to their possible lives or (dare I use the word?) rights.

novakistan point to a law which obligates offspring to pay for their parents.

Perhaps then you may have an arguement, but i do believe you are confusing society with the law.

And you sir have a poor grasp of biology, the baby is comprised ENTIRELY of the womans body, the womans nutrients, the womans antibodies, the womans mytochondria. Perhaps it is only comprised of 50% of the genetic data but from conception it is the woman who grows that which could become a person.

I'd say definately give it up for adoption if you don't want it. Just don't kill it for God's sake

Hi, I'm a 3-month pregnant woman. Will you please adopt my baby, since I cannot take care of it?

Some key points:


99 percent of abortions are conducted before the third trimester. During this time most experts agree that an embryo cannot feel pain.

Many physicians and researchers into fetal development, who are not pro-choice, believe that synaptic connections within the fetus' brain are necessary to perceive pain. These are not formed until well into the third trimester, when fewer than 1% of all pregnancy terminations are done.


Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus originates as an electrical signal in some of the body's pain receptors. This signal is sent via nerve pathways to the spinal column, then to the thalamus - an egg-shaped structure within the brain. Finally the signal is transferred to the cerebral cortex where it is sensed as pain. In a fetus, the pain receptors develop around 7 weeks after conception; the spino-thalamic system at about 13 weeks. Finally, the connections to the cortex are established about 26 weeks into pregnancy.



Now some pro-choice advocates believe that a fetus can feel pain within 7 weeks of pregancy. However this is called into question for various reasons.


7 weeks: The embryo has almost lost its tail. "The face is mammalian but somewhat pig-like." 1 Pain sensors appear. Many conservative Christians believe that the embryo can feel pain. However, the higher functions of the brain have yet to develop, and the pathways to transfer pain signals from the pain sensors to the brain have not developed at this time.

2 months: The embryo's face resembles that of a primate but is not fully human in appearance. Some of the brain begins to form; this is the "reptilian brain" that will function throughout life. The embryo will respond to prodding, although it has no consciousness at this stage of development.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm


Those few 1 percent of abortions performed are usually done so for emergency reasons:


Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data). It is sometimes done when the fetus has died in the womb. Termination of the life of a fetus is generally prohibited by medical societies' regulations after the 20th or 21st week of gestation. Exceptions do occur if required to save the life of the woman or avoid very serious, disabling health consequences. e.g.:


--- To save the life or health of a women experiencing a deteriorating health problem. This problem can rapidly grow worse with every day in late pregnancy, and can only be reversed by terminating the pregnancy. It is most often caused by diabetes or heart disease.


--- A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.


--- In rare cases, the delivery of the fetus can go terribly wrong, threatening the life of the woman.




http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm



Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed in late pregnancy. They are prohibited by state and provincial medical associations, unless the fetus is dead, the abortion is required to save the life of the woman, or it is needed to avoid very serious health complications.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. There is some evidence that, in the past, a physician in a hospital in New Jersey violated his medical association's regulations by performing late elective abortions -- procedures for non-medical reasons. Some groups opposed to abortion access extrapolated the New Jersey data to create an artificial national figure for third trimester abortions.

There is evidence that late abortions are sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest.




http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late1.htm

Basically then the killing of an embryo is the killing of an entity that is not conscious and does not feel pain. Sometimes this is necessary (6 percent of the time) for health reasons, if the fetus dies in the womb and if the fetus is deformed and will likely die shortly after birth.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

That's a non sequitur Vivelo as the old man doesn't need to live inside someone else's body, and has a developed brain, as well as a sense of pain. The old man also made his intentions clear beforehand and as a sentient being, I think it important to protect such rights. But if you want to play that game Vivelo, by your logic we should be protecting plants, since technically they are alive (even though they feel no pain and lack sentience).

Hmmm, the debate hasn't moved on much in my month of abscence.

There are still two central themes to this debate, mother's responsibility and the existence of rights in a feotus.

Rights. I don't know how many times I've proved this concept yet, but I will continue oblivious. There is a very simple premise in rights theory that states that to possess a right you must have knowledge of that right. This is simply common sense, as if I don't know I have the right to free padle pops, how can I claim the right to free padle pops, let alone defend that right. Knowledge takes many forms and does not automatically mean an ability to express it (ie learning as in school), but is generally taken to mean the expirience of the natural state (the state of being that is granted by the right) for example, not being slaves or recognising that I am alive. Recognising our own life would seem a fairly self-evident principle, however, humans generally acknowledge being "alive" by recognising that the world exists independantly of them, that they are just one small part of a bigger picture, that an external environment exists. Feotuses under the age of 23 weeks are completely without faculty to recognise an outside world due to their completely un-developed Prehepial Nervous System. None of the networks between indiviual nerve cells that detect the outside world have yet been wired properly into the brain, leaving the feotus unable to differentiate between themselves and the outside world, hence unable to recognise being alive and hence then unable to recognise a right to life. "Ethical Vitalists" has largely proved the developmental side of this postulate in the first half of their extensive reply. Therefore, feotuses under the age of 23 weeks do not have a right to life, and Abortion is morally justified.

Secondly, the baby as punishment. This is a diabolicaly sadistic view of the role of a baby, and of the responsibility of mothers. Quite simply, a conception is not anyone's fault, nor under any circumstances should a baby be viewed as "punishment" for any action. Why don't we force murderers to adopt children as punishment, under the "punishment" logic. A "punishment" approach is the perfect way to increase post-natal depression, and more pertinantly, increase infanticide. Infanticide as a reaction to being forced to keep babies has been well documented, most recently in Ireland, which found disturbingly high numbers of instances. Furthermore, sex is about passion, not logic or thinking. It's human nature, not careful weighing of options. Love for the partner, lust gets in the way of rational debate (ever tried to argue the merits of say, the death penalty while having sex??). The ultimate failure of society is to use children to inflict pain and suffering (try George Orwell's 1984 for refrence), let's not go down that track.

On a lighter note, keep this debate going guys, it's great, try and encourage more people to get involved, let's keep this thread rocking on to 65 pages. Bring on the Archive!!!!!!

"To Kill or not to kill that is the question" well at least here it is..... All people have diferent views and all people should be allowed to express these views.... Now The major problems is that we are just gonna keep arguing untill we convert people to our views in other words turn into a bunch of little ***HITLERS*** So as Rodney King said "Can't we all just get along? :cry: "

He isn't shoving Christianity down your throats, many religions worship one God; they call Him by different names, but He is the same God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

I don't care what religion you're in, but that's just not true. The Muslim god is different than the Christian god, just as the decayed god of is different from that of the Christians'... This doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but I just wanted to let you know that you're just plain wrong. 8)

Essentially though it's the same idea just with a different cultural slant.

He isn't shoving Christianity down your throats, many religions worship one God; they call Him by different names, but He is the same God whether you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim.

I don't care what religion you're in, but that's just not true. The Muslim god is different than the Christian god, just as the decayed god of is different from that of the Christians'... This doesn't have anything to do with abortion, but I just wanted to let you know that you're just plain wrong. 8)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I find it truely amazing how ignorant some persons are. The God Islam is exactly the same God as that of Christianity. They only differ in the manner by which HUMAN BEINGS approach their relationship with their God.

I would like to know from where do you get your "facts". And, have you ever actually talked theology with a Muslim or do you, as I suspect, get all your information from "Christian hatemongers.?"

It is for every woman to decide the fate of her unborn (not alive, dependent on her) child. If her or its future life is being threatened by its existence, she should have the right to abort it. If the legal system does not uphold abortions, women will seek other means of ending their fetuses lives, be it coat hanger or foul potion. No woman should be denied proper medical consultation and care, and no woman should feel alone when having to decide this; every woman feels remorse.

While I personally would never abort my own child, I believe that everyone has the right to choose, and no one has the right to decide for another person. It is hard enough to decide as it is. The religious and personal beliefs of one person do not apply to everyone else, so anti-abortion laws should not exist.

Normally I hate to but in on people's views and personal beliefs, but I', begining to fear this thread is being hijacked by people who are turning to religious debate. I don't really care, as long as the two concurrent debates can peacefully co-exist, but I thought I'd add my thoughts on the topic.

Yes, the various Gods of the various Middle-eastern Semetic religions can be traced through time to being "the same God", and this mainly arises because all the religions were founded somewhere in the area of Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and hence intermingled. This interpretation however ignores the cultural aspect of religion, in that it comes in many different forms and means different things in different places to different people. And the fact that religion is irrelevant to the debate on abortion. It's a belief system based on personal acceptance, not on throat-shoving. An individual accepts Yaweh/Jesus/Allah themselves, it is not imposed from the outside. If a Jewish/Christian/Muslim (please note religions are listed in order of historical founding dates, not on personal bias) woman believes it is wrong to have an abortion, then good on her, that's her buisness, the baby will be born. Allowing abortion is not enforcing it. And aside from this, the fact that the existance of any of these dieties can be empirically disproved under their current definition makes them even less relevant.

To those Catholics so severely protesting against attacks on their religion, good on you for defending your beliefs (remembering the only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for Good Men to do nothing), but please recognise any idea must be evaluated before we can accept it, which will involve quite a few attacks on it, the art of defending their ideas is what makes good debaters. And in the context of this debate, I can sum up my ideas on the irrelevance of religion in this debating, by quoting directly from I believe it's St Mathew's gospell.

Nailed to the cross, Jesus calls to hevean and says: "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

Jesus here is asking for the forgiveness of the soldiers executing Him, God's son, completely without Sin. We can draw several parallels with abortion here. The feotus is without Sin (by default), and if the mother decides that abortion is right, she knows not what she does. Therefore, all the involvement that Catholics should have is to ask God to forgive the mother, problem solved.

even in the context of Catholicism, abortion can be justified.

Have a nice day

Nailed to the cross, Jesus calls to hevean and says: "Forgive them father, for they know not what they do".

Jesus here is asking for the forgiveness of the soldiers executing Him, God's son, completely without Sin. We can draw several parallels with abortion here. The feotus is without Sin (by default), and if the mother decides that abortion is right, she knows not what she does. Therefore, all the involvement that Catholics should have is to ask God to forgive the mother, problem solved.

even in the context of Catholicism, abortion can be justified.

Have a nice day

wow, that was pretty sexy. ^_^

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

You know why many situations don't become lifethreatening? abortions...

But we all know how the tiny clump of cells uses its *magical* powers to be sentient when it lacks a brain. And how it really *wants* to live despite it not knowing it's alive

did the child tell you that? what about mentaly crippeled peopel? some just sit in a wheel chair and appear to have no brain activity. ya know what they are thinking but not on the same scale as us! they are still peopel and therefore have the full rights of a human!

i just believe that abortion is a complete violation of natural law and it should be destroyed all over the world. but because the un is full of soo many idiots it never will pass

natural law??? The human body starts abortions on its own, hawks will crush the eggs of their young if there is not enough food, many parents will eat their children in the wild. I suppose these must be an offense to this imaginary natural law of yours.

well i dont know about you but idont compare myself to wild animals you can lower yourseld if u wish but i am not an animal.

I believe you are the one that mentioned natural law. you dont know what natural law is do you? it is the conscience of every person and tells every SAINE person the diffrence between right and wrong, murder and life. And u comared yourself the pshycho parent eating their kid in the wild!

Dammit man, you know as well as I that abortion is murder either way, but we need some grounds for compromise or these SOB's will never concede.

SOB = sons of bitches I think. I am the son of a loving mother and a planned pregnancy and as such am happy and well adjusted. It will be those son conceived in a drunken one night stand in a society were abortion is banned that will be more likely describe their mothers as bitches.

well if you arent a sob then you would have been brought up correctly and realize that baby killing is wrong.

Baby killing is wrong.... abortion is not baby killing... a foetus is not a baby but i think we've covered this one already

yes the fetus is a person! when you have TRUE and 100% acurate data come and see me (loser)

[quote="Peatland"]It is for every woman to decide the fate of her unborn (not alive, dependent on her) child. If her or its future life is being threatened by its existence, she should have the right to abort it.quote]

I agree with this idea wholeheartedly. I have many times said that I favor any resolution that will ban abortion except in the case of where the mother's life is threatened. This is the only case where abortion need be an option. When people have sex, they go into that knowing that there are risks. If there is no health risk to the mother, abortion is simply another way of the world saying that people don't have to take responsibility for their own actions.

And as to some post way back in the list, I absolutely love the argument that the man should have no say about whether the wife should have an abortion or not. It seems very contradictary to say that the man has no part in anything dealing with the baby until the baby is born and then it finally becomes the father's responsibility as well. Either the father should be in on the process from day one (the baby is after all half made up from him) or he should not be forced to be involved at all.

Catholic Europe believes firmly that abortion is equivalent to murder. It is unnecessary and is the premature ending of a life.

However, we recognise two situations where an abortion is necessary:

1) If the child is going to die soon after birth.
2) If both the mother and child are going to die as a result of the pregnancy.

TheKnightsOfNi and fellow delegates,

The question of abortion comes down to answering at what point a unique entity exists, because once a unqiue human entity exists, it is endowed with certain inalienable rights. Following the fusion of egg and sperm into a zygote, the DNA in those cells is a new combination formed through the unification of egg & sperm. It is at that moment that we have a unique individual created.

According to theknightsofni, there is a very simple premise in rights theory that states that to possess a right you must have knowledge of that right. That makes no sense. If that were true, there would be no crimes against infants, as they are not aware of their rights. Miranda warnings would not have to be issued, as they would need to have knowledge of their rights before they could possess them. Please read your Miranda case law. It goes against everything you state theknightsofni. Basic rights are present whether you are knowledgeable of them or not. Fetuses are alive. Their awareness to distinguish themselves from the outside world is moot. The same "animal" argument was made against slaves, claiming they were too stupid to know the difference.

Scientific advancements in the field of obstetrics have consistently moved the point of survivability of a premature birth earlier and earlier. The artificial womb is not an impossible invention at this point, and is almost certain to exist within the next century. Conception is the only valid point at which to define the generation of a new human entity. That entity has certain inalienable rights. The real question is when do the rights of the mother trumpt the inherent human rights of the developing fetus?

The first and "easiest" instance is when the development and carrying of the fetus represents a clear and present danger to the life of the mother. In this instance, although lacking intent, the fetus is effectively an attacker. Centuries of case law support the right to use lethal force when one's life is being threatened. Thus, it is consistent with precedent to allow these terminations. As in many self-defense cases, a grand jury may be called to question whether a particular instance did in fact warrant the use of deadly force for self defense.

More later.

Why not just take the baby out of the mother and take care of it yourself?

yes the fetus is a person! when you have TRUE and 100% acurate data come and see me (loser)

Data? of portugal all I have ever seen you give here has been ill-informed religious shit. You have no "Data" how can you demand it of me?

Truth what would you define truth as? How do you prove some thing is 100% true? For you it is because someone told you... and you beleive it and have never questioned why.... that is not truth.

You have been spouting your opinions not truth.

Person. What is your definition of a person? What is personhood?

I would not consider a fetus to be a person, thankfuly most people in the world (or at least the law makers) agree with that assessment. In the real world abortion is legal in most western countries appart from backward quasi religious countries. Religion is about control, you are being controled

You ignoor all of the chalanging aspects of the debate and just keep saying abortion is wrong. I hold you you in the highest contempt also!