NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently added a new proposal to repeal the "Abortion Rights Res".


Argument: This is not an attempt to ban abortion. Rather, it is an attempt to give jurisdiction over such matters to individual member nations. If a member nation desires to grant abortion rights to its citizens, then the citizens of my country should have no say in the matter. Likewise, if a member nation so desires to ban the act of abortion, then member nations, particularly those not in my region, should have no say in the matter. Resolution #61 ultimately is an infringement on the national rights of each individual sovriegn member nation.

Post the entire proposal here, please. It's annoying to have to dredge through 27 pages of proposals just to be able to respond.


BTW, if it's not coded as a repeal of "Abortion Rights", it's DOA here.

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This is not an attempt to ban abortion. Rather, it is an attempt to give jurisdiction over such matters to individual member nations. If a member nation desires to grant abortion rights to its citizens, then the citizens of my country should have no say in the matter. Likewise, if a member nation so desires to ban the act of abortion, then member nations, particularly those not in my region, should have no say in the matter. Resolution #61 ultimately is an infringement on the national rights of each individual sovriegn member nation.

Not sure what you want me to post other than the above. It is currently on page 27 of the list of proposals. If you want a hereto, therefore, where as type of written proposal, then well that could be just a little nit picky.

Wow... I started a movement... I'm so proud.

Rally around me, my children!

This is the typical format, inserted as a quote to clearly deliniate between your comments and the actual submission:
Repeal "Abortion Rights"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #61
Proposed by: The Kingsland

Description: UN Resolution #61: Abortion Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This is not an attempt to ban abortion. Rather, it is an attempt to give jurisdiction over such matters to individual member nations. If a member nation desires to grant abortion rights to its citizens, then the citizens of my country should have no say in the matter. Likewise, if a member nation so desires to ban the act of abortion, then member nations, particularly those not in my region, should have no say in the matter. Resolution #61 ultimately is an infringement on the national rights of each individual sovriegn member nation.

Voting Ends: Fri Dec 3 2004
Then you present any different or additional arguments here.

Ok, thanks Frisbeeteria. I'll do that from now on ;)

I just added my proposal to repeal this morning, and find it somewhat disheartening that there were 6549 votes against the passage of the "Abortion Rights" mandate, yet currently there are only 2 supporters for the repeal. If anybody has any contacts to someone who would be in favor of the repealing of said article, please wire them a telegram.

There are many issues I cannot support because of national soveriegnty. My rule of thumb is would I rather have the people of 500 nations enact this rule or would I rather have the people of 500 nations be left with no civil rights protection at all due to nations that leave or refuse to join because of it?

In the case of abortion rights, it deals with the absolute most sacred right of all- the personal ownership of yourself. The government does not own your body, your family does not own your body, your children do not own your body. You own your body, and it is solely your decision who and/or what lives inside.

There are repeals I will support, but Abortion Rights repeal is not one of them.

The Armed Republic of Aliste has this to say:

We are 100% in favor of this repeal of "Abortion Rights" and would like to add that the argument made by The Kingsland is (in my opinion) very well thought out and articulate.

As the U.N. delegate of the Conservative Bloc, I have approved and will continue to approve every request made to repeal "Abortion Rights".

I too will request another repeal of "Abortion Rights" as my last one has now expired.

I am concerned however, granted - we can keep shuffling these repeals through the U.N. but it isn't doing any good unless we ORGANIZE, submit ONE REPEAL THAT WE ALL AGREE UPON, and then APPROVE IT.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

There are many issues I cannot support because of national soveriegnty. My rule of thumb is would I rather have the people of 500 nations enact this rule or would I rather have the people of 500 nations be left with no civil rights protection at all due to nations that leave or refuse to join because of it?

In the case of abortion rights, it deals with the absolute most sacred right of all- the personal ownership of yourself. The government does not own your body, your family does not own your body, your children do not own your body. You own your body, and it is solely your decision who and/or what lives inside.

There are repeals I will support, but Abortion Rights repeal is not one of them.

But what you fail to understand is, the Abortions Right resolution legalizes the murder of a living and quite concious human being. The biggest problem I have with this resolution is there are absolutely no restrictions! Partial-birth abortion, which is a disgusting practice that takes place in the third trimester of a pregnancy (when the baby is 7 to 8 months old and nearly ready to be delivered), is completely legal for doctors to perform in UN nations! That is simply not acceptable. I understand the opinion that women should be given a choice, but by the third trimester there is no doubt in ANY medical practitioner's mind that the baby is indeed a human being.

The Armed Republic of Aliste has this to say:

We are 100% in favor of this repeal of "Abortion Rights" and would like to add that the argument made by The Kingsland is (in my opinion) very well thought out and articulate.

As the U.N. delegate of the Conservative Bloc, I have approved and will continue to approve every request made to repeal "Abortion Rights".

I too will request another repeal of "Abortion Rights" as my last one has now expired.

I am concerned however, granted - we can keep shuffling these repeals through the U.N. but it isn't doing any good unless we ORGANIZE, submit ONE REPEAL THAT WE ALL AGREE UPON, and then APPROVE IT.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

I'm thinking the first step in banning abortion in UN nations is compromise. Whether we like it or not, the UN is dramatically left-leaning; abortion isn't going to be banned any time soon. However, as long as it's legal, we must make sure measures are taken to outlaw atrocities such as partial-birth abortions. This is the first step in repealing the resolution as a whole. You start chipping away at such a resolution, and perhaps it will fall to pieces. I'd be perfectly willing to write up a fancy repeal and submit it, if nobody else here has any qualms.

But what you fail to understand is, the Abortions Right resolution legalizes the murder of a living and quite concious human being. The biggest problem I have with this resolution is there are absolutely no restrictions! Partial-birth abortion, which is a disgusting practice that takes place in the third trimester of a pregnancy (when the baby is 7 to 8 months old and nearly ready to be delivered), is completely legal for doctors to perform in UN nations! That is simply not acceptable. I understand the opinion that women should be given a choice, but by the third trimester there is no doubt in ANY medical practitioner's mind that the baby is indeed a human being.

Go back and read what I wrote. Then argue against me.

Even if the fetus could be considered a person, I would still support abortion rights. A person has the right to life, but not the right to force others to be a life-support system for them. That's called slavery.

Go back and read what I wrote. Then argue against me.

Even if the fetus could be considered a person, I would still support abortion rights. A person has the right to life, but not the right to force others to be a life-support system for them. That's called slavery.

When a fetus is seven months or older, it is a human being. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. It has a heart beat, it has a brain, it emits brainwaves. In other words, it is alive. Often times babies are born prematurely...a baby that is seven months or older could quite possibly live outside its mother's body. Yet this "Abortions Rights" appeal requires no restrictions whatsoever. In other words, it allows partial-birth abortions which are highly revolting. To give you a clue of what they're like:

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbacampaign.html

This is a description of a partial-birth abortion by a nurse. There are no pictures, but the description is quite graphic, and clues you into how "alive" a fetus is at seven months. In the third trimester of a pregnancy, a "fetus" is too developed and has too many human qualities to just be considered "a part of a woman's body". It is a human being after seven months, and your willingness to ignore this unsettles me. You'll find most liberals and left-wingers even find partial-birth abortion to be immoral and murderous.

I don't agree with the Abortions Rights resolution; I can admit that. I'm pro-life myself, very strongly pro-life, and I find abortion to be detestable. If I can't outlaw the process altogether however, at least we can place some restrictions. Partial-birth abortion cannot be allowed, yet this resolution allows it. Change is needed.

In the case of abortion rights, it deals with the absolute most sacred right of all- the personal ownership of yourself. The government does not own your body, your family does not own your body, your children do not own your body. You own your body,
Indeed. Now think of your statement here from the perspective of the newly conceived unique living individual human being. This person too is not owned by anyone, and no one has the justified right to deprive this person of their inherent right to life as well.


and it is solely your decision who and/or what lives inside
Oops -- here's where you error.

You seem to be thinking like a male, so I would hope that you are indeed male, as your name implies, Adam Island.

First of all, your euphemistic reference to "what" lives inside is an attempt to minimalizingly belittle the reality of the newly conceived unique living individual human being that may be living in a woman's womb. It is an abusive comment designed to mentalistically excuse the ubiquitous contemporary (usually liberal) male's dysfunctional compulsion to fuk-and-kill in the typical irresponsible "funster" fashion of the sexually addicted.

Second, your implication that it is "solely your decision" over what you obviously mean is some so-called right to kill that newly conceived unique living individual human being for other than self-defense of that human being's direct threat on the mother's very life, reflects a stereotypically "male" attitude toward pregnancy and gestation. Men have a difficult empathic time with the reality of pregnancy, and, for other dysfunctional reasons as well, often imagine fearfully the presence of a newly conceived unique living individual human being as an invader to be removed. But healthy, heart-centered women don't suffer from this dysfunctional-male-oriented delusion. They accurately recognize the newly conceived unique living individual human being as a sacred person and their pregnancy as a sacred honor.

A person has the right to life, but not the right to force others to be a life-support system for them. That's called slavery.
This must be the most asinine statement I have ever seen on the debate of abortion. Slavery...seriously? I don't recall any child EVER asking to be formed. With this type of logic, I would assume that I now have the right to put my father down. "Sorry pops, you gave me life but your infringing on my rights. I can no longer afford you, and that would take away from me having a cell phone or a better car." That's just slavery, have him euthanised to put me out of slavery :rolleyes:

The Armed Republic of Aliste has this to say:

We are 100% in favor of this repeal of "Abortion Rights" and would like to add that the argument made by The Kingsland is (in my opinion) very well thought out and articulate.

As the U.N. delegate of the Conservative Bloc, I have approved and will continue to approve every request made to repeal "Abortion Rights".

I too will request another repeal of "Abortion Rights" as my last one has now expired.

I am concerned however, granted - we can keep shuffling these repeals through the U.N. but it isn't doing any good unless we ORGANIZE, submit ONE REPEAL THAT WE ALL AGREE UPON, and then APPROVE IT.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.
Excellent.

I also suggest creating a U.N. resolution that affirms a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

The resolution can be based on the supportive scientific definition of life and that the reality of the DNA-science proven truth of the matter ends all conjecture ... as every heart has long known.

The resolution can be phrased so that "the act of passing this resolution does not in any way effect previously passed U.N. measures".

That way the ramifications of the passage of this resolution can be dealt with one at a time with regard to the necessary repeal of past resolutions and the clarification of other human rights, etc. issues the passage of this resolution would subsequently require.

Go back and read what I wrote. Then argue against me.

Even if the fetus could be considered a person, I would still support abortion rights. A person has the right to life, but not the right to force others to be a life-support system for them. That's called slavery.
Even if you were accurate in your figuratives and metaphors, which you aren't, your values would still be dysfunctionally out of heart-centered alignment.

Indeed, your mind obviously rates enslaving one person as being worse than killing another, whereas the vast overwhelming majority of humanity ranks it the other way around, and for good heart-centered reason.

I normally refrain from taking part in these types of debates because I actually feel they achieve very little. Viewpoints of representatives very rarely, if ever change on topics where there are fundamental beliefs on either side. Therefore a suggestion:

It having been noted in this debate that there is little chance of a repeal the main issue now seem to centre on ‘Partial-birth abortion’ as specified by the honourable member from Florida Oranges. Why not write a proposal that will define when an abortion can be carried out and when not or what a ‘partial-birth abortion is. This proposal can then be written as an extension of the current “Abortion rights” resolution which I feel will be far better use everyone’s considerable energies here, than debate about the rights and wrongs of abortion, which pretty much goes nowhere.

Clearly this is a very rough idea and the legality of it will need discussing with the member body and should probably address situations where late abortions may need to be carried out in certain circumstances.

(I’d be most grateful if some of my more learned colleagues would bring their considerable expertise to bear on this ‘rough idea’)

This is just a thought…

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I normally refrain from taking part in these types of debates because I actually feel they achieve very little. Viewpoints of representatives very rarely, if ever change on topics where there are fundamental beliefs on either side. Therefore a suggestion:

It having been noted in this debate that there is little chance of a repeal the main issue now seem to centre on ‘Partial-birth abortion’ as specified by the honourable member from Florida Oranges. Why not write a proposal that will define when an abortion can be carried out and when not or what a ‘partial-birth abortion is. This proposal can then be written as an extension of the current “Abortion rights” resolution which I feel will be far better use everyone’s considerable energies here, than debate about the rights and wrongs of abortion, which pretty much goes nowhere.

Clearly this is a very rough idea and the legality of it will need discussing with the member body and should probably address situations where late abortions may need to be carried out in certain circumstances.

(I’d be most grateful if some of my more learned colleagues would bring their considerable expertise to bear on this ‘rough idea’)

This is just a thought…

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia
With all due respect, I must disagree.

Telling the heart-centered truth of a matter is always in order, no matter what sophisticated sophistries of resistant denial are employed in opposition by the minds of others.

Indeed, regarding the recently passed embryonic stem cell resolution, prior to presenting the clear and straight truth of the reality that embryos were indeed newly conceived unique living individual human beings, many apparently were unaware of that reality, and the measure was sadly passing by a very wide margin. However, after disclosing that truth on the last day of voting, the opposition made a comeback, and although the measure still passed, its percentage margin of victory was considerably smaller than before revealing the truth of the matter. Such indicates that, if a repeal was ever filed, posting the straight truth of the matter from the beginning, including exposure of the mentally centered sophistries of others, could have a successful effect in getting that horrific measure repealed.

Regardless of the outcome, it remains always of value to tell the straight truth in the matter rather than leave one's heart and climb into one's mind and manipulate for position and truly irrelevant and time-wasting gain.

In addition, coddling to the opposition, as you advocate, is codependent and, thereby, dysfunctional. Purposely acting in a dysfunctional manner is never justified. Such self-sacrificial behavior is always detrimental to one's self and others.

In truth, keeping true to one's heart and the truth it tells even while a majority of others are being untrue to theirs is of great exemplarary value, and does more to act as a convincing argument for the future than any compromise with dysfunctional untruth ever could.

As I have said on a great many occasions, abortion should stay in the hands of the people. Not the hands of the government - the hands of the people. If the government bans it, it takes it out of the hands of the people. By leaving this resolution in effect, the choice is left in the hands of the people - where it should be.

If anyone says "but in a democracy, the government is the people" then they are lying, and I still won't support any moves to repeal :}

As I have said on a great many occasions, abortion should stay in the hands of the people. Not the hands of the government - the hands of the people. If the government bans it, it takes it out of the hands of the people. By leaving this resolution in effect, the choice is left in the hands of the people - where it should be.

If anyone says "but in a democracy, the government is the people" then they are lying, and I still won't support any moves to repeal :}

You wouldn't even support a repeal due to the lack of restrictions in the resolution, and the allowance of partial-birth abortion? Seems a little stubborn to me.

You wouldn't even support a repeal due to the lack of restrictions in the resolution, and the allowance of partial-birth abortion? Seems a little stubborn to me.

I am fighting for the right of a woman to make her own choice about her own future, and not have it thrust upon her by a group of people who probably have never met her, but instead would rather put their own petty morals against the actual needs of real people.

So yeah - stubborn.

Are you familiar with the term partial-birth abortion? Are you familiar with how revolting the practice is? Read the link I posted earlier in this thread, and maybe you'll get a clue. This isn't about a woman's choice. It is about a resolution that has no restrictions and no regard for human life. If a woman wanted to, she could abort her baby a week before it's due. Two days before it's due. When it is a fully formed human ready to be delivered.

Are you familiar with the term partial-birth abortion? Are you familiar with how revolting the practice is? Read the link I posted earlier in this thread, and maybe you'll get a clue. This isn't about a woman's choice. It is about a resolution that has no restrictions and no regard for human life. If a woman wanted to, she could abort her baby a week before it's due. Two days before it's due. When it is a fully formed human ready to be delivered.

Your fear propaganda fazes no one. Emotional arguments are worthless.

OOC: I am a med. student and have assisted at numerous abortions, very few of which were "partial birth". They are not as gruesome as fear mongers make them out to be, and they are also exceedingly rare.

Your fear propaganda fazes no one. Emotional arguments are worthless.

OOC: I am a med. student and have assisted at numerous abortions, very few of which were "partial birth". They are not as gruesome as fear mongers make them out to be, and they are also exceedingly rare.

Maybe as a medical student you should realize that by the third trimester of a pregnancy, a fetus has a heartbeat and a brain, and brainwaves. In my book, that qualifies it as a human being. And it doesn't neccessarily have to rely on its mother either. Many babies are born prematurely; you should realize this also. This isn't about "fear" propaganda, though partial-birth abortion is digusting (maybe not to you, but that nurse in the link I posted earlier seems to think so). This is about making murder legal. Is a fetus a human life in the first three weeks of its development? That's debatable, and nothing has been proven on that. Often that time period is too narrow for a baby to develop a brain, and its heart beat is very weak.

However by eight to nine weeks, a baby has a brain, a heartbeat, and is MOVING AROUND in its mother's womb. Moving limbs! You're trying to tell me by eight weeks it isn't a human being? If we're going to allow abortion resolutions, a line needs to be drawn. Didn't you read what I posted earlier? Conceivably a mother could get her baby aborted three days before its due, or even when her water breaks! This resolution is too loose, and your ignorance of the subject matter (which is quite apparent) frightens me. Put aside your stubborness and look at SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Maybe as a medical student you should realize that by the third trimester of a pregnancy, a fetus has a heartbeat and a brain, and brainwaves. In my book, that qualifies it as a human being. And it doesn't neccessarily have to rely on its mother either. Many babies are born prematurely; you should realize this also. This isn't about "fear" propaganda, though partial-birth abortion is digusting (maybe not to you, but that nurse in the link I posted earlier seems to think so). This is about making murder legal. Is a fetus a human life in the first three weeks of its development? That's debatable, and nothing has been proven on that. Often that time period is too narrow for a baby to develop a brain, and its heart beat is very weak.

However by eight to nine weeks, a baby has a brain, a heartbeat, and is MOVING AROUND in its mother's womb. Moving limbs! You're trying to tell me by eight weeks it isn't a human being? If we're going to allow abortion resolutions, a line needs to be drawn. Didn't you read what I posted earlier? Conceivably a mother could get her baby aborted three days before its due, or even when her water breaks! This resolution is too loose, and your ignorance of the subject matter (which is quite apparent) frightens me. Put aside your stubborness and look at SCIENTIFIC FACTS.


The only ignorance apparent here is yours, since you quote nothing of scientific or logical value, only emotional babble along the lines of "'human being', 'moving limbs', 'gruesome', 'omg, a woman could do something highly improbable that she coul do herself resolution or not'" and so on'.

Moving limbs, brain, whatever - it is not self-sufficient and has no rights over the mother. Also, abortion is not murder - you may wish it so, but it isn't, and your wishes are not arguments.

The only ignorance apparent here is yours, since you quote nothing of scientific or logical value, only emotional babble along the lines of "'human being', 'moving limbs', 'gruesome', 'omg, a woman could do something highly improbable that she coul do herself resolution or not'" and so on'.

Moving limbs, brain, whatever - it is not self-sufficient and has no rights over the mother. Also, abortion is not murder - you may wish it so, but it isn't, and your wishes are not arguments.
Nothing of scientific or logical value? I believe the discussion of what actually constitutes life is both scientific and logical. Arms, yes. Legs, yes. Brainwaves, yes. Heartbeat, yes. Ability to understand that this is life, logical. Rejection of this based off of ignorance, asinine ;)

The only ignorance apparent here is yours, since you quote nothing of scientific or logical value, only emotional babble along the lines of "'human being', 'moving limbs', 'gruesome', 'omg, a woman could do something highly improbable that she coul do herself resolution or not'" and so on'.

Moving limbs, brain, whatever - it is not self-sufficient and has no rights over the mother. Also, abortion is not murder - you may wish it so, but it isn't, and your wishes are not arguments.

Maybe you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. I wish I had signs or flashy colors or something, because you really don't get it. PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. A woman can get a partial-birth abortion A WEEK before her baby is due. Haven't you ever heard of prematurely born babies? Babies are born prematurely all the time...so yes, if you kill a fetus in its 40th week in the womb, you ARE killing a self-sufficient human being. By 40 weeks, a fetus could undoubtedly live outside its mother. Yet you still support partial-birth abortion in the 40th week of a fetus' existence. You are blind as a bat, sir, and if you're in the medical field, you sure don't exhibit any medical knowledge.

Are you familiar with the term partial-birth abortion? Are you familiar with how revolting the practice is? Read the link I posted earlier in this thread, and maybe you'll get a clue. This isn't about a woman's choice. It is about a resolution that has no restrictions and no regard for human life. If a woman wanted to, she could abort her baby a week before it's due. Two days before it's due. When it is a fully formed human ready to be delivered.

Firstly - please don't insult me ("maybe you'll get a clue") because it is not going to help your cause at all.

Secondly - while I will admit there is a chance the resolution is not worded as tightly as it could be, that is besides the point. I was not around when it was voted in, and since it was voted in more people wanted it than were against it.

Thirdly - if this resolution is repealed there is no way that anyone can promise a new one will replace it. And while my nation will still let abortions be legal, I am only in charge of my nation (unless the whole UN wants to cede control to me under the "Toriella is a Goddess" proposal I put forth elsewhere, but that is somewhat unlikely). And since this is the only resolution that makes it legal, it is the only resolution that stops women being turned in to sex slaves, that stops women becoming second class citizens throughout the UN and basically leaves the choice of a woman as to how her life will proceed in her hands rather than anyone elses.

Fourthly - abortion is about individual choice. I might not like what she does with that choice, but it's her choice, not mine. The moment you remove the choice of the woman, and put it in the hands of someone else, you make the woman a second class citizen, because she is no longer in control of her own body for the duration of the pregnancy. She has no free will over what happens. And that is morally wrong.

Finally - I don't know every single person in my nation. I know some of them, but given the population it would be unlikely I would know them all. And given the fact I am not yet a godess with divine powers of all knowingness, I think it would be overly presumptious of me to suggest I know what is best for every person in my nation for every moment of their life. So rather than making a choice on abortion for them (by banning it) I prefer to leave it up to the woman who has to deal with the consequences. So abortion remains legal in TilEnca cause I am not a misoginistic fascist.

So - the resolution stays. I will not support any moves to repeal it. As I have said, the ONLY way I would accept any changes is in an amendment, but since those are not legal there is no alternative as far as I can see.

Firstly - please don't insult me ("maybe you'll get a clue") because it is not going to help your cause at all.

Hardly an insult. If I really wanted to insult you, I'd bust out with curse words. If you're truly offended, I'm sure there are websites geared towards younger people that you may visit.

Secondly - while I will admit there is a chance the resolution is not worded as tightly as it could be, that is besides the point. I was not around when it was voted in, and since it was voted in more people wanted it than were against it.

Look at the margin. It was only voted in by 3,000 votes. That's a very slim margin. And no, the resolution allows for too many circumstances. Partial-birth abortion being one of them.

Thirdly - if this resolution is repealed there is no way that anyone can promise a new one will replace it.

That's BS. This board is so liberal, there is no doubt in my mind that a new one would be voted in most definitely! I can't believe such a poorly structured resolution was voted in in the first place.

And while my nation will still let abortions be legal, I am only in charge of my nation (unless the whole UN wants to cede control to me under the "Toriella is a Goddess" proposal I put forth elsewhere, but that is somewhat unlikely). And since this is the only resolution that makes it legal, it is the only resolution that stops women being turned in to sex slaves, that stops women becoming second class citizens throughout the UN and basically leaves the choice of a woman as to how her life will proceed in her hands rather than anyone elses.

Slavery is a foolhardy word, and so is your attitude towards this. You're perfectly willing to let fully developed babies get murdered? Partial-birth abortion is a travesty, yet you'd let innocents die?

Fourthly - abortion is about individual choice. I might not like what she does with that choice, but it's her choice, not mine. The moment you remove the choice of the woman, and put it in the hands of someone else, you make the woman a second class citizen, because she is no longer in control of her own body for the duration of the pregnancy. She has no free will over what happens. And that is morally wrong.

My debate isn't over her choice for an abortion. It's over her choice to get a partial-birth abortion. Abortion in the third trimester is murder, yet you're perfectly fine with it. I hope Floridian tourists stay away from your nation. Who knows what kind of people live there. ;)

Finally - I don't know every single person in my nation. I know some of them, but given the population it would be unlikely I would know them all. And given the fact I am not yet a godess with divine powers of all knowingness, I think it would be overly presumptious of me to suggest I know what is best for every person in my nation for every moment of their life. So rather than making a choice on abortion for them (by banning it) I prefer to leave it up to the woman who has to deal with the consequences. So abortion remains legal in TilEnca cause I am not a misoginistic fascist.

You should know what is best for the innocent babies who have their skulls crushed everyday, because you're perfectly willing to accept partial-birth abortion as a part of everyday life in your nation. Sickening.

So - the resolution stays. I will not support any moves to repeal it. As I have said, the ONLY way I would accept any changes is in an amendment, but since those are not legal there is no alternative as far as I can see.

You're so stubborn you'd allow the death of children? Surely there can be compromise. I myself will resubmit a better worded abortion proposal and rally support for it if the liberals on this board would be willing to repeal this resolution. Abortion proposals get tons of support.

Nothing of scientific or logical value? I believe the discussion of what actually constitutes life is both scientific and logical. Arms, yes. Legs, yes. Brainwaves, yes. Heartbeat, yes. Ability to understand that this is life, logical. Rejection of this based off of ignorance, asinine ;)

I see no sentience. I see no sufficiency. I see no competency. I see nothing whose needs would be greater than the mother's, whose body and choice it is.

I see no sentience. I see no sufficiency. I see no competency. I see nothing whose needs would be greater than the mother's, whose body and choice it is.
I think opening your eyes would suffice in your attempt to see this :rolleyes:

I think opening your eyes would suffice in your attempt to see this :rolleyes:

Prove sentience.

Maybe you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you. I wish I had signs or flashy colors or something, because you really don't get it. PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. A woman can get a partial-birth abortion A WEEK before her baby is due. Haven't you ever heard of prematurely born babies? Babies are born prematurely all the time...so yes, if you kill a fetus in its 40th week in the womb, you ARE killing a self-sufficient human being. By 40 weeks, a fetus could undoubtedly live outside its mother. Yet you still support partial-birth abortion in the 40th week of a fetus' existence. You are blind as a bat, sir, and if you're in the medical field, you sure don't exhibit any medical knowledge.

A woman who wishes to rid herself of a child so late in gestation can do so in numerous ways in no way related to abortion. Sir, your improbabilities and appeals to some sort of emotional indignancy still don't faze me.

And I don't support "partial-birth" abortions - I support this resolution and a woman's choice. Me dealing with your constant, and by now irrelevant, "omg, PARTIAL-BIRTH" pseudo-arguments is to tell you that if that's all you got, this resolution is without threat.

I think opening your eyes would suffice in your attempt to see this :rolleyes:

They are wide open, and they see you failing to come with anything substantial.

(I'm wondering why no one else thought of this)

According to the Abortion Rights resolution, no 'member nation' may interfere in women's right to an abortion. You have all taken this to mean that nothing in a nation, no organisation, can prevent any kind of abortion happening.

This is not the case, at least according to our reading of the resolution.

In Enn, all abortions are legal under Ennish law, as per the resolution. However, the Ennish Medical Association has set its own quite specific guidelines in regards to partial-birth abortions. As all doctors are effectively required to join the EMA (the alternative is having to cover all of your costs) this has eliminated partial-birth abortions in Enn. As the EMA is not accountable to the Council of Enn, this cannot be regarded as the Council interfering in the right to an abortion.

(I'm wondering why no one else thought of this)

According to the Abortion Rights resolution, no 'member nation' may interfere in women's right to an abortion. You have all taken this to mean that nothing in a nation, no organisation, can prevent any kind of abortion happening.

This is not the case, at least according to our reading of the resolution.

In Enn, all abortions are legal under Ennish law, as per the resolution. However, the Ennish Medical Association has set its own quite specific guidelines in regards to partial-birth abortions. As all doctors are effectively required to join the EMA (the alternative is having to cover all of your costs) this has eliminated partial-birth abortions in Enn. As the EMA is not accountable to the Council of Enn, this cannot be regarded as the Council interfering in the right to an abortion.

I always assumed this so apparent that it didn't even need spelling out. No one can be forced to perform an abortion, and from that the rest follows...

They are wide open, and they see you failing to come with anything substantial.
Well, since neither of us is going to change our opinion (short of you getting a soul), and seeing that we have both decided to respond along the lines of "oh yeah, well your stupid" (btw I'm smarter). We'll just agree to disagree.

There is currently only one abortion clinic in The Kingsland. It is at the top of our highest peak with no way to get to it except by a paradrop or rock climbing. In Kingsland abortion is not covered by insurance, requires a background check, as well as parental notification for minors requirements. Also, since the clinical instruments for such a procedure are not made here in Kingsland, the price to actually get an abortion is roughly more than a years wage to pay for the import fees, which The Kingsland very liberally applies. Also, the only doctor that will perform an abortion is cross-eyed and left handed. He has to use his right hand, since his left was amputated after a freak manicure mishap. There are also no federal taxes for people with children.

Well, since neither of us is going to change our opinion (short of you getting a soul), and seeing that we have both decided to respond along the lines of "oh yeah, well your stupid" (btw I'm smarter). We'll just agree to disagree.

How quaint. You believe in souls.

There is currently only one abortion clinic in The Kingsland. It is at the top of our highest peak with no way to get to it except by a paradrop or rock climbing. In Kingsland abortion is not covered by insurance, requires a background check, as well as parental notification for minors requirements. Also, since the clinical instruments for such a procedure are not made here in Kingsland, the price to actually get an abortion is roughly more than a years wage to pay for the import fees, which The Kingsland very liberally applies. Also, the only doctor that will perform an abortion is cross-eyed and left handed. He has to use his right hand, since his left was amputated after a freak manicure mishap. There are also no federal taxes for people with children.

"no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion" - most of those count as interference.

But, no biggie, though. Abortion ships from Fass provide the service you fail to offer and we welcome all the oppressed women of The Kingsland to contact any hospital in Fass for help in getting the service they have a right to.

1. If the fetus has all rights, then it has the right of mobility.
2. Apparently, you have removed the womans right to her own body.
3. This being in the definition of slavery, you would be promoting slavery.
4. Slavery is illegal in the UN.

Hence

Your proposal to give fetus' rights would be illegal in the UN.

:p

Well, since neither of us is going to change our opinion (short of you getting a soul), and seeing that we have both decided to respond along the lines of "oh yeah, well your stupid" (btw I'm smarter). We'll just agree to disagree.

There is currently only one abortion clinic in The Kingsland. It is at the top of our highest peak with no way to get to it except by a paradrop or rock climbing. In Kingsland abortion is not covered by insurance, requires a background check, as well as parental notification for minors requirements. Also, since the clinical instruments for such a procedure are not made here in Kingsland, the price to actually get an abortion is roughly more than a years wage to pay for the import fees, which The Kingsland very liberally applies. Also, the only doctor that will perform an abortion is cross-eyed and left handed. He has to use his right hand, since his left was amputated after a freak manicure mishap. There are also no federal taxes for people with children.

(Quietly finds the back-alley abortionists, finds they are alive and well and driving Porsches in Kingsland)

Some people should review history, particularly each and every time Prohibition has been tried.

Wait, that would assume research... nevermind, won't happen.

Hardly an insult. If I really wanted to insult you, I'd bust out with curse words. If you're truly offended, I'm sure there are websites geared towards younger people that you may visit.


Firstly - I am not that young. Secondly I was more taking offence at the idea that the reason I didn't want to ban this was because I didn't know what partial birth abortion was. I do. But as I have said - it's besides the point.



Look at the margin. It was only voted in by 3,000 votes. That's a very slim margin. And no, the resolution allows for too many circumstances. Partial-birth abortion being one of them.


The margin is also besides the point. More people could be bothered voting for it than could be bothered voting against it. If it was that bad a resolution, where were the voices raised in process? Why was it not destroyed by the popular vote?



That's BS. This board is so liberal, there is no doubt in my mind that a new one would be voted in most definitely! I can't believe such a poorly structured resolution was voted in in the first place.


But in the time I have been here (around 2, 3 months) there have been about 10 attempts to repeal this, all from different people. Every single one of them wanted abortion to be decided at the national level, not the UN level. So given the this trend, there is no way to be sure that another one would pass.



Slavery is a foolhardy word, and so is your attitude towards this. You're perfectly willing to let fully developed babies get murdered? Partial-birth abortion is a travesty, yet you'd let innocents die?


Mr Smith gets Miss Jones pregnant by putting a hole in the condom. She can't have an abortion, because it has been banned. She doesn't want the kid, and she was only having a fling with Mr Smith anyway. Mr Smith does want a kid but is a geek and will never convince anyone to marry him. So he basically uses Miss Jones as a breeding machine.
How is this not slavery?

And emotive arguements don't work with me, so I would not continue along that track, cause it will just cause me to ignore you even more.


My debate isn't over her choice for an abortion. It's over her choice to get a partial-birth abortion. Abortion in the third trimester is murder, yet you're perfectly fine with it. I hope Floridian tourists stay away from your nation. Who knows what kind of people live there. ;)


And if you remove this resolution the whole thing will become moot, because it will stop people having a choice over having an abortion, regardless of the type.

And thank you for insulting my entire country - it's not often someone feels comfortable with doing that :}


(edited out the last bit)

Telling a woman she can't have an abortion is not "slavery" - it's simply telling her that she should take responsibility for her actions and if she didn't want the possibility of getting pregnant she shouldn't have had sex. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I know there are other circumstances (like rape) when I can at least understand why someone would want an abortion, but most of the time it's just laziness.

Oh, and if you're going to have a UN Resolution allowing "a woman's right to choose" (and I agree 100% that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies) the resolution itself should contain proof the a baby *is* just a part of the women's body. Otherwise, all your talk about "women's rights" is pointless because it completely ignores the baby's right to exist.

Ok. I am done.

I am not going to support a repeal. I am never going to support a repeal, and I will do all I can to make sure it doesn't pass if it is approved, which is unlikely as there have been a fair number and not one of them has ever made it to quorum.

It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

I am done arguing ever about this, because all the other side is coming up with is emotive arguements with very little basis in fact.

Partial birth is very rare, and for the tiny, minor percentage that it happens you would be (in my view) potentially condemming women to suffering and pain, and a life of slavery.

So - I am done.

In general, I do not like the present "abortion rights" amendment; however, this Republic will only support repeals based on the concerns we have with the original (to which, this one does not). That being said; I would not support this repeal. [Yes, this Republic acts ethically]...

That being said, this Republic would only seek repeal, if reason being presented was to encourage the drafting of new resolution which creates more equity within the issue... The Republic; prior to the passage of "Abortion Rights" recognized the peoples (regardless of species/sex/age/or development) three fundamental rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... which would include that of the fetus... There of course being exceptions to that rule, where the impact can be legally weighed for its allowance for medical reasons. Unforetuneately this resolution had removed that equitable balanace in law, for one which is geared towards the exaltation of ones rights above and beyond the rights of all others (and contrary to the principles of a free people in exercize of liberty)... But unless proposal is drafted for repeal on the grounds which we agree with; no approval will be granted by this Republic.

Telling a woman she can't have an abortion is not "slavery" - it's simply telling her that she should take responsibility for her actions and if she didn't want the possibility of getting pregnant she shouldn't have had sex. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned.
Apparently, people here are not responsible for their own actions.
(Quietly finds the back-alley abortionists, finds they are alive and well and driving Porsches in Kingsland)

Some people should review history, particularly each and every time Prohibition has been tried.

Wait, that would assume research... nevermind, won't happen.
Ok, Mr. stickler for rules, I would assume that you have read the rules for making a proposal or repeal. If you had, which I'm sure you have, you would see that the developer has designed this site NOT based on the real world. As far as the researching and documentation suggestion you have.

Apparently you have never visited The Kingsland. There are absolutely no abortions performed here, legal or otherwise. Their is a weekly vote on whether or not to legalise abortion here, in which only females of pubescant age can vote. There is always a 100% vote against legalizing it. Our female populace is dedicated to the right of the woman to choose........choose not to have sex untill they are married. So come with all your arguments, but the women of The Kingsland have shut you down.

Tekania, No such legislation could even be put forth, untill this one has been repealed. I would even support an abortion proposal, with certain clear cut resolutions in it. I would absolutely love if abortion were criminalized, but since I know this will not happen you got to take what you can get. The current resolution on abortion is extremely lacking.

Apparently, people here are not responsible for their own actions.

Ok, Mr. stickler for rules, I would assume that you have read the rules for making a proposal or repeal. If you had, which I'm sure you have, you would see that the developer has designed this site NOT based on the real world. As far as the researching and documentation suggestion you have.

Apparently you have never visited The Kingsland. There are absolutely no abortions performed here, legal or otherwise. Their is a weekly vote on whether or not to legalise abortion here, in which only females of pubescant age can vote. There is always a 100% vote against legalizing it. Our female populace is dedicated to the right of the woman to choose........choose not to have sex untill they are married. So come with all your arguments, but the women of The Kingsland have shut you down.

I have visted Kingsland... The Republic takes great measure to visit new nations entering these United Nations... And while their delegate may say certain things about what goes on; the state of Kingsland in fact has made voting illegal... Which means their claims are either intentional deceit before this body, or unintentional ignorance of their own governmental activities.

As such, the representative of the Republic of Kingsland has presented an untruth to this body in claim that abortion is outlawed on a weekly basis by vote. And it brings to question what else this state has presented which is less that truth.

Well, I never said their vote would count for anything :p . Merely.....um........polling if you will. My dear Tekania you are on the verge of having The Kingsland 1st Division 11th armored elderly corp storm your pharmacies across your land. :mp5:

Well, I never said their vote would count for anything :p . Merely.....um........polling if you will. My dear Tekania you are on the verge of having The Kingsland 1st Division 11th armored elderly corp storm your pharmacies across your land. :mp5:

I will take that as an attempt at humor. And your people are most free visit and partake in the advantages of this Constitutional Republic's many benefits.

That being said, however, I still disagree with grounds of proposal... As Delegate, I approve repeals on the same basis as that of normal proposals; that this Republic must agree with all points in the proposed legislation, before approval... Which we cannot in this case.

I don't know when life begins, niether do you. I'm not sure if we ever will. However, I do know when life ends, and abortion ends it.

Choice does not factor in. If there is human life, then it supercedes a choice made out of comfort. If there is no human life, then of course any choice is acceptible.

I see no sentience. I see no sufficiency. I see no competency. I see nothing whose needs would be greater than the mother's, whose body and choice it is.

I'll try to have emotions avoided.

1) Sentience will come with age and growing, as all creatures develop over their lives (I think growth and development is a requirement for life, though I'm not certain). I see no sentience in a newborn or infant. Sentience could also be argued against (though horribly, but no emotions here) in regards of certain mentally disabled.

2) Sufficiency is not a necessity to life. Resolutions #25 (The Child Protection Act) and #44 (Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill) assert this. Human children are not sufficient before reaching a certain age... though that age is not definitively known, it is certainly long after birth. The issue of conjoined twins are also bring up biological sufficiency concerns. :)
Also, with many late-term abortions the child CAN survive outside the womb. (Whoops, no emotion. I mean, "with many late term abortions, the fetus can be brought outside the womb and survive as a child"). When enough technology is gained to support any stage of a developing child outside a mother's womb, will the fetus suddenly become human in the eyes of the world?

3) Competency, in my opinion, is covered by sentience.

4) So far as needs being greater than a mother's, well, that's a different situation. Several UN Resolutions, however, assert that human lives are equal, and one of them even asserts that no child will be punished for the crimes of his/her parent, which would extend to rape, but only if the subject in question is indeed a living human.

I would welcome a repeal of the Abortion Rights resolution on the grounds that said resolution was terrible. However, I do not view repeal as a means towards imposing a pro-life viewpoint in place of one that is pro-choice. How about we leave this issue as one of those grey areas that we're not likely to resolve in our lifetimes?

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Well, a lot of people wrote back, with insulting, sexist, degrading and bigoted remarks against me, assuming everything and refusing to actually discuss the issue at hand.

Do I personally believe that abortion is immoral in nearly every circumstance? Yes. Do I believe that we should encourage adoption, contraception, safe-sex and abstenience as ways of decreasing abortion? Yes. Do I believe that it is still a mother's right to abort her child? Yes.

The issue isn't whether a fetus has a heartbeat or brainwaves. That was never the issue. The issue isn't even whether a fetus is a human being or not-- a human being has no more right to live and feed off another individual without their consent than a fetus does. The issue isn't whether abortion is moral or horribly wrong- its not the government's job to enforce morality.

The issue is whether the mother is chosing to carry the child or whether she is being forced to carry the child.

You're trying to give the fetus rights that full-grown human beings don't have. If a mother doesn't want to take care of her child, she can drop it off at the local foster home and drive away. If a mother doesn't want someone living in her house, she can kick them out and if shooting them is the only way to remove them from her property, then she is fully within her rights to grab her gun. If she is allowed to kill an adult person intruder to defend her property rights, why do you want to forbid her to kill a developing fetus to defend her property rights? Nice? Moral? Humane? No. Within her rights? Yes.

This isn't just me being crazy. The majority of citizens, male and female, don't like abortions and are against them, but support them being legal.

I would welcome a repeal of the Abortion Rights resolution on the grounds that said resolution was terrible. However, I do not view repeal as a means towards imposing a pro-life viewpoint in place of one that is pro-choice. How about we leave this issue as one of those grey areas that we're not likely to resolve in our lifetimes?

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I agree with the Ms Yefremova in this regard, which is the main reason I made my earlier suggestion. I noted the comments made earlier from the honourable member of True Heart and whilst I am impressed with their passion, I am not of the opinion that the heart needs rule the mind in all areas. We must at all time maintain a balance between emotion and logic, since only in this way can we truly look at a problem and arrive at the most considered solution possible.

I again urge the members seeking to repeal this resolution to consider my earlier suggestion, which I sincerely hope is workable. The considerable energies being invested in the repeal of this resolution is better placed in something that could actually deliver a proposal, which further your agenda or at least address some of your concerns.

Debating the pros and cons for abortion here will not sway the opinion of nations, because the issue is fundamental to the core beliefs of member states. My advise to you is find a middle ground and compromise. That’s what we do here, that way at least everyone gets a little of what they want. I have been a round for a while and trust me co-operation achieve far greater results than angered or emotional debate.

Most Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

I'm impressed with you people, you managed to support the death of children and still claim moral superiority. Bravo, good job.

I just want to clarify what this 'Choice' is. A woman has the right to choose alot of things. She could choose what to eat, what to say, whether or not to get up in the morning, etc. However, when her 'choice' is to end the process of life (Worded as such in case you don't consider it a child), something has definatly gone wrong.

It is either a life, or at least the beginings of one. Wait a few seconds after birth and suddenly it becomes illeagal. What, I ask, is the difference between the child the moment before it's head has emerged and the moment after?

I'm impressed with you people, you managed to support the death of children and still claim moral superiority. Bravo, good job.

I just want to clarify what this 'Choice' is. A woman has the right to choose alot of things. She could choose what to eat, what to say, whether or not to get up in the morning, etc. However, when her 'choice' is to end the process of life (Worded as such in case you don't consider it a child), something has definatly gone wrong.

It is either a life, or at least the beginings of one. Wait a few seconds after birth and suddenly it becomes illeagal. What, I ask, is the difference between the child the moment before it's head has emerged and the moment after?

Did you bother to read anything anyone has posted in this thread at all, or are you just copy/pasting from someone's anti-choice blog?

Believe it or not, not all killing is legally murder. You are allowed to kill in self-defense of life, liberty and property. If the only way to get someone off your property is to kill them, that's your legal right.

And I have yet to hear anyone claim that abortion is a grand idea and we should have abortions all the time. What I hear is people saying "yes, abortion is often as horrible as you say it is, but in order to be legally consistent we need to allow it."

Tekania, No such legislation could even be put forth, untill this one has been repealed. I would even support an abortion proposal, with certain clear cut resolutions in it. I would absolutely love if abortion were criminalized, but since I know this will not happen you got to take what you can get. The current resolution on abortion is extremely lacking.

I'm still waiting for you to prove the sentience of fetuses.

I'm impressed with you people, you managed to support the death of children and still claim moral superiority. Bravo, good job.

I claim logical superiority, not moral. Big difference. Morality is a poor defense and the thing someone falls back on when they cannot prove their arguement.

I just want to clarify what this 'Choice' is. A woman has the right to choose alot of things. She could choose what to eat, what to say, whether or not to get up in the morning, etc. However, when her 'choice' is to end the process of life (Worded as such in case you don't consider it a child), something has definatly gone wrong.

Little secret: Women have always had that choice. We're not the first people to have it. Abortion has been around in one form or another for about two or three thousand years. It's like prostitution: It survives no matter how hard you try to destroy it.

I don't consider it something going wrong. Until it reaches a certain point, it is just a parasite. Beyond that point, it is a life.

It is either a life, or at least the beginings of one. Wait a few seconds after birth and suddenly it becomes illeagal. What, I ask, is the difference between the child the moment before it's head has emerged and the moment after?

The moment before, it has a parasitic relationship with the mother. The moment after, it is a separate being.

The moment before, it has a parasitic relationship with the mother. The moment after, it is a separate being.
If your argument is that it is a parasitic, then this actually continues for a much longer period. In The Kingsland, it is currently the legislation that a mother cannot leave her child to return to work untill it is 18 months old. Also, since we are not a socialistic government the support she recieves during this time is either from family or charities. So having a child is very much a choice that needs to be carefully considered. Your view could see this child as a parasite for 18 months after conception.

If the current legislation were to be repealed, I would actively support a new measure, not condoning abortion, but with a broad realization on educating the mother. Of course, with abortion still an option as I stated earlier that I do realize that it will never be fully banned. I would encourage a proabortion supporter to open a new draft thread in preperation of repealing the current one. I would also encourage the endorsement of, and actual floor vote of such a measure with certain criteria to prevent an abortion out of ignorance, but rather educating as to the options other than as well as an abortion.
Regards,
The Kingsland

Adam Island,

What is your opinion on banning abortions only when the child can be taken out of the womb and is able to survive?

I apologize in advance for such a long post. I am against leaving abortion rights decisions to individual nations because I see it as a human rights issue, just like genital mutilation or any other "forcing" of persons to do something potentially painful or fatal with their bodies. Not that I think the current resolution is all that well written, but until NS allows addendums rather than repeals with no certainty of replacement with something better, I have to vote against any repeal of abortion rights. Consider the following:

The father of a child has never seen the child and does not know the child, nor does he want to; it was the result of a one-night stand that he has regretted ever since. He works at a very low paying physical job and knows that he could not be a good father to a child both emotionally and monetarily. At birth it is soon realized that the child has a horrible disease, and the only way to save the child is to find the father to immediately act as a donor (the mother and other family test negative as donors); otherwise the child will for certain die and there is no other way. The process of donating involves the child and father being hooked together via tubing 24 hours a day for 6 months, but because the child and pump are small, and the donation process keeps the child asleep, the father can basically carry the child on his back or front in a carrier for the duration. However, the father is worried that he will lose his job over this, a job which does not even pay enough to support himself let alone support both of them in their condition with medical bills, etc. To make matters worse, the mother has fled the country. Plus, the process of donation is very long and involved, and makes the father quite ill at times and he worries that it may affect his ability to do his job in addition to the physical reality of wear and tear on his body from the donation and carrying the child around all day. In addition, the donation method has been known to result in unforeseen serious complications or even death of both the donor and child in a small percentage of cases. Sometimes the doctors can spot such complications early enough to stop the donation process, but not always, resulting in death or disability of the father I addition to the child.

So, the questions are:
1) should the father feel morally obligated to do this for the child?
2) should there be a law forcing the father to do this?
3) should the UN leave it up to individual nations whether they can force the father to do this or is it a universal human rights issue?

Compare to:

The mother of a foetus has never seen the foetus and does not know the foetus, nor does she want to; it was the result of a one-night stand that she has regretted ever since. She works at a very low paying physical job and knows that she could not be a good mother to a child both emotionally and monetarily. The mother must either carry the foetus for a full term pregnancy or abort it. The foetus cannot survive outside the mother so there is no other way. Pregnancy is 24 hours a day for 9 months. The mother is worried that she will lose her job over this, a job which does not even pay enough to support herself let alone support a pregnancy with medical bills, etc. To make matters worse, the father has fled the country. Plus, the pregnancy makes the mother quite ill at times and she worries that it may affect her ability to do her job in addition to the physical reality of wear and tear on her body from the pregnancy and carrying the foetus around all day.. In addition, pregnancy has been known to result in unforeseen serious complications or even death of both the mother and foetus in a small percentage of cases. Sometimes the doctors can spot such complications early enough to abort the pregnancy, but not always, resulting in death or disability of the mother in addition to the foetus.

So, the questions are:
1) should the mother feel morally obligated to do this for the foetus?
2) should there be a law forcing the mother to do this?
3) should the UN leave it up to individual nations whether they can force the mother to do this or is it a universal human rights issue?

Okay, the first scenario may sound like science fiction, but it was the closest I could come to a pregnancy scenario for the father. Note that I have even used child and foetus interchangeably, since most pro-lifers consider them the same thing (I don’t, but I do not argue from that point, so it doesn’t matter).

Some people will no doubt say they must both be forced into it. Such an answer then brings up the question of whether a genetic parent can then be forced by law to donate a body part/fluids or undergo medical treatment for their children (even if they don’t have/want custody) and why people see pregnancy as something sacred and magical rather than a simpe case of womb-lending (and donation of body fluids).

My answer is that many people do and probably should feel morally obligated in both scenerios, but in neither case should be forced into it and no nation should be allowed to force either into it in either case.

If your argument is that it is a parasitic, then this actually continues for a much longer period. In The Kingsland, it is currently the legislation that a mother cannot leave her child to return to work untill it is 18 months old. Also, since we are not a socialistic government the support she recieves during this time is either from family or charities. So having a child is very much a choice that needs to be carefully considered. Your view could see this child as a parasite for 18 months after conception.

Actually, outside of the body the child no longer needs the mother to survive. It needs someone to take care of it and feed it, which is a dependent relationship instead of a parasitic one (parasites must be attached or inside the body under the way I choose to define it). Once outside the body, the child comes under a complex series of laws, UN resolutions, and social customs to protect it and keep it alive. Inside the body, social customs and a couple of laws tend to protect the fetus more from unwanted mutations than anything else (though, at a certain point, it does come under the protection of certain laws regarding living things...)

If the current legislation were to be repealed, I would actively support a new measure, not condoning abortion, but with a broad realization on educating the mother. Of course, with abortion still an option as I stated earlier that I do realize that it will never be fully banned. I would encourage a proabortion supporter to open a new draft thread in preperation of repealing the current one. I would also encourage the endorsement of, and actual floor vote of such a measure with certain criteria to prevent an abortion out of ignorance, but rather educating as to the options other than as well as an abortion.

There is nothing preventing you, according to how I read it, from creating a proposal to allow the parents to be educated about exactly what abortion is, how it works, and the full range of options they have involving it. Include a passage stating the people may ask about how their chosen religion will look on it, but don't word it so they have to listen to religion. Keep in mind that some people are already educated on it and, while educated, will do it anyway.

I've been out of the womb for well over 21 years, and I could still be considered a parasite by your definition.

I've been out of the womb for well over 21 years, and I could still be considered a parasite by your definition.

I thought it was obvious I was talking about the mother's body...

If she were still alive, I'd still be a drain on her resorces.

If she were still alive, I'd still be a drain on her resorces.

Actually, outside of the body the child no longer needs the mother to survive. It needs someone to take care of it and feed it, which is a dependent relationship instead of a parasitic one (parasites must be attached or inside the body under the way I choose to define it).

You obviously did not read my definition. I bolded the part that is important.

Adam Island,

What is your opinion on banning abortions only when the child can be taken out of the womb and is able to survive?

If a C-Section or equivilent operation can be performed in place of an abortion without endangering the mother to a significant degree, I do support mandating them because of the principle of least necessary force. This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis without a blanket law prohibiting certain types or certain trimesters.

If I could be reasonably assured that a replacement resolution banning specifically this and only this would pass, I would support the repeal.

For those who don't want to read my earlier long post I have come up with a summary:

If we force a person to undergo any sort of procedure "donating" (womb, her fluids) to a genetic foetus/child/whathaveyou, then why can't we force genetic parents to donate (e.g., bone marrow) to their genetic children?

Both involve inconvenient or even dangerous physical procedures for the life of another, in each case the genetic offspring, and in the case of something like bone marrow it is only temporary, much less traumatizing to the body than pregnancy, birth and/or c-section.

Most parents I know would gladly undergo this for a child (much as they would pregnancy), but what if the child was given up for adoption at birth and the parents don't even know the child? Nor want to? Should they be forced into it?

At what point do we say that no person should be forced to do anything they don't want to with their body for the sake of another, even if it is a foetus and they "should have known better before having sex"?

Oh, and if you're going to have a UN Resolution allowing "a woman's right to choose" (and I agree 100% that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies) the resolution itself should contain proof the a baby *is* just a part of the women's body. Otherwise, all your talk about "women's rights" is pointless because it completely ignores the baby's right to exist.

Remove "baby" from womans body. What happens? It dies.
Ergo, it does not have a right to exist, it is parasitically existing off another. It is absorbing nutrients from the host, giving nothing in return - definition of a parasite.

According to your arguement, we must all host parasites.

I'll be mailing your tapeworm in the morning.

And, oh yes, the idiot arguement of "right to life" - its not a human, it has no rights, it is not a person nor a citizen nor anything close to a human being. It is a mass of cells, perhaps there by choice, perhaps there by error. If you believe absolutely that everyone should take all responsibility for all of their actions, thou shalt always take all consequences and never attempt an excuse, a reason for, or the barest hint of an attempt to avoid, lessen, or in any other way not take the consequences of your actions.

As you utterly fail in that - your arguement is a "do as I say, not as I do" arguement, invalid and useless, typical of the overbearing and righteous who have not spent any time in self-examination.

Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.

Remove mother's care for a born baby, it dies. So that argument doesn't work.

Remove "baby" from womans body. What happens? It dies.
That is indeed what happens in an abortion, Vastiva, the prenatal unique living individual human being dies. Since this person was undeniably human, and for this person to die means that this person was previously alive, means that, without question, abortion always kills a living human being.


Ergo, it does not have a right to exist,
Let's see ... by your "logic" if you kill someone then they don't have a right to exist. I guess that makes sense ... in a diabolically twisted sort of way ... .


it is parasitically existing off another. It is absorbing nutrients from the host, giving nothing in return - definition of a parasite.
Actually, Vastiva, you've erroneously mixed two different dictionary definitions of the word "parasite", thus rendering your entire statement erroneous.

The phrase "absorbing nutrients from the host" belongs to dictionary definition: 1. an animal or plant that lives on or in an organism of another species from whose body it obtains nutriment. No reference here to "giving nothing in return". Also, note that the parasite in this definition is "of another species" and that certainly isn't the case with a human mother and her newly conceived unique individual human being living inside her. So dictionary definition 1. of parasite doesn't fit your attempted reference.

And the phrase "giving nothing in return" nearly belongs to dictionary definition: 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return. No reference here to "absorbing nutrients from the host". And the newly conceived unique living individual human being most certainly gives to the mother in return the joy of pregnancy and expectant motherhood and the fulfillment of caring for another precious human being. But, you wouldn't know what that's like, would you, Vastiva. Regardless, you error again with the misapplication of this definition of "parasite".

Well, I guess that ends forever the misapplication of the word "parasite" to a newly conceived unique living individual human being. Thanks for your assistance, Vastiva.


According to your arguement, we must all host parasites.
No, according to your argument we must all host parasites. However, your definition of parasite has been proven false in this reference to human pregnancy, and so your conclusion here is false.


I'll be mailing your tapeworm in the morning.
A tapeworm! Now that's a parasite. You're learning, Vastiva, you're learning.

Now, the question is, could you be deemed a "parasite" ... perhaps by definition 2 with regard to your UN postings on this matter? :eek:


And, oh yes, the idiot arguement of "right to life"
Sounds like somebody has struggled a lot in his life ... no one apparently met your right-to-life development needs regularly when you were a child. You see, that lack is the primary reason -- that and having participated in the act of abortion in some way -- that people reference "right to life" as an "idiotic" argument. So, just let me be the first to say I'm really sorry you didn't get your needs met to the degree you irrationalize that such rights do not exist.


its not a human,
A newly conceived unique individual living human being contains the DNA science proven genetic code that is uniquely human. No other species contains that genetic code. Therefore, a newly conceived unique individual living human being is unquestionably human. Your denial of this truth is irrelevant sophistry.

Besides, even without the benefit of DNA science, what other species could a human being possibly conceive?!

Are you smokin' somethin', Vastiva?!


it has no rights,
A newly conceived unique individual human being is, unquestionably, alive. If this person is alive, then, ergo, he must have a right to be alive, a right endowed him by his creators: his mother and father, who are both very much alive, and who, thereby, transfer their right to life to their newly conceived unique individual human being.

So see, Vastiva, you are wrong again. Don't you just get tired of being wrong?!


it is not a person
Really?

Dictionary definition number one for the word "person": a human being. That's it -- that's all it says: a human being. Since the newly conceived unique living individual is, as I just previously proved, indeed a human being, then, ergo, a newly conceived unique living individual human being is a person.

Wow, Vastiva -- you aren't getting anything right tonight, are you?! Perhaps you need to go back and study this chapter of your heart again.


nor a citizen
One does not need to be a citizen to possess the right to life. With your reasoning here, all those visiting in your country can be deprived of their very life at any time and for any reason simply because they are not citizens! But, that certainly isn't the case ... and neither is it the case that the right to life requires citizenship of any kind.


nor anything close to a human being.
You know, Vastiva, you already stated this in effect ... and it was easily debunked a few paragraphs back.

There really is no need for you to be redundant to score more negative points in this discussion -- you already have a sufficient number to have lost the entire argument.


It is a mass of cells,
Ah, the sophistrical song of the mass murderer. A euphemism by any other name would still be as human, and as deserving of the right to life that you dysfunctionally immoral fuk-and-kill funsters so loathsomely hate.


perhaps there by choice, perhaps there by error.
Which matters not to the newly conceived unique living individual human being. This person's right to live begins with this person's very life at the moment of conception, and the so-called intent of his creators is absolutely irrelevant to that reality of his life.

Your attempt to claim validity of externally assigned value pale's in comparison to the internally intrinsic self-value possessed by all living beings, a self-value that always rightly overrides the non-self-defense killing "right" of another.


If you believe absolutely that everyone should take all responsibility for all of their actions, thou shalt always take all consequences and never attempt an excuse, a reason for, or the barest hint of an attempt to avoid, lessen, or in any other way not take the consequences of your actions.
Wow, man -- deep.

That's quite an argument in favor of the parents' requirement to take responsibility for their act of creating a newly conceived unique living individual human being and let him live rather than act irresponsibly and kill him.


As you utterly fail in that
Actually, that argument didn't fail at all. It was actually quite successful.


- your arguement is a "do as I say, not as I do" arguement,
Which is, of course, irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if one doesn't follow the sound advice of their own argument -- that doesn't render the argument in the least invalid ... it only means one failed to follow their own sound advice.


invalid and useless,
It's not invalid if it was a good argument (which it was) -- the state of "not being followed" doesn't render an argument invalid, Vastiva.

Have you had any logic training?

As for rendering it useless, no, again if a valid argument is "not being followed", that only renders it unused, not "useless". It is still useful, perhaps to others, perhaps to that same person the next time.

No ... I guess you haven't had any logic training, have you, Vastiva.


typical of the overbearing and righteous who have not spent any time in self-examination.
I would be remiss as a counselor, Vastiva, if I did not point out to you here that you are projecting.

Your entire post I've quoted is a textbook example of someone who is so mentally extreme in his own overbearing righteousness that he has obviously yet to perform the introspection necessary to get in touch with his own feelings and gut experience of his post-conceptual life as a human being sufficient to disolve his holier than thou dysfunctional affective-detatched attitude.


Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.
Hell is experienced by people like you ... from inside your affective disconnection ... and that has nothing to do with the person you were referencing here.


Now ... all your pro-abortion killing arguments have been defeated, once and for all.

Enjoy.

Remove "baby" from womans body. What happens? It dies.
Ergo, it does not have a right to exist, it is parasitically existing off another. It is absorbing nutrients from the host, giving nothing in return - definition of a parasite.

According to your arguement, we must all host parasites.

I'll be mailing your tapeworm in the morning.

And, oh yes, the idiot arguement of "right to life" - its not a human, it has no rights, it is not a person nor a citizen nor anything close to a human being. It is a mass of cells, perhaps there by choice, perhaps there by error. If you believe absolutely that everyone should take all responsibility for all of their actions, thou shalt always take all consequences and never attempt an excuse, a reason for, or the barest hint of an attempt to avoid, lessen, or in any other way not take the consequences of your actions.

As you utterly fail in that - your arguement is a "do as I say, not as I do" arguement, invalid and useless, typical of the overbearing and righteous who have not spent any time in self-examination.

Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.

Weak definition of Parasite Vastiva. How many times must you be told what a parasite is?

I can understand your compaing AP to True Heart. Never read any posts by the NS until now. Must say, I like the guy.

There are two fundamental differences between True Heart and Myself.

If a person takes preventative measures before and after intercourse. That person, given advancements of science, can not reasonably be expected to consider themselves pregnant. So, consent to intercourse under such circumstances is not consent to pregnancy.

Now, let us say life does begin at conception, which it does. Does any one living thing have a right to life? No, a right to life implies a right not to die.
So, a free floating zygote or conceptus is not entirely deserving of carrying out its life cycle.

So, the question becomes when does the woman and father act in a way that places the fetus in detrimental relience of them allowing it to carry out its life cycle?


Nieuiwe. Most countries allow for time of to attend to such child needs without being fired. For consistency, a NS requiring such a moral obligations would enact laws that allow for parents to fulfill such obligations. Welfare assistance, subsidized childcare, foster programs, etc. If a country is not prepared to allow such easements, then perhaps it is not in a position to morally deny abortions.

Vastiva: Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.


True Heart: Hell is experienced by people like you ... from inside your affective disconnection ...

Emotions... pure emotions...

(long,rambling, *boring* post, mostly wind)

*click*

Remove "baby" from womans body. What happens? It dies.
Ergo, it does not have a right to exist, it is parasitically existing off another. It is absorbing nutrients from the host, giving nothing in return - definition of a parasite.

According to your arguement, we must all host parasites.

I'll be mailing your tapeworm in the morning.

I don't know enough about the specific sciencific/biological definition of an unborn baby to challenge your definition of a "parasite" so I won't question it. However (if you do want to insist on referring to it as a "parasite") I am asking nobody to "host parasites" - I am only asking those who have created one to continue to allow to live. Is this so difficult to understand?

And, oh yes, the idiot arguement of "right to life" - its not a human, it has no rights, it is not a person nor a citizen nor anything close to a human being. It is a mass of cells, perhaps there by choice, perhaps there by error. If you believe absolutely that everyone should take all responsibility for all of their actions, thou shalt always take all consequences and never attempt an excuse, a reason for, or the barest hint of an attempt to avoid, lessen, or in any other way not take the consequences of your actions.

Yes, I do believe absolutely that everyone should take all responsibility for their actions, and I believe this is exactly what I already said.

As you utterly fail in that - your arguement is a "do as I say, not as I do" arguement, invalid and useless, typical of the overbearing and righteous who have not spent any time in self-examination.

Obviously you were trying to insult me here, but I am honestly too confused by what you're saying here to be offended. Please elaborate on what you mean - exactly how have I tried to use a "do as I say, not as I do" argument? Where am I guilty of this hypocrisy?

Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.

Whatever...

Weak definition of Parasite Vastiva. How many times must you be told what a parasite is?

*looks over glasses at you* Foolish.



I can understand your compaing AP to True Heart. Never read any posts by the NS until now. Must say, I like the guy.

Who?



There are two fundamental differences between True Heart and Myself.

If a person takes preventative measures before and after intercourse. That person, given advancements of science, can not reasonably be expected to consider themselves pregnant. So, consent to intercourse under such circumstances is not consent to pregnancy.

Granted.



Now, let us say life does begin at conception, which it does.


No. There is no "and life suddenly appears!" moment. The mass of cells is no more and no less alive then the other cells which created it - there is no sudden spark, no "springing into existance". "Life" simply continues, and finds a new form.



Does any one living thing have a right to life? No, a right to life implies a right not to die. So, a free floating zygote or conceptus is not entirely deserving of carrying out its life cycle.

Agreed.



So, the question becomes when does the woman and father act in a way that places the fetus in detrimental relience of them allowing it to carry out its life cycle?

Rephrase into English.



Nieuiwe. Most countries allow for time of to attend to such child needs without being fired. For consistency, a NS requiring such a moral obligations would enact laws that allow for parents to fulfill such obligations. Welfare assistance, subsidized childcare, foster programs, etc. If a country is not prepared to allow such easements, then perhaps it is not in a position to morally deny abortions.

Of course - Vastiva supports the rights of children to due care. That is, after they pass our three way test and are declared to be humans with rights rather then masses of cells with no rights, or parasites.

Vastiva: Hell is painted by those like you. Enjoy.

(something faintly blurry)

Emotions... pure emotions...


No. I suggest a refresher course in artworks. My statement was "as is".

Nieuiwe. Most countries allow for time of to attend to such child needs without being fired. For consistency, a NS requiring such a moral obligations would enact laws that allow for parents to fulfill such obligations. Welfare assistance, subsidized childcare, foster programs, etc. If a country is not prepared to allow such easements, then perhaps it is not in a position to morally deny abortions.

I don't think anything should be "required" for an individual or a country to morally deny abortions. I personally don't believe I am obligated to adopt babies (common pro-abortion argument is that I am supposedly a hypocrite for denying abortions and insisting on other options yet I don't adopt myself) because I didn't create them. I believe there are plenty of people who *will* help. Of course, one may argue that outlawing abortions might make people just a little more careful and less promiscuous anyway simply because they know it will be a bit harder to just get rid of any "unwanted", "accidental" babies (no I don't have facts to back this up but it seems logical to me).

I don't think anything should be "required" for an individual or a country to morally deny abortions. I personally don't believe I am obligated to adopt babies (common pro-abortion argument is that I am supposedly a hypocrite for denying abortions and insisting on other options yet I don't adopt myself) because I didn't create them. I believe there are plenty of people who *will* help. Of course, one may argue that outlawing abortions might make people just a little more careful and less promiscuous anyway simply because they know it will be a bit harder to just get rid of any "unwanted", "accidental" babies (no I don't have facts to back this up but it seems logical to me).

Unfortunately, that mythical place we often speak of - the "Real World" - does not support that sort of logic.

Which in itself is entirely logical when you accept that mankind is basically an intelligent ape - or if you prefer, a "soul trapped in an animal".

What the result is of your sort of "logic" is babies in garbage cans. Just not a great way to go.

Unfortunately, that mythical place we often speak of - the "Real World" - does not support that sort of logic.

Which in itself is entirely logical when you accept that mankind is basically an intelligent ape - or if you prefer, a "soul trapped in an animal".

What the result is of your sort of "logic" is babies in garbage cans. Just not a great way to go.

Funny, I thought "babies in garbage cans" was the result of abortion itself. What's the difference? But yeah, you're probably right.

Ok, here's the problem.

If you allow women to get abortions, you run the "risk" they'll see it as easy, common, yadda yadda. Facts of the matter say different - I know no one who has had one who feels it should be a common part of their lives. Of those who did, 9/10ths became deeply invested in methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Good percentage in my book.

If you don't, you not only force them to go elsewhere - as attempts to "suppress" prostitution have proven, among others - but now the providers are themselves outside the law, meaning no standards, and the women cannot get justice or a guarantee of safe proceedures.

Bad.

We grant the choice. Why? Because life is choice and learning to choose. The event is traumatic, and appears to have a swift learning curve attached. For those that do not, damage, nature, and Darwin all take their toll.

The more information you give, and the more options, the better your ability to shape the people to your way of thinking - that children should be wanted, and should have good parents. This does mean the removal of the stigma of abortion, it means the support of abortions - and all that means - and the support of adoption and all that means.

That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.

In Vastiva, a pregnancy - wanted or not - is treated as an event. The choice remains entirely with the woman. She is given all options, all information, all aid she might require during this period. But it is she who must make the choice, because it is she who must accept the consequences.

Does the father have rights? Very mixed bag, to be gone into at a later time.

You do not gain any to your side with force. You gain all with kindness and love - including loving enough to give others the option to make choices you may yourself find reprehensible, because that is ultimately how they learn.

And life is about choice and learning to choose.

Ok, here's the problem.

If you allow women to get abortions, you run the "risk" they'll see it as easy, common, yadda yadda. Facts of the matter say different - I know no one who has had one who feels it should be a common part of their lives. Of those who did, 9/10ths became deeply invested in methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Good percentage in my book.

If you don't, you not only force them to go elsewhere - as attempts to "suppress" prostitution have proven, among others - but now the providers are themselves outside the law, meaning no standards, and the women cannot get justice or a guarantee of safe proceedures.

Bad.

We grant the choice. Why? Because life is choice and learning to choose. The event is traumatic, and appears to have a swift learning curve attached. For those that do not, damage, nature, and Darwin all take their toll.

The more information you give, and the more options, the better your ability to shape the people to your way of thinking - that children should be wanted, and should have good parents. This does mean the removal of the stigma of abortion, it means the support of abortions - and all that means - and the support of adoption and all that means.

That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.

I can understand what you mean, but remember that I believe there are some things that are just plain *wrong* regardless of the situation. I am quite aware that most women don't just decide "I just don't feel like raising a baby so I'll just take the easy way out". I know that it is something that someone who has been through probably it won't want to do it again.

I use this same argument myself in attempts to get rid of "stupidity laws" - laws against drinking, forcing you to wear a seatbelt or a helmet - basically anything that generally only harms the person involved. In fact I would gladly think the same way about abortion if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe it only harms the one person who does it. THat is the difference - if anyone can convince me that abortion does nothing but remove a clump of cells that are just part of a woman's body, then I'll basically just stop caring about it (though there is still the "responsibility issue" - I would still say that most people who do it are just being lazy, but I wouldn't be attempting to stamp it out).

In Vastiva, a pregnancy - wanted or not - is treated as an event. The choice remains entirely with the woman. She is given all options, all information, all aid she might require during this period. But it is she who must make the choice, because it is she who must accept the consequences.

No, it is she *and the unborn baby* who must accept the consequences. I know, it's been discussed at length as to whether the unborn really is human, whether it deserves the right to live, blah, blah, blah. However, you cannot deny that, regardless of what the unborn baby is, it *will* (hopefully...) grow into a person, and aborting it is denying it the opportunity to do that.

[QUOTE=Vastiva]Does the father have rights? Very mixed bag, to be gone into at a later time.

It's his child too - the father should have every right to be part of it. Of course, this also means that the father has a (here's that word again) responsibility to help raise the baby should the mother decide to keep it.

You do not gain any to your side with force. You gain all with kindness and love - including loving enough to give others the option to make choices you may yourself find reprehensible, because that is ultimately how they learn.

And life is about choice and learning to choose.

I agree completely, though it's just not that simple when you're talking about a choice to end a life for no reason other than "it's inconvenient"...that's a choice nobody should ever be allowed to make. I know, go back to the above points about people being less likely to after going through it...but I just can't drop it and "give others the option" that easily.

Ok, here's the problem.

If you allow women to get abortions, you run the "risk" they'll see it as easy, common, yadda yadda. Facts of the matter say different - I know no one who has had one who feels it should be a common part of their lives. Of those who did, 9/10ths became deeply invested in methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Whoopie. This abomination is still allowed, regardless of what women choose to do after they've had one.

If you don't, you not only force them to go elsewhere - as attempts to "suppress" prostitution have proven, among others - but now the providers are themselves outside the law, meaning no standards, and the women cannot get justice or a guarantee of safe proceedures.

This is where the main argument against this resolution can be found. In case you haven't noticed, there IS no guarentee of a safe procedure in this pathetic excuse for a resolution. Doctors in Florida Oranges can perform abortions with hangers if they wanted too; that's how poorly structured this resolution is. Words like "safety", "standards", and "procedure" are no where to be found. You sir, have chosen to ignore this. Very irresponsible.

We grant the choice. Why? Because life is choice and learning to choose. The event is traumatic, and appears to have a swift learning curve attached. For those that do not, damage, nature, and Darwin all take their toll.

You and others complain how our arguments are founded on emotion and nothing else, but look at this! Where are the facts you all claim are missing from our arguments? I thought I provided a decent amount of facts about partial-birth abortion, yet you equate this blurb, which is nothing but your biased opinion, with my proven information?

The more information you give, and the more options, the better your ability to shape the people to your way of thinking - that children should be wanted, and should have good parents. This does mean the removal of the stigma of abortion, it means the support of abortions - and all that means - and the support of adoption and all that means.

More emotion. Emotion, emotion, emotion.

That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.

You seem to be forgetting that not everybody wants your twisted sense of life forced on them either. Believe it or not, there are people like myself who despise abortion and everything it stands for. By forcing your ways on MY people, who are largely pro-life, you've effectively managed to become a hypocrite.

In Vastiva, a pregnancy - wanted or not - is treated as an event. The choice remains entirely with the woman. She is given all options, all information, all aid she might require during this period. But it is she who must make the choice, because it is she who must accept the consequences.

Opinion, emotion, but wait a second...no facts?

Does the father have rights? Very mixed bag, to be gone into at a later time.

Let's not even get into this....

You do not gain any to your side with force. You gain all with kindness and love - including loving enough to give others the option to make choices you may yourself find reprehensible, because that is ultimately how they learn.

And life is about choice and learning to choose.

All your opinion. I've never seen so many representatives resorting to hypocracy at once. Congratulations. You're apart of the club.

In The Kingsland, it is currently the legislation that a mother cannot leave her child to return to work untill it is 18 months old.
If this is the case, then I believe you may be contravening the Sexes Rights Act.

This is where the main argument against this resolution can be found. In case you haven't noticed, there IS no guarentee of a safe procedure in this pathetic excuse for a resolution. Doctors in Florida Oranges can perform abortions with hangers if they wanted too; that's how poorly structured this resolution is. Words like "safety", "standards", and "procedure" are no where to be found. You sir, have chosen to ignore this.

May I respectfully remind the honourable member from Florida Oranges I have in two previous posts suggested a possible course of action to help your concerns in these areas, yet it seems you have chosen to ignore them? I have purposefully refrained from taking part in the ethical discussions in this debate for reasons I already pointed out, though I have been following the debate. Instead why do we not focus our attentions in a more positive direction in developing a proposal that could expand on the current resolution?

I realise that many members here have reasons for advocating a complete repeal of this legislation, however I can assure you that chances of a repeal is extremely unlikely. I have been an Ambassador here for a very long time and never have I seen this member body do an about face on these types of issues.

Instead now, lets leave the bickering, personal insults on each other’s intellects and approach this problem with the legislative position as it stands. There is much than can be done if only members are willing to co-operate in finding a mutually agreeable outcome.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

May I respectfully remind the honourable member from Florida Oranges I have in two previous posts suggested a possible course of action to help your concerns in these areas, yet it seems you have chosen to ignore them? I have purposefully refrained from taking part in the ethical discussions in this debate for reasons I already pointed out, though I have been following the debate. Instead why do we not focus our attentions in a more positive direction in developing a proposal that could expand on the current resolution?

I realise that many members here have reasons for advocating a complete repeal of this legislation, however I can assure you that chances of a repeal is extremely unlikely. I have been an Ambassador here for a very long time and never have I seen this member body do an about face on these types of issues.

Instead now, lets leave the bickering, personal insults on each other’s intellects and approach this problem with the legislative position as it stands. There is much than can be done if only members are willing to co-operate in finding a mutually agreeable outcome.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Oh, I haven't chosen to ignore you at all. I just see things differently then yourself, and therefor have neglected to respond. But since you brought the idea to my attention once more, I'll inform you as to why I would not be able to support an extension of the "Abortions Rights" proposal.

I am strongly opposed to the concept of abortion altogether; I find it barbaric, senseless, and highly immoral (and no, I'm not religious). I do not think I'd be able to live with myself if I constructed an extension of the said resolution. It'd be going against everything I stand for, everything I believe in. I will fight for a repeal rather than a brand new abortions proposal, and as pointless as that may seem, I do believe there is a chance of a repeal.

A slim chance? Of course, but that's better than nothing. I feel a repeal is worth fighting for; more conservatives are becoming interested in the United Nations organization everyday. Take the Conservative Bloc, a region that formed less then a week ago, for instance. Already a substantial amount of nations take up residence there, and more are arriving with each passing minute. I believe there is a small yet growing amount of conservatives on the UN forums, and I suspect if this particular issue is continuously rehased, perhaps it will be dealt with accordingly.

Do I believe there is a chance of repeal on the basis that abortion is immoral? No. Everybody has their own personal opinions, and we can't change them through a forum. But repeal is almost certain in my opinion, once other nations begin to figure out how terribly constructed and loose this resolution happens to be. Right now, unlicensed abortion doctors are chiseling away at fetuses with hangers in Florida Oranges, in filth-ridden dungeons beneath the ocean. Why? There are no safety or medical requirements. Everything is assumed, which is all fine and dandy, except people forget about the pro-life nations like Florida Oranges, who peek and peck for loopholes on such disgusting ideas. I hope I've made myself understood.

May I respectfully remind the honourable member from Florida Oranges I have in two previous posts suggested a possible course of action to help your concerns in these areas, yet it seems you have chosen to ignore them? I have purposefully refrained from taking part in the ethical discussions in this debate for reasons I already pointed out, though I have been following the debate. Instead why do we not focus our attentions in a more positive direction in developing a proposal that could expand on the current resolution?

I realise that many members here have reasons for advocating a complete repeal of this legislation, however I can assure you that chances of a repeal is extremely unlikely. I have been an Ambassador here for a very long time and never have I seen this member body do an about face on these types of issues.

Instead now, lets leave the bickering, personal insults on each other’s intellects and approach this problem with the legislative position as it stands. There is much than can be done if only members are willing to co-operate in finding a mutually agreeable outcome.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia


Yea, I agree. It seems like the entire focus of a lot of these posters is to prove that abortion is immoral, rather than discuss issues and respond to what is written. I'll just stop reading an arguing in this thread now, and wait for a proposal to get close to quorm before I bother again.

Oh, I haven't chosen to ignore you at all. I just see things differently then yourself, and therefor have neglected to respond. But since you brought the idea to my attention once more, I'll inform you as to why I would not be able to support an extension of the "Abortions Rights" proposal.

I am strongly opposed to the concept of abortion altogether; I find it barbaric, senseless, and highly immoral (and no, I'm not religious). I do not think I'd be able to live with myself if I constructed an extension of the said resolution. It'd be going against everything I stand for, everything I believe in. I will fight for a repeal rather than a brand new abortions proposal, and as pointless as that may seem, I do believe there is a chance of a repeal.

This is certainly your right and I can appreciate your feelings in regard to this matter.

A slim chance? Of course, but that's better than nothing. I feel a repeal is worth fighting for; more conservatives are becoming interested in the United Nations organization everyday. Take the Conservative Bloc, a region that formed less then a week ago, for instance. Already a substantial amount of nations take up residence there, and more are arriving with each passing minute. I believe there is a small yet growing amount of conservatives on the UN forums, and I suspect if this particular issue is continuously rehased, perhaps it will be dealt with accordingly

The Telidian government has always been of the opinion that one of the NSUN’s strengths is its diversity and I welcome debate with states adopting different viewpoints to us. We may not always agree, but that’s what we do here. Unfortunately though I can’t agree that bringing this issue to the floor again and again will help it to repeal. If anything I feel the issue will start to suffer from debate paralysis, in that it will be the same arguments, argued over and over again. I feel members may become so disillusioned with these types of debates, fewer and fewer will take part leaving only a small core minority of hardliners on either side of the debate. In my humble opinion and with complete respect this approach I feel harms your agenda for more than you realise. Already I am starting to see the tell tale signs of debate paralysis.

Do I believe there is a chance of repeal on the basis that abortion is immoral? No. Everybody has their own personal opinions, and we can't change them through a forum. But repeal is almost certain in my opinion, once other nations begin to figure out how terribly constructed and loose this resolution happens to be. Right now, unlicensed abortion doctors are chiseling away at fetuses with hangers in Florida Oranges, in filth-ridden dungeons beneath the ocean. Why? There are no safety or medical requirements. Everything is assumed, which is all fine and dandy, except people forget about the pro-life nations like Florida Oranges, who peek and peck for loopholes on such disgusting ideas. I hope I've made myself understood.

Unfortunately though in order to repeal this resolution I feel you will have to win the morality argument in my humble opinion, which as you quite rightly state is unlikely. Therefore you have chosen to point out the flaws in this resolution instead and according to your earlier statement you are also unable help rectify them. I therefore pose a question to you. If a resolution was brought to the floor that alleviated your concerns with the current resolution, ended the problems you now experience in your nation with regard to it, would you still vote against it? Would you also then still seek to repeal the current legislation in question regardless?

Most Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Unfortunately though in order to repeal this resolution I feel you will have to win the morality argument in my humble opinion, which as you quite rightly state is unlikely. Therefore you have chosen to point out the flaws in this resolution instead and according to your earlier statement you are also unable help rectify them. I therefore pose a question to you. If a resolution was brought to the floor that alleviated your concerns with the current resolution, ended the problems you now experience in your nation with regard to it, would you still vote against it? Would you also then still seek to repeal the current legislation in question regardless?

Most Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Partial-birth abortion is an atrocity, and it truly sickens me to even hear the words uttered. If a resolution promising to eliminate such a scourge came to the floor, I may be persuaded to vote for it. However I'm sure you're aware of the delicacy of such an incident. By voting for such a resolution, I'd ultimately be securing the original "Abortions Rights" resolution, which is not something I'd like to do. In fact, I'd much rather have the whole thing repealed; I cannot help but allow my morality to play a large role in this. I suppose I would vote for the resolution if I became disenchanted and tiresome in fighting for a repeal, but that is a big if. Does that answer your question, at least somewhat?

The instant a woman conceives a child, her body is no longer her own. Her body now is hers and her unborn child. "I have noticed that all of those people who are against abortion are already born" Ronald Reagan. A child should have the right to live. If a woman doesn't want a baby. She should not get pregnant, or she should give it up for adoption. Killing a baby is wrong. Killing any life is wrong.

Killing any life is wrong.
So how's your steak? Did you enjoy that fresh Maine lobster you picked from the tank? Did you find the fresh-picked green salad to your liking? Hope you found the leather seats comfortable.


We aim to please here at the Cafe Hypocrisy.

So how's your steak? Did you enjoy that fresh Maine lobster you picked from the tank? Did you find the fresh-picked green salad to your liking? Hope you found the leather seats comfortable.


We aim to please here at the Cafe Hypocrisy.
Forgot the antibiotics (which literally translates as 'against life').

Killing an animal for no reason is wrong, killing an animal for food is called the 'food chain,' but that's beside the point.

I think what he meant was that killing human life is wrong, which is true, and does not make his statement less valid.

Ok, here's the problem.

If you allow women to get abortions, you run the "risk" they'll see it as easy, common, yadda yadda. Facts of the matter say different - I know no one who has had one who feels it should be a common part of their lives. Of those who did, 9/10ths became deeply invested in methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Good percentage in my book.

If you don't, you not only force them to go elsewhere - as attempts to "suppress" prostitution have proven, among others - but now the providers are themselves outside the law, meaning no standards, and the women cannot get justice or a guarantee of safe proceedures.

Bad.

We grant the choice. Why? Because life is choice and learning to choose. The event is traumatic, and appears to have a swift learning curve attached. For those that do not, damage, nature, and Darwin all take their toll.

The more information you give, and the more options, the better your ability to shape the people to your way of thinking - that children should be wanted, and should have good parents. This does mean the removal of the stigma of abortion, it means the support of abortions - and all that means - and the support of adoption and all that means.

That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.


I can understand what you mean, but remember that I believe there are some things that are just plain *wrong* regardless of the situation. I am quite aware that most women don't just decide "I just don't feel like raising a baby so I'll just take the easy way out". I know that it is something that someone who has been through probably it won't want to do it again.

Name something that is "plain wrong regardless of the situation". I'll bet anything you want I can imagine a situation where it wouldn't be wrong.

There is not and never was any sort of "absolute morality". Life is about learning. And stumbles happen.



I use this same argument myself in attempts to get rid of "stupidity laws" - laws against drinking, forcing you to wear a seatbelt or a helmet - basically anything that generally only harms the person involved. In fact I would gladly think the same way about abortion if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe it only harms the one person who does it. THat is the difference - if anyone can convince me that abortion does nothing but remove a clump of cells that are just part of a woman's body, then I'll basically just stop caring about it (though there is still the "responsibility issue" - I would still say that most people who do it are just being lazy, but I wouldn't be attempting to stamp it out).

Why do you believe it is anything but a clump of cells? What characteristic is there which you find so defendable?

Vastiva has no "helmet laws" or any such nonsense. Equally, if you aren't wearing a helmet or a seat-belt, you take responsibility for not wearing them, including being turned into a prune danish in a high speed collision. Your life, your choice, your consequences. Simple, elegant, efficient.

Is a miscarriage an "ex-person"? Is a period murder? How about when the egg and sperm get together and forget to attach to the wall of the uterus? Is that murder or suicide?



In Vastiva, a pregnancy - wanted or not - is treated as an event. The choice remains entirely with the woman. She is given all options, all information, all aid she might require during this period. But it is she who must make the choice, because it is she who must accept the consequences.

No, it is she *and the unborn baby* who must accept the consequences. I know, it's been discussed at length as to whether the unborn really is human, whether it deserves the right to live, blah, blah, blah. However, you cannot deny that, regardless of what the unborn baby is, it *will* (hopefully...) grow into a person, and aborting it is denying it the opportunity to do that.

If there is "no one home", and its a mass of cells, there is no "opportunity". It was not meant to be, it wasn't, life moves on.

The soul enters at the first breath - before that is just reaction, not conciousness.



Does the father have rights? Very mixed bag, to be gone into at a later time.

It's his child too - the father should have every right to be part of it. Of course, this also means that the father has a (here's that word again) responsibility to help raise the baby should the mother decide to keep it.


If the mother chooses to abort, usually the male has no say.
If the mother chooses to give birth, usually the male has full parental rights as of that moment, and full parental responsibilities.

Often, we have seen women who want to enforce the responsibilities, but give no rights. This gets laughed at by our courts - children are not game pieces, and the mother does not dictate terms over an individual person (child) with rights, which is what is before the court once the three way test is passed. Before, its a parasite in her body, and she is free to do as she wishes. After, its a human being person with rights and protection under law.

This is a nine-month decision, which is acceptable.



You do not gain any to your side with force. You gain all with kindness and love - including loving enough to give others the option to make choices you may yourself find reprehensible, because that is ultimately how they learn.

And life is about choice and learning to choose.

I agree completely, though it's just not that simple when you're talking about a choice to end a life for no reason other than "it's inconvenient"...that's a choice nobody should ever be allowed to make. I know, go back to the above points about people being less likely to after going through it...but I just can't drop it and "give others the option" that easily.

"End a life" - you are framing your own realities. It is a mass of cells, nothing more. And you are making huge assumptions about the nature of others and how they choose, which is rather... lacking in understandings that others make their own choices.

If you seek to direct others choices, you will eventually (and usually harshly) come to understand the nature of the choice they were making. This is usually a rather nasty lesson we would not wish on any.

Compassion appears to work better - remain out of it, let others choose, accept that they chose both their results and their consequenes, and move on.

Killing an animal for no reason is wrong, killing an animal for food is called the 'food chain,' but that's beside the point.

I think what he meant was that killing human life is wrong, which is true, and does not make his statement less valid.

Man breaks into your house and tortures and rapes your family. You have a knife and an opportunity to kill him. If you do not, you and they will die slowly over a period of weeks, in agony, at his hands.

Say it again, Sam, I'm waiting for the martyrdom to show up.

Ok, here's the problem.

If you allow women to get abortions, you run the "risk" they'll see it as easy, common, yadda yadda. Facts of the matter say different - I know no one who has had one who feels it should be a common part of their lives. Of those who did, 9/10ths became deeply invested in methods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.


Whoopie. This abomination is still allowed, regardless of what women choose to do after they've had one.

So what?

Change your words, change your thinking.



If you don't, you not only force them to go elsewhere - as attempts to "suppress" prostitution have proven, among others - but now the providers are themselves outside the law, meaning no standards, and the women cannot get justice or a guarantee of safe proceedures.


This is where the main argument against this resolution can be found. In case you haven't noticed, there IS no guarentee of a safe procedure in this pathetic excuse for a resolution. Doctors in Florida Oranges can perform abortions with hangers if they wanted too; that's how poorly structured this resolution is. Words like "safety", "standards", and "procedure" are no where to be found. You sir, have chosen to ignore this. Very irresponsible.

How do I put this....

First, its not the main arguement - freedom of choice is the main arguement.

Second, if your nation's medicine is that backwards, you need better education.

Finally, we did not "ignore" anything - our laws are in place and well-structured in governing medical care and proceedure. This is where National Soverignty does the most good.

Some of us do not need everything spelled out, we're rather good at looking after our own.



We grant the choice. Why? Because life is choice and learning to choose. The event is traumatic, and appears to have a swift learning curve attached. For those that do not, damage, nature, and Darwin all take their toll.


You and others complain how our arguments are founded on emotion and nothing else, but look at this! Where are the facts you all claim are missing from our arguments? I thought I provided a decent amount of facts about partial-birth abortion, yet you equate this blurb, which is nothing but your biased opinion, with my proven information?

You proved nothing. We accept as fact the right of the mother to choose even this - which, if she does so in view of all the evidence served and available to her (which includes that which you showed) then it is her choice. And that is what we are encouraging. Period.




The more information you give, and the more options, the better your ability to shape the people to your way of thinking - that children should be wanted, and should have good parents. This does mean the removal of the stigma of abortion, it means the support of abortions - and all that means - and the support of adoption and all that means.

More emotion. Emotion, emotion, emotion.


You'll have to point it out. All I see is methodology - provide information, teach how to choose, give all the options, remove socioeconomic pressure, allow choice, resulting in learning and people who want the children they have. Works for me.



That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.


You seem to be forgetting that not everybody wants your twisted sense of life forced on them either. Believe it or not, there are people like myself who despise abortion and everything it stands for. By forcing your ways on MY people, who are largely pro-life, you've effectively managed to become a hypocrite.

You DID choose to be in the UN, right? So you did make a choice, of which one result was your national soverignty would be as an ant bitch-slapped by four tarantulas.

In short - you CHOSE to be here, I didn't force you. You accept the responsibilities of your choices - that is how you learn to choose.

And I remind you - abortion was "legal" in the UN long before you clicked that "Join UN" button. That your choice to join was apparently diametrically opposed to your values is relevant only in the lesson that perhaps you should... how to put this... "look before you leap"?




In Vastiva, a pregnancy - wanted or not - is treated as an event. The choice remains entirely with the woman. She is given all options, all information, all aid she might require during this period. But it is she who must make the choice, because it is she who must accept the consequences.


Opinion, emotion, but wait a second...no facts?

You will have to explain how a statement of "this happens" is not a factual statement, your "logic" is lost on me.


You do not gain any to your side with force. You gain all with kindness and love - including loving enough to give others the option to make choices you may yourself find reprehensible, because that is ultimately how they learn.

And life is about choice and learning to choose.

All your opinion. I've never seen so many representatives resorting to hypocracy at once. Congratulations. You're apart of the club. .

As you will, as you decide, as you choose.

Namaste. :)

In The Kingsland, it is currently the legislation that a mother cannot leave her child to return to work untill it is 18 months old.

If this is the case, then I believe you may be contravening the Sexes Rights Act.

Well, hang on here. We didn't here if he has the same legislation on the father - which would be a fine thing indeed, and a strong show of how the state will aid in the accepting of a pregnancy to term (provided it did). Not a bad idea if the support is there. And a far cry better then bellyaching about "waaah, women can't have abortions I'll make them impossible to get!" we were hearing before.

So, we shall refrain from judgement, though I would like to hear abortion clinics are a bit more available as free choices, rather then headaches which serve only to enrich the criminal element.

It would, after all, be the humane choice.

The instant a woman conceives a child, her body is no longer her own. Her body now is hers and her unborn child. "I have noticed that all of those people who are against abortion are already born" Ronald Reagan. A child should have the right to live. If a woman doesn't want a baby. She should not get pregnant, or she should give it up for adoption. Killing a baby is wrong. Killing any life is wrong.

Vastiva remains of the opinion, those who err too often on the side of severity are just as ridiculous as those who err too often on the side of mercy.

Name something that is "plain wrong regardless of the situation". I'll bet anything you want I can imagine a situation where it wouldn't be wrong.

There is not and never was any sort of "absolute morality". Life is about learning. And stumbles happen.

Perhaps "regardless of the situation" is a bit extreme, but in the case of abortion I stand by the statement. The only possible exception is when the mother's life is in danger, but then that would not be "abortion" anyway because that falls under the more "generic" category of ending one life to save another.

Why do you believe it is anything but a clump of cells? What characteristic is there which you find so defendable?

The fact that it's alive.

Vastiva has no "helmet laws" or any such nonsense. Equally, if you aren't wearing a helmet or a seat-belt, you take responsibility for not wearing them, including being turned into a prune danish in a high speed collision. Your life, your choice, your consequences. Simple, elegant, efficient.

Sounds good to me.

Is a miscarriage an "ex-person"? Is a period murder? How about when the egg and sperm get together and forget to attach to the wall of the uterus? Is that murder or suicide?

Do we really need to waste time on this? A sperm and an egg, separately, are nothing. They are just cells. Everyone's body kills off many, many cells everyday. It is only after they join together that they become anything beyond "just cells".

The soul enters at the first breath - before that is just reaction, not conciousness.

What exactly is so magical about "the first breath"? I will say that I personally have no idea (or, more accurately, no way to prove), scientifically, of when exactly the "clump of cells" becomes a human being. However, when you're talking about a literal difference of life and death, I prefer to err on the side of caution and assume it is at conception. Anything beyond that is just growth.

"End a life" - you are framing your own realities. It is a mass of cells, nothing more. And you are making huge assumptions about the nature of others and how they choose, which is rather... lacking in understandings that others make their own choices.

If you seek to direct others choices, you will eventually (and usually harshly) come to understand the nature of the choice they were making. This is usually a rather nasty lesson we would not wish on any.

Compassion appears to work better - remain out of it, let others choose, accept that they chose both their results and their consequenes, and move on.

Didn't I already cover this? I have no problem whatsoever with allowing other people to make choices and learn from them, but I simply refuse to do so when such choices directly affect a 3rd party who is harmed because of that choice and is unable to decide for themselves.

Think about it this way - would you still agree with "allowing others to make choices and learn from them" if someone "chooses" to shoot you in the head? What would you do if you knew someone was just about to do that?

Name something that is "plain wrong regardless of the situation". I'll bet anything you want I can imagine a situation where it wouldn't be wrong.

Using a male horse as though it were female and you were a male horse while singing "Rawhide".

The fact that it's alive.

So is a bacteria. The next time you get a potentially lethal bacteria infection, you're not allowed to kill it because "it's alive." You're also not allowed to eat anything from a living source.

Also, there is no real proof that, before a certain stage, a fetus is alive.

So is a bacteria. The next time you get a potentially lethal bacteria infection, you're not allowed to kill it because "it's alive." You're also not allowed to eat anything from a living source.

I simply said it's "defensable" because it's alive - I never said that you can *never* kill it, just that you must have a reason to do so. It's never wrong to kill something that's a threat to you (like bacteria) or for food purposes (we all do have to eat). Abortion, most of the time, is for no reason other than "it's a little inconvenient". Anything other than saving the mother's life should never be allowed because there is no valid reason for it.

Also, there is no real proof that, before a certain stage, a fetus is alive.

Where's the proof that it isn't?

I simply said it's "defensable" because it's alive - I never said that you can *never* kill it, just that you must have a reason to do so. It's never wrong to kill something that's a threat to you (like bacteria) or for food purposes (we all do have to eat). Abortion, most of the time, is for no reason other than "it's a little inconvenient". Anything other than saving the mother's life should never be allowed because there is no valid reason for it.

The same is true of several types of animals and plants. Why are they any less better?

Where's the proof that it isn't?

Doesn't meet the full qualifications of a living organism.

The same is true of several types of animals and plants. Why are they any less better?

What do you mean? I didn't say they are "less better" - *nothing* should be killed for no reason whatsoever, even if it is "just" a non-human plant or animal.

Doesn't meet the full qualifications of a living organism.

Which would be...?

BTW an unborn baby has its own DNA, different from that of the mother. It is clearly a separate entity, even if you want to insist it is "not living".

What do you mean? I didn't say they are "less better" - *nothing* should be killed for no reason whatsoever, even if it is "just" a non-human plant or animal.

Hmm. Consistancy. Unusual.

Which would be...?

In this case? At first, just a clump of cells with no more of a method of getting food any more than a piece of skin. Later on, they exist in a parasitic relationship that they cannot survive being disconnected from. Those are definitely two things that go against a lifeform (viruses are not considered alive partially because of the second reason) and help define fetuses and zygotes as not alive.

BTW an unborn baby has its own DNA, different from that of the mother. It is clearly a separate entity, even if you want to insist it is "not living".

So does a human corpse.

In this case? At first, just a clump of cells with no more of a method of getting food any more than a piece of skin. Later on, they exist in a parasitic relationship that they cannot survive being disconnected from. Those are definitely two things that go against a lifeform (viruses are not considered alive partially because of the second reason) and help define fetuses and zygotes as not alive.

At exactly what point does it become "alive"?

So does a human corpse.[/QUOTE]

You got me there.

At exactly what point does it become "alive"?

Personally? I define it as the last trimester myself. At that point, IIRC, you can remove the fetus from the mother and have it survive.

In this case? At first, just a clump of cells with no more of a method of getting food any more than a piece of skin. Later on, they exist in a parasitic relationship that they cannot survive being disconnected from. Those are definitely two things that go against a lifeform (viruses are not considered alive partially because of the second reason) and help define fetuses and zygotes as not alive.





Is this really the way you people think? It's disgusting. Re-read what you're saying and tell me you don't find something wrong with that.

Is this really the way you people think? It's disgusting. Re-read what you're saying and tell me you don't find something wrong with that.

Nope. Not at all. It's about the same way plucking hair is not considered killing living beings.

Nope. Not at all. It's about the same way plucking hair is not considered killing living beings.

I am aware of the point you're trying to make with this, but the difference between hair and an unborn baby is hair was never meant to be anything more than hair, but an unborn baby - even if you want to insist that it is not "yet" a person - is clearly meant to become a human.

I am aware of the point you're trying to make with this, but the difference between hair and an unborn baby is hair was never meant to be anything more than hair, but an unborn baby - even if you want to insist that it is not "yet" a person - is clearly meant to become a human.

But if you are willing to admit that it is meant to "become a human", then you have to accept that it isn't yet.

choose to be in the UN, right? So you did make a choice, of which one result was your national soverignty would be as an ant bitch-slapped by four tarantulas.

In short - you CHOSE to be here, I didn't force you. You accept the responsibilities of your choices - that is how you learn to choose.

And I remind you - abortion was "legal" in the UN long before you clicked that "Join UN" button. That your choice to join was apparently diametrically opposed to your values is relevant only in the lesson that perhaps you should... how to put this... "look before you leap"?

Most of your replies are not even worth readdressing. They're poorly argued, and a waste of my time and effort. However, I thought this one was particularly interesting, and I thought I might call you out on it. Here was your original post:

That this is a complete package appears to remain past the comprehension of those "digging in" about how they'll force morality on anyone. You can't. Its been tried for hundreds of thousands of years and it does not work. No matter how you attempt to repress into morality, people will find a way to get what they believe is "the only answer" because that is the nature of people.

This is you voicing your opinion on how morality can't be forced on anyone. Yet you're trying to force your morality on me, and when I pointed this out to you, your response was "you CHOSE to be here". Does anybody else besides me see the irony in this? You chose to be here too pal; if you can force your way of life on me, I should be able to do it right back. Way to be a hypocrite.

You chose to be here too pal; if you can force your way of life on me, I should be able to do it right back.
Ain't majority rule great?

Name something that is "plain wrong regardless of the situation". I'll bet anything you want I can imagine a situation where it wouldn't be wrong.

There is not and never was any sort of "absolute morality". Life is about learning. And stumbles happen.

Perhaps "regardless of the situation" is a bit extreme, but in the case of abortion I stand by the statement. The only possible exception is when the mother's life is in danger, but then that would not be "abortion" anyway because that falls under the more "generic" category of ending one life to save another.

A dangerous cliff you stand by...




Why do you believe it is anything but a clump of cells? What characteristic is there which you find so defendable?

The fact that it's alive.

So is an ebola virus, staph bacteria, a rabid dog, and a daffodil. Stating "all life is sacred" is silly and undefendable. A better reason, if you would indulge?



Vastiva has no "helmet laws" or any such nonsense. Equally, if you aren't wearing a helmet or a seat-belt, you take responsibility for not wearing them, including being turned into a prune danish in a high speed collision. Your life, your choice, your consequences. Simple, elegant, efficient.

Sounds good to me.

Thank you, and we will endeavor to speed the processing of your visas.



Is a miscarriage an "ex-person"? Is a period murder? How about when the egg and sperm get together and forget to attach to the wall of the uterus? Is that murder or suicide?

Do we really need to waste time on this? A sperm and an egg, separately, are nothing. They are just cells. Everyone's body kills off many, many cells everyday. It is only after they join together that they become anything beyond "just cells".

Nope, still "just cells". There was no meaningful, measurable change. Its just cells doing their thing.



The soul enters at the first breath - before that is just reaction, not conciousness.

What exactly is so magical about "the first breath"? I will say that I personally have no idea (or, more accurately, no way to prove), scientifically, of when exactly the "clump of cells" becomes a human being. However, when you're talking about a literal difference of life and death, I prefer to err on the side of caution and assume it is at conception. Anything beyond that is just growth.

There's nothing magical about it - but breathing on ones own does give reasonable chance of survival; it is one of the indicator behaviors. This also allows euthanasia for babies which will never survive without long term care, and even then remain damaged sufficiently to never be anything but a mass of cells. However, one breath, and the rules change significantly.



"End a life" - you are framing your own realities. It is a mass of cells, nothing more. And you are making huge assumptions about the nature of others and how they choose, which is rather... lacking in understandings that others make their own choices.

If you seek to direct others choices, you will eventually (and usually harshly) come to understand the nature of the choice they were making. This is usually a rather nasty lesson we would not wish on any.

Compassion appears to work better - remain out of it, let others choose, accept that they chose both their results and their consequenes, and move on.

Didn't I already cover this? I have no problem whatsoever with allowing other people to make choices and learn from them, but I simply refuse to do so when such choices directly affect a 3rd party who is harmed because of that choice and is unable to decide for themselves.

Think about it this way - would you still agree with "allowing others to make choices and learn from them" if someone "chooses" to shoot you in the head? What would you do if you knew someone was just about to do that?

It would be a sorrowful moment, for in that action, they have created a series of events which must play out in a later life in mirror play.

And before you go on about it, been there and done that. The gunman did not fire, though he did finish robbing the place.

Using a male horse as though it were female and you were a male horse while singing "Rawhide".

"My, that was a great movie. I especially liked the parts about what might happen under the influence of LSD - very illustrative".

I simply said it's "defensable" because it's alive - I never said that you can *never* kill it, just that you must have a reason to do so. It's never wrong to kill something that's a threat to you (like bacteria) or for food purposes (we all do have to eat). Abortion, most of the time, is for no reason other than "it's a little inconvenient". Anything other than saving the mother's life should never be allowed because there is no valid reason for it.


Raising a child is estimated to cost $250,000 over the course of the life - this number will increase by inflation and events.

I would say your ideology is very faulty - you would apparently rather a child be raised in an abusive household then not exist. Vastiva would rather the child not exist - we do not condone child abuse.

I am aware of the point you're trying to make with this, but the difference between hair and an unborn baby is hair was never meant to be anything more than hair, but an unborn baby - even if you want to insist that it is not "yet" a person - is clearly meant to become a human.

And mammaries were not meant to have their size altered, but that doesn't stop people from having silicon bags put in them.

"My, that was a great movie. I especially liked the parts about what might happen under the influence of LSD - very illustrative".

Okay, that only made the inherent wrongness even worse.

Okay, that only made the inherent wrongness even worse.

LOL :p

Do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a child? Why is it so hard? Because there are so few of them to be adopted. You don't want the child, send him to someone who does.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a child? Why is it so hard? Because there are so few of them to be adopted. You don't want the child, send him to someone who does.
You honestly believe this?

There are too few healthy, pretty, babies perhaps.

And you know women aren’t incubators right? They don't owe anyone a child.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a child? Why is it so hard? Because there are so few of them to be adopted. You don't want the child, send him to someone who does.

There are so many children in many systems that there are not enough parents who meet qualifications than can adopt them. And that's ignoring idiotic parent expectations.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a child? Why is it so hard? Because there are so few of them to be adopted. You don't want the child, send him to someone who does.

You don't think that adopting a child became a lot harder after the whole world became paranoid about pedophiles?

Raising a child is estimated to cost $250,000 over the course of the life - this number will increase by inflation and events.

I would say your ideology is very faulty - you would apparently rather a child be raised in an abusive household then not exist. Vastiva would rather the child not exist - we do not condone child abuse.

I don't condone child abuse either - the government should be trying to prevent that. I know I mentioned earlier that a "support structure" with adoption, prevention of abuse, etc. should not be needed to outlaw abortion - let me clarify. I'm am not saying that all of this should not be there at all - I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the question of abortion (and even if none of those options are there it does not make abortion any less wrong). The option of adoption and the rest of that support should exist anyway, regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

As to your question - no I would not like for a child to grow up in an abusive household, but it happens. That's reality. Reality is not always pleasant. Of course, you should also be doing what you can to keep that from happening. Insisting that abortion should be allowed because you don't like the possibility of abuse is just another variation on the "laziness" theme - it's easier to just get rid of the child rather than have to work to make sure it's not in a bad home.

I don't condone child abuse either - the government should be trying to prevent that. I know I mentioned earlier that a "support structure" with adoption, prevention of abuse, etc. should not be needed to outlaw abortion - let me clarify. I'm am not saying that all of this should not be there at all - I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the question of abortion (and even if none of those options are there it does not make abortion any less wrong). The option of adoption and the rest of that support should exist anyway, regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

Actually, it does have to do with abortion. With abortion legal, the mother can get the child terminated to prevent bringing it into life in an abusive household. Trying to give it away is far more problematic.

As to your question - no I would not like for a child to grow up in an abusive household, but it happens. That's reality. Reality is not always pleasant. Of course, you should also be doing what you can to keep that from happening. Insisting that abortion should be allowed because you don't like the possibility of abuse is just another variation on the "laziness" theme - it's easier to just get rid of the child rather than have to work to make sure it's not in a bad home.

Reality also includes the existance of abortion. As you said, reality is not always pleasant.

It's not laziness, but allowing the mother a method of insuring the child will not be abused and fighting back in what little way she can. Once the child is born, you require legal help to get it out of the household and most of the time the mother won't seek that out of fear, thus allowing the child to grow up with abuse in silence.

I can't tolerate children, I couldn't cope with pregnancy. I'd like to believe my sanity and health is more important that a hypothetical person. I have a job and people who depend on me. It has nothing, potential perhaps. Potential to cure cancer but also to bring about genocide.

When I was little adults seemed to think it was unhealthy of me to play pretend, now it seems that I should pretend that an unborn child is the most important thing in the world despite the fact it can't do much of anything.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Actually, it does have to do with abortion. With abortion legal, the mother can get the child terminated to prevent bringing it into life in an abusive household. Trying to give it away is far more problematic.



Reality also includes the existance of abortion. As you said, reality is not always pleasant.

It's not laziness, but allowing the mother a method of insuring the child will not be abused and fighting back in what little way she can. Once the child is born, you require legal help to get it out of the household and most of the time the mother won't seek that out of fear, thus allowing the child to grow up with abuse in silence.

Let me rephrase my answer above - yes I would rather a child not exist than grow up in an abusive household. However, there is a difference between not existing at all, and killing it once it has started existing.

There is always potential for abuse, but this is true whether or not a parent might be considering abortion. By your logic nobody should have children, ever, because the child "might" be abused. I do understand your thinking to an extent, that people who might not be good parents consider abortion for that reason, so I do see that someone thinking about abortion might be more likely to raise a child in a bad household if they can't get the abortion. However I refuse to see how killing it is in the child's best interests, especially since you could use the same logic for virtually every child ever born. There are also many other "possibilities" besides the potential for abuse. What if a child might grow up to be the next Hitler? What gives you the right to say someone should be allowed to kill just because of a "possibility" that its life won't be 100% perfect?

BTW I did say that I understand your thinking about parents who are thinking of abortion in the 1st place being more likely to raise a child badly, but I do know of at least one exception - me and my brother. My mom has admitted that she had thought about aborting my (older) brother, but decided against it at the last minute. Not only did she raise me, my brother, and my sister mostly by herself, but for a short time was married to my sister's dad who was, well, not good (won't go into detail here - not that he was that bad, but that I just don't remember much beyond the fact that he drank a lot) Yet I would hardly consider my life to have been horrible, nor have I ever wished that I didn't exist.

What gives you the right to say someone should be allowed to kill just because of a "possibility" that its life won't be 100% perfect?
Not to speak for anyone but generally it's a response to the 'you can't kill it will grow up to be the most important person ever'

And speaking as an unwanted child of a 'catholic' maybe she should have had an abortion. It wasn't my fault I ruined her life. But she didn't even smack me.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Let me rephrase my answer above - yes I would rather a child not exist than grow up in an abusive household. However, there is a difference between not existing at all, and killing it once it has started existing.

And that is where you reopen the can of worms about when life actually starts, and you'll get more answers and more ridicule than even science has to answer. I set it at the third trimester to be fair. So, to me, up until then you are not actually destroying a life.

There is always potential for abuse, but this is true whether or not a parent might be considering abortion. By your logic nobody should have children, ever, because the child "might" be abused.

You just proved you did not read my post entirely before just replying. If you notice, the inherent assumption in my post about the possibility of abuse hinted at the mother being in an abusive relationship already.

I do understand your thinking to an extent, that people who might not be good parents consider abortion for that reason, so I do see that someone thinking about abortion might be more likely to raise a child in a bad household if they can't get the abortion. However I refuse to see how killing it is in the child's best interests, especially since you could use the same logic for virtually every child ever born.

Consider this: The options in my assumed scenario are either life in an abusive home relationship or life in the legal system. In reality, the US system for dealing with children is best described as, to use what one person said, "an insult to the whole idea of how to raise a child properly and a raping of human rights." The "raping" comment was actually a lot more descriptive, but rated XXX things are not appreciated on this forum. In DLE, the system is not exactly much better. A problem is that government-funded child welfare is notoriously problematic and the stigma it has attained only serves to force it to stay such.

There are also many other "possibilities" besides the potential for abuse. What if a child might grow up to be the next Hitler? What gives you the right to say someone should be allowed to kill just because of a "possibility" that its life won't be 100% perfect?

Since it's not life, they're not killing. And all people have the possibility to grow up to be the nest Hitler or Stalin or Attila. That's a fact of being alive.

I choose to leave it up to the mother. It is her, not yours or mine, choice as to whether or not she has the right to end the pregnancy.

BTW I did say that I understand your thinking about parents who are thinking of abortion in the 1st place being more likely to raise a child badly, but I do know of at least one exception - me and my brother.

Uh, you misunderstood what I was hinting at... I was hinting of a case where the mother is already in an abusive relationship, not a normal person trying to decide whether or not they are a good parent.

My mom has admitted that she had thought about aborting my (older) brother, but decided against it at the last minute. Not only did she raise me, my brother, and my sister mostly by herself, but for a short time was married to my sister's dad who was, well, not good (won't go into detail here - not that he was that bad, but that I just don't remember much beyond the fact that he drank a lot) Yet I would hardly consider my life to have been horrible, nor have I ever wished that I didn't exist.

This is an example of why I leave it up to the mother. They can choose to and not have the child, living life without it, or choose to and raise the child, with what consequences come. Her not having that choice would have made your example less potent (actually, it would have been worthless) and not related to the topic.

I've done a great deal of adoption work in my life, and trust me, children are very rare. Alot of times, couples have to adopt older children because there are so few babies in the system.

As far as what was said immediatly after I posted, I have no idea what that was suppose to mean. I was talking about an alternitive to raising the child that would keep it alive, suddenly I'm treating women as a factory, using their uterus to pump out children. I have no idea where you got that from.

I've done a great deal of adoption work in my life, and trust me, children are very rare. Alot of times, couples have to adopt older children because there are so few babies in the system.

Which does not change my point, as you have only looked at one aspect: Babies.

I've done a great deal of adoption work in my life, and trust me, children are very rare. Alot of times, couples have to adopt older children because there are so few babies in the system.
Agreed with DLE. I really don't see how this is a bad thing.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

You just proved you did not read my post entirely before just replying. If you notice, the inherent assumption in my post about the possibility of abuse hinted at the mother being in an abusive relationship already.

Consider this: The options in my assumed scenario are either life in an abusive home relationship or life in the legal system. In reality, the US system for dealing with children is best described as, to use what one person said, "an insult to the whole idea of how to raise a child properly and a raping of human rights." The "raping" comment was actually a lot more descriptive, but rated XXX things are not appreciated on this forum. In DLE, the system is not exactly much better. A problem is that government-funded child welfare is notoriously problematic and the stigma it has attained only serves to force it to stay such.



Since it's not life, they're not killing. And all people have the possibility to grow up to be the nest Hitler or Stalin or Attila. That's a fact of being alive.

Hey, you're the one who brought up "possibilities", in particular how the "possibility" of growing up in a abusive household should be enough to justify abortion.

I choose to leave it up to the mother. It is her, not yours or mine, choice as to whether or not she has the right to end the pregnancy.

You call it "end the pregancy", I call it "murder".

Uh, you misunderstood what I was hinting at... I was hinting of a case where the mother is already in an abusive relationship, not a normal person trying to decide whether or not they are a good parent.

If someone is already in an abusive relationship then someone should be stepping in and doing something about it. And if someone in a suspected abusive relationship is pregnant then someone else should suggest adoption.

This is an example of why I leave it up to the mother. They can choose to and not have the child, living life without it, or choose to and raise the child, with what consequences come. Her not having that choice would have made your example less potent (actually, it would have been worthless) and not related to the topic.

I could repeat that nobody should be allowed the choice to end a life for no reason, but then you don't believe it is "ending a life" anyway...

More comments...you stated above you think the 3rd trimester is the point at which an unborn baby becomes "alive" (or is that the point when it becomes "human" - some people say that it is "alive" from conception but not a "person" until later). Would you still allow the "choice" of abortion after that point for reasons of "possibility of abuse" or any other reason?

Of course, I would also like to know exactly what happens during the 3rd trimester that makes it "alive" at that point.

And if someone in a suspected abusive relationship is pregnant then someone else should suggest adoption.

Yeah but I think he might notice if she is incubating…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It remains: There has been no proof that "life starts" at any point. Therefore, the assertion remains valid - life is an unbroken line, it continues from living thing to living thing. No "separate life" is created by coitus. No "different being" is brought into being because cells are dividing.

Therefore, it is nothing more then something growing inside the woman's body, and remains as such, nothing more - no "special" anything here, just cell division.

A body is not a "unique person" until detached, and living on their own.

HH - very sorry you don't see the chance of a bad life as a reason for termination. You might review Nazi records, which mention Gypsy and Jewish women who threw their newborns off the train, rather then have them suffer, starve, and die in Treblinka. There are many, many other examples. Let me put it simply - Life is not sacred, in any shape, in any form. It is, it does, it ends. There is nothing sacrosanct about life.

That you and yours so fear death is bizaare to us, but that is your choice. We remind you - you cannot save everyone, and to bring a child into the world, then deny it the ability to grow into an adult through the denial of that which enables growth - most especially the love and caring guidance of parents - is to stunt and torment for the entire length of a life. Better there was not a life there to be beaten, raped, tormented, ignored, belittled - better there was not a child suffering the label of "Gods Punishment on Us".

You may believe differently, that is your choice. We ask only that you look - nonjudgementally, but LOOK - and ask yourself how many happy people there are, with parents that love them. Then ask yourself why there are so many suicides, so many children drugged into obedience, so many....

So many unwanted children who live in misery because someone wanted them to live in such conditions.

The "possible genius" arguement does not apply - it is just as possible to have a Hitler as an Einstein, and both were products of nurture as well as nature. In a loveless marriage, unsupported by parents, the former is far more probable then the latter.

We ask again - what is so sacred about "life" to you?

Hey, you're the one who brought up "possibilities", in particular how the "possibility" of growing up in a abusive household should be enough to justify abortion.

My possibility I brought up it a real situation thousands of people are in everyday, including this one, and a decision they have to make. They ask questions no parent should ever have to ask. "Will he beat my child as he beats me?" "Will he rape the child?" "What tortures shall he inflict on my child once it is born?"

The fact that scenario exists, and is very real, is why I leave the possibility of an abortion open and believe it should be open to everyone.

There is a difference in a possibility of how a child will be raised based on real events that happen to thousands of people and the possibility the child will be a genius. The fact it exists is, as I said, just life. But to ignore that portion of life in a crusade to end the "murder" of what can't even be proven to be alive is to commit a far greater sin and a far greater crime than those who use such an option.

You call it "end the pregancy", I call it "murder".

You can't murder what isn't alive.

If someone is already in an abusive relationship then someone should be stepping in and doing something about it. And if someone in a suspected abusive relationship is pregnant then someone else should suggest adoption.

I covered this a few posts back.

What do you think the abuser is going to do once that child is born? Give the mother the option of letting it be adopted? Hell no. The abuser will try to make sure the child has a lethal "accident" long before they let it go. At that point the mother is scared for her own life anyway and the birth of a child means another life she has to be scared for, as the abuser will use the child as a way to make sure the mother complies with their wishes and, later on, will turn the child into a victim.

The law cannot step in unless they have a reason to. In most cases of abusive family lives, they don't. The mother isn't going to speak out due to fearing for her life, the abuser isn't like to turn themselves in, and the occasional bruise can always be explained away.

Stop thinking with emotions for the child and start thinking rationally. You're not dealing with a case of normal people. You're dealing with a case of a predator and a victim, with the predator dominating the victim instead of killing them.

I could repeat that nobody should be allowed the choice to end a life for no reason, but then you don't believe it is "ending a life" anyway...

This is due to a lack of evidence of it actually being a life.

More comments...you stated above you think the 3rd trimester is the point at which an unborn baby becomes "alive" (or is that the point when it becomes "human" - some people say that it is "alive" from conception but not a "person" until later). Would you still allow the "choice" of abortion after that point for reasons of "possibility of abuse" or any other reason?

After that point? Then it's too late for the reason of abuse. By that point the abuser has certainly noticed the mother is gaining weight, has likely figured out why, and is already using the child as a hostage to control the mother. Also, at that point doctors in DLE will start asking questions as to why the pregnancy is to be terminated. If it is because of abuse, you can expect the police to decide to go after the abuser but for the information about why he is sought "leaked" to the media (don't expect him to live long). Then, the mother can choose whether to have the child naturally or have it extracted and raised by the state.

If a mother doesn't want a child at that stage, we still don't have to kill it. Extract it, stick it in a specialty incubator, and raise it from there. They'll have a few immune system problems later (nothing that will be life-threatening), but they'll probably end up with a long life.

Of course, I would also like to know exactly what happens during the 3rd trimester that makes it "alive" at that point.

The third trimester was chosen because it is not until that point, iirc, a child can be removed from the mother's womb and raised in an artificial incubator. That possibility makes it so the child does not necessarily need the mother anymore, thus making it qualify under the standards of life.

Yeah but I think he might notice if she is incubating…

Not at first. And until the middle of the second trimester, it's not entirely for sure. Before then, it could simply be a case of her gaining weight and the body malfunctioning in the methods of distribution (it happens at times). So, in the early parts of the pregnancy she can get the child terminated and have no sign of it actually having been around at all to appearances.

Not at first. And until the middle of the second trimester, it's not entirely for sure. Before then, it could simply be a case of her gaining weight and the body malfunctioning in the methods of distribution (it happens at times). So, in the early parts of the pregnancy she can get the child terminated and have no sign of it actually having been around at all to appearances.
That's what I meant. No really.

There are a number of cases of men murdering their pregnant spouses…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

As I have said on a great many occasions, abortion should stay in the hands of the people. Not the hands of the government - the hands of the people. If the government bans it, it takes it out of the hands of the people. By leaving this resolution in effect, the choice is left in the hands of the people - where it should be.

If anyone says "but in a democracy, the government is the people" then they are lying, and I still won't support any moves to repeal :}
But why should abortion "stay in the hands of the people"?

Is murder an option that remains in the hands of the people?

There is precious little difference between abortion for non-self defense reasons and murder ... indeed, there is no relevant difference at all.

I am fighting for the right of a woman to make her own choice about her own future, and not have it thrust upon her by a group of people who probably have never met her, but instead would rather put their own petty morals against the actual needs of real people.

So yeah - stubborn.
Yes, it is quite apparent that you are fighting for the right of a woman to make her own choice about her own future.

However, killing the newly conceived unique living individual human being growing inside of her when that newly conceived human being is not threatening her very life is tantamount to advocating that she kill her present husband if she "chooses" to marry someone else in "her own future".

One cannot kill another simply to get one's own way, at least not in a civilized society.

No woman is an island. Women's rights cannot include tenets that violate the very right to life of another. No one owns the life of another, be that other outside or inside of them; "containing" is no pretention of the "right" to kill.

As sad as history does attest to the subjugation of women, such does not excuse the act of killing in transferred indignant defiance of being "controlled". Women with "being controlled" issues should take them to the therapist's office, not the abortuary.

As for "petty morals", your transferred minimalizing belittlement of a newly conceived unique living individual human being's very life is ubiquitous and sad.

That you assign realness value based on age is, of course, ageism, and ageism is an unjustifed prejudice. Everyone's right to life from the moment of conception is a right that cannot be rightly taken from them via appeal to any bias.

It remains: There has been no proof that "life starts" at any point. Therefore, the assertion remains valid - life is an unbroken line, it continues from living thing to living thing. No "separate life" is created by coitus. No "different being" is brought into being because cells are dividing.

Therefore, it is nothing more then something growing inside the woman's body, and remains as such, nothing more - no "special" anything here, just cell division.



Wow, how unlike you Vastiva. This makes as much sense as no sense at all :).

There are qualifications for what is alive. So, life starts when those qualifications are met. Whether or not that life has rights or is owed some standard of reasonable care, and if or when abortion violates those rights or that standard is debatable. That it does not have rights or owed a duty of care at some points does not mean it is not alive and no more than a bunch of replicating cells. Think life-cycle, which was half-hazardly adressed in your post, and applied inconsistently.

With respect to your therefore statement, sounds like you are just trying to piss off True Heart. Anyway...

You are confusing being born with the fetuses ability to live independant of the woman. When the fetus can survive outside of the womb is not entirely when birth occurs. Once development has occurred such that it can be born, it is immaterial whether it has been born or not. You are implying a scape goat method for choosing to induce partial birth, before it would occur naturally, sucking the brain out of a fully developed being, then throwing it away, all because the mother had not yet gone into labor.

Now, such development goes far beyond classifying it as a bunch of cells dividing. Considering it a parasite is more credible than this new ideology put forth. In either event, both are poorly thought out stances. It seems you are becoming more emotional than logical with respect to this issue.

Wow, how unlike you Vastiva. This makes as much sense as no sense at all :).

Methinks thou doest not read clearly today.



There are qualifications for what is alive. So, life starts when those qualifications are met. Whether or not that life has rights or is owed some standard of reasonable care, and if or when abortion violates those rights or that standard is debatable. That it does not have rights or owed a duty of care at some points does not mean it is not alive and no more than a bunch of replicating cells. Think life-cycle, which was half-hazardly adressed in your post, and applied inconsistently.

I have seen no "life cycle", merely a dividing of cells. At a later point, it becomes ensouled, and the lump of cells becomes something else. But I do not accept your qualifications of a "life cycle", as there is no difference between one point and the other - it is still a lump of cells, doing automatically what cells do. No conciousness, no distinctness. Just cells.



With respect to your therefore statement, sounds like you are just trying to piss off True Heart. Anyway...

Who?



You are confusing being born with the fetuses ability to live independant of the woman. When the fetus can survive outside of the womb is not entirely when birth occurs. Once development has occurred such that it can be born, it is immaterial whether it has been born or not. You are implying a scape goat method for choosing to induce partial birth, before it would occur naturally, sucking the brain out of a fully developed being, then throwing it away, all because the mother had not yet gone into labor.

Nope, I am rejecting your arguement completely, as there is no proof of a distinct "life"; the "life cycle" arguement is fallacy. Cell division is cell division.



Now, such development goes far beyond classifying it as a bunch of cells dividing. Considering it a parasite is more credible than this new ideology put forth. In either event, both are poorly thought out stances. It seems you are becoming more emotional than logical with respect to this issue.

The set of cells becomes as a cancer - a parasitic set of cells. It absorbs nutrients, giving nothing in return. Classification is therefore "parasite" at that point, which can remain fuzzy, it makes no difference.

The crux of your arguement is "when is it a distinct, separate life". Until it is separate, it is not distinct, and at no point can be called a "life" onto itself until it is a life onto itself.

Methinks you entirely miss the point - there is no "starting point" to life, not since life first formed. It is a continuum. And this destroys your arguement.

The only ignorance apparent here is yours, since you quote nothing of scientific or logical value, only emotional babble along the lines of "'human being', 'moving limbs', 'gruesome', 'omg, a woman could do something highly improbable that she coul do herself resolution or not'" and so on'.

Moving limbs, brain, whatever - it is not self-sufficient and has no rights over the mother. Also, abortion is not murder - you may wish it so, but it isn't, and your wishes are not arguments.
Translation: "Science is all-powerful. I can kill if I think science says it's okay."

A couple of points, Fass ...

First, DNA science has proven, beyond any doubt or rightful conjecture, that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception. This proof justifies what everyone has known from the moment humanity knew what conception was, and your cold inhuman mental-addiction denials have no power to change this truth.

And second, it is quite obvious that your belittling minimalization of emotions reflects your own neuropsychological dysfunction of affective detatachment of selectively repressed/suppressed memory-and-emotion, a pathological condition that would allow you to fit in quite nicely in Hitler's NAZI Germany where mentalistic science was "god" and the valid emotional outcries of the Jews against their guinea pig experimentation and slaughter were deemed by the science-addicts of that regime as "emotional babble".

I see no sentience. I see no sufficiency. I see no competency. I see nothing whose needs would be greater than the mother's, whose body and choice it is.
Translation: "I'm a dysfunctionally immoral fuk-and-kill funster, cowardly afraid to accept responsibility for caring for the very life of another I participated in creating."

1. If the fetus has all rights, then it has the right of mobility.
2. Apparently, you have removed the womans right to her own body.
3. This being in the definition of slavery, you would be promoting slavery.
4. Slavery is illegal in the UN.

Hence

Your proposal to give fetus' rights would be illegal in the UN.

:p
The newly conceived unique living individual human being does not have all rights such as those granted to adult post-natals, but that human being does have the right we all are granted at the moment of our conception -- the right to life.

Your conclusion therefore fails by virtue of erroneous premise.

Vastiva, it seems you believe that each person does have a "soul". At what point exactly does the soul enter the body, and can you measure it? Can you tell whether or not an unborn baby has a soul yet?

On a side note, putting (temporarily) aside any moral questions, I have to wonder whether abortion should be allowed in the UN, particularly in light of Resolution 53, 5-a...

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies

Key phrase - "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them..". If you like to use the argument that an unborn baby (to a point) is just a part of a woman's body, then isn't a woman choosing abortion harming herself, thus being in contradiction with Res. 53?

Methinks thou doest not read clearly today.

Methinks you somehow lost the capacity for thought today. Or, has someone hacked your account?


I have seen no "life cycle", merely a dividing of cells. At a later point, it becomes ensouled, and the lump of cells becomes something else. But I do not accept your qualifications of a "life cycle", as there is no difference between one point and the other - it is still a lump of cells, doing automatically what cells do. No conciousness, no distinctness. Just cells.

There is no cell existing infinitum. When the self replicating cell is created via conception and begins replicating, a life cycle has begun. A woman does not divide into two people.

"There is no difference between one point and another" following the statement "at one point it becomes ensouled." Wow, a spiritual argument out of nowhere that violates your never ending life theory. Two different points, stated by yourself, that illustrate growth and development. Which makes it more than the same cell, continuosly dividing.

Consciousness or sentience or your soul, whichever, as you put it, occurs with the development of an organ, your brain. What you say means everything going on in the womb is merely cellular division. However, no brain changes occur in the fetus during or after birth. It is the same being immediately before and after birth. The Umbilical cord is still connected until severed. Your argument is not valid, or consistent.

Who?

The NS you thought AP might also be.


Nope, I am rejecting your arguement completely, as there is no proof of a distinct "life"; the "life cycle" arguement is fallacy. Cell division is cell division.

Then you disagree with biology (will give you the benefit of not being ignorant, as this post indicates on several counts that you appear to have abandoned science for some new spirituality). The cell that divides is the result of fertilization. It is not some cell that disassociates itself from the mother, begins dividing, then re-associates with the mother. As your theory implies. Again, you make no sense.


The set of cells becomes as a cancer - a parasitic set of cells. It absorbs nutrients, giving nothing in return. Classification is therefore "parasite" at that point, which can remain fuzzy, it makes no difference.

Disagreement with, or ignorance of, biology, on two counts. A conceptus is not a cell from the mother that self replicates continously from single cell to single cell, with the capacity to travel throughout the body and infect other regions, until it becomes benign or the woman dies. It is not a cancerous growth, to say so is to be ignorant of cancer. A parasite, again, is still alive. Worms do not materialize in your digestive system. Worms are not being that posess all the qualifications for life, yet some choose not consider alive. It is alive, its environment is the host, through which its "eternal life cycle" is contained.

The crux of your arguement is "when is it a distinct, separate life". Until it is separate, it is not distinct, and at no point can be called a "life" onto itself until it is a life onto itself.

You are looking at nutrient source, not the ability to utilize energy for growth and development, the biological qualification for life. Yes, it can be alive, and distinct, and obtain its nutrients from another being, read a biology text. Your use of seperate is not valid, as a physical connection still needs to exist between mother and infant for the infant to obtain nutrients and immune system assistance. Not well thought out.

Methinks you entirely miss the point - there is no "starting point" to life, not since life first formed. It is a continuum. And this destroys your arguement.

Neither valid nor sound nor consistent. Listen to yourself. There is no starting point to life, not since life first formed. When life forms is the starting point, as you state and deny in the same sentence, whether it be in the felopian tube, in vetro, or in primordial ooze.

The real point is you have backed yourself into the position of not really having a viable one.

Good luck with this one;)

Anyway, let us suspend disbelief and say there is no longer a starting point to life, it is a continuum, then all things dealing with human reproduction are alive, as is a conceptus as they are part of your continuum of life.

By this "not logic," a sperm and eggs may be granted a duty of care not to be wasted, which is irrational. This goes way beyond previous notions of rights or duties owed to anything.

On a side note, putting (temporarily) aside any moral questions, I have to wonder whether abortion should be allowed in the UN, particularly in light of Resolution 53, 5-a...

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies

Key phrase - "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them..". If you like to use the argument that an unborn baby (to a point) is just a part of a woman's body, then isn't a woman choosing abortion harming herself, thus being in contradiction with Res. 53?

Vastiva would argue she is choosing to be relieved of a parasite, which would then be determined to be ultimately helpful to the person making the choice.

We also allow people to engage in sado-masochistic relationships as they see fit, without any interference from the government. Indeed, we do enforce some relationships when they fall under contract law.

Anyway, let us suspend disbelief and say there is no longer a starting point to life, it is a continuum, then all things dealing with human reproduction are alive, as is a conceptus as they are part of your continuum of life.

By this "not logic," a sperm and eggs may be granted a duty of care not to be wasted, which is irrational. This goes way beyond previous notions of rights or duties owed to anything.

Cells do not have a "duty of care". They exist and continue without support. You might note, we do not yet subscribe to your "duty of care" theory.

Vastiva, it seems you believe that each person does have a "soul". At what point exactly does the soul enter the body, and can you measure it? Can you tell whether or not an unborn baby has a soul yet?

We do not believe we are qualified to discuss such at length, and therefore reiterate our legal standard of the three way test. Before such, not a person and has no rights; afterwards, a person with rights.

See, there's an inherent disadvantage that the pro-lifers here have over the pro-abortion people. If we claim the child is alive, we are told that our morals are irrelevent. If you claim it isn't, for some reason, we can't claim that your morals are irrelevent, because you'll claim there's no morals effecting your judgement.

Newsflash: Your opinion is ENTIRELY ABOUT MORALS! That's what an opinion is!

Even worse, I offer you an argument that is free from the moral dilema of when life begins, and it's ridiculed for it's inherent morality.

Methinks thou doest not read clearly today.


Methinks you somehow lost the capacity for thought today. Or, has someone hacked your account?

Disagreement is not having lost capacity.



I have seen no "life cycle", merely a dividing of cells. At a later point, it becomes ensouled, and the lump of cells becomes something else. But I do not accept your qualifications of a "life cycle", as there is no difference between one point and the other - it is still a lump of cells, doing automatically what cells do. No conciousness, no distinctness. Just cells.


There is no cell existing infinitum.

Irrelevant.



When the self replicating cell is created via conception and begins replicating, a life cycle has begun. A woman does not divide into two people.


We disagree with this assertion. One pile of cells makes another pile of cells, as part of the "reproduction" ability of the first pile of cells. So, yes, a woman does "divide", if you wish to be crude. It is two sets of specialized cells creating another set of cells.



"There is no difference between one point and another" following the statement "at one point it becomes ensouled." Wow, a spiritual argument out of nowhere that violates your never ending life theory. Two different points, stated by yourself, that illustrate growth and development. Which makes it more than the same cell, continuosly dividing.

You assume "soul=life". This is not the case. Ergo, wrong.



Consciousness or sentience or your soul, whichever, as you put it, occurs with the development of an organ, your brain.

Proof. Otherwise, false.



What you say means everything going on in the womb is merely cellular division. However, no brain changes occur in the fetus during or after birth. It is the same being immediately before and after birth. The Umbilical cord is still connected until severed. Your argument is not valid, or consistent.

Why would a physical object have anything to do with the other process? Illogical, irrelevant.



Who?

The NS you thought AP might also be.

We apologize, but cannot discover this person in our sphere of "those we pay attention to".



Nope, I am rejecting your arguement completely, as there is no proof of a distinct "life"; the "life cycle" arguement is fallacy. Cell division is cell division.

Then you disagree with biology (will give you the benefit of not being ignorant, as this post indicates on several counts that you appear to have abandoned science for some new spirituality). The cell that divides is the result of fertilization. It is not some cell that disassociates itself from the mother, begins dividing, then re-associates with the mother. As your theory implies. Again, you make no sense.

Mitosis or meiosis, it is cell division. Whichever process, it remains cell division, growth, reproduction, cycle. This is merely life doing what it does, nothing more.

Within the mother, it is a set of cells supported by a host - a parasite, and nothing more.

You will have to point out where we said it is "re-associated".



The set of cells becomes as a cancer - a parasitic set of cells. It absorbs nutrients, giving nothing in return. Classification is therefore "parasite" at that point, which can remain fuzzy, it makes no difference.


Disagreement with, or ignorance of, biology, on two counts. A conceptus is not a cell from the mother that self replicates continously from single cell to single cell, with the capacity to travel throughout the body and infect other regions, until it becomes benign or the woman dies. It is not a cancerous growth, to say so is to be ignorant of cancer. A parasite, again, is still alive. Worms do not materialize in your digestive system. Worms are not being that posess all the qualifications for life, yet some choose not consider alive. It is alive, its environment is the host, through which its "eternal life cycle" is contained.

Ah. Expand the "cycle", grasshopper. Cell growth becomes cell growth. Are worms "alive"? Certainly. Are they deserving of rights? No.

Does what grows inside a host mother some sort of "unique life"? No - it is cell division, following rules. There is nothing "special" about this division, it is merely specialized cells doing what they do, mechanically according to rules of biology.



The crux of your arguement is "when is it a distinct, separate life". Until it is separate, it is not distinct, and at no point can be called a "life" onto itself until it is a life onto itself.

You are looking at nutrient source, not the ability to utilize energy for growth and development, the biological qualification for life. Yes, it can be alive, and distinct, and obtain its nutrients from another being, read a biology text. Your use of seperate is not valid, as a physical connection still needs to exist between mother and infant for the infant to obtain nutrients and immune system assistance. Not well thought out.

As we are discussing a legal point of "separate life", our arguement is entirely relevant. A parasitic organism such as this is not an individual with a right to rights. As that physical connection "needs" to exist, it is not an individual life, and we repeat our assertion it is a pile of cells and not a distinct "person" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.



Methinks you entirely miss the point - there is no "starting point" to life, not since life first formed. It is a continuum. And this destroys your arguement.


Neither valid nor sound nor consistent. Listen to yourself. There is no starting point to life, not since life first formed. When life forms is the starting point, as you state and deny in the same sentence, whether it be in the felopian tube, in vetro, or in primordial ooze.

If there is no "starting point", there is no "beginning". Life just continues.

Do point out at what point there is no life, and it "springs into being". Specialized cells (living) attach to other specialized cells (living) which makes more specialized cells (living). Life is making more life. Whoopie! Thats what cells do.

Just life - nothing all that important at all.



The real point is you have backed yourself into the position of not really having a viable one.

Good luck with this one

We thank you for your blessing but do not need luck to remain correct.

See, there's an inherent disadvantage that the pro-lifers here have over the pro-abortion people. If we claim the child is alive, we are told that our morals are irrelevent. If you claim it isn't, for some reason, we can't claim that your morals are irrelevent, because you'll claim there's no morals effecting your judgement.

Newsflash: Your opinion is ENTIRELY ABOUT MORALS! That's what an opinion is!

Even worse, I offer you an argument that is free from the moral dilema of when life begins, and it's ridiculed for it's inherent morality.

We could also say "thats stupid" or "prove it". Which would you prefer?

How about answering "what are you defending, and why are you defending it?"

The comment 'that's stupid' and such have been used alot in this debate. That's what happens when you only have one arguement. See, this is how it goes;

Pro-Life: *Gives really compelling point
Pro-Abortion: Sorry, it's not alive

P-L: *Gives second compelling post
P-A: Sorry, not alive

P-L: *Shows that it is alive
P-A: Hey, that's a moral argument!

P-L: *Goes back to compelling arguments
P-A: Sorry, not alive

And thus, the cycle continues.

Alright, how about answering "what are you defending, and why are you defending it?"

Disagreement is not having lost capacity.
Agreed. But the method employed today is indicative of someone who is not their usual sharpshooting, listen to me sparky, self. Not at full capacity;)

Irrelevant.[Quote]

Exactly, that was illustrating what you are saying you consider a human life cycle to be, continuos, without begining or end. What you say is quite irrelevant, for several reasons. Let us delve deeper into the rabbit hole...

[Quote]We disagree with this assertion. One pile of cells makes another pile of cells, as part of the "reproduction" ability of the first pile of cells. So, yes, a woman does "divide", if you wish to be crude. It is two sets of specialized cells creating another set of cells.

No, it is not. A sperm is not a cell, nor is the egg. There are no cells coming from the mother or father. So, there is no cell splitting ad infinitum. Life of the individual is not continuos. Genes and species, maybe. But you are not talking about that.

Gosh, a woman divides. Like an ameoba. Fascinating. So male sperm presently are not necessary contributors for reproduction? A woman does just divide.

Who is we? The royal we? You mean to tell me I can't expect you to look at the screen, type, and think by yourself all at the same ;) (Play on Big Lebowski, awesome movie, I wholeheartedly recomend)

You assume "soul=life". This is not the case. Ergo, wrong.

No, not at all. At best what I said was soul=consciousness, or is a manifestation of it. But you know the case. Awesome, enlighten everyone as to what a soul is, and how it exists outside of life and the physical person. Inquiring minds want to know.


Proof. Otherwise, false.

Is a brain dead individual conscious. Remove your skull, start touching your brain, see what happens. What happened when the Rail Road Work had a pipe go through his head? Was he the same individual afterwards?(This is a pretty famous case, I am sure you know of and can find it given your omniscience;))


Why would a physical object have anything to do with the other process? Illogical, irrelevant.

Ok, maybe you are really ignorant of the human reproductive cycle and human development.

Mitosis or meiosis, it is cell division. Whichever process, it remains cell division, growth, reproduction, cycle. This is merely life doing what it does, nothing more.

Well, now that you say it is alive, and now that you know it is not a cell from the mother dividing and replicating. You can discuss why it is without rights and a duty of care. Or when rights or a duty of care is owed.

Within the mother, it is a set of cells supported by a host - a parasite, and nothing more.

This isn't even a straw to grasp at anymore. Umpteen people have told you what a parasite is, and how a fetus is not a parasite. Either way, if you consider it a cell from the mother, or the mother actually dividing as part of this continuos life cycle, it is not a parasite, as you consider it part of the mother and her continuus life cycle by adopting that stance. Next closes thing would be two circle back to it being cancerous (it appears you have two different trains of thought meshing together). However, as previously stated, it does not qualify as cancer either.

You will have to point out where we said it is "re-associated".

For it to be, as you say, merely a cell from the mother self dividing as life does, it is a cell that just disassociates from the ovum, travels down the felopian tube, and re-associates in the womb. This is false. But is how one has to explain your continuos life, woman dividing, reproductive cycle. It is of course, false, everyone knows it is false. Even you I hope.

Ah. Expand the "cycle", grasshopper. Cell growth becomes cell growth.

Does what grows inside a host mother some sort of "unique life"? No - it is cell division, following rules. There is nothing "special" about this division, it is merely specialized cells doing what they do, mechanically according to rules of biology.

Do point out at what point there is no life, and it "springs into being". Specialized cells (living) attach to other specialized cells (living) which makes more specialized cells (living). Life is making more life. Whoopie! Thats what cells do.

I have expanded cycle, quite explicitly. Such that a single self replicating skin cell cannot be considered a living human being.

What makes a conceptust special is that it is not like self replicating skin cells, or liver cells. It is a group of replicating cells that become specialized, that become skin cells, that become heart cells, that become brain cells. You did not come into being by a bunch of specialized cells attaching together. Embryonic stem cells, already attached, multiplied an developed into specialized cell. Other wise, you are a staunch advocate that stem cells do not exist, and are a worthless endeavor.

A sperm is not alive, an egg is not alive. When the two come together, a cell is formed, which is alive, is one stage of growth and development towards a complex organism.

As we are discussing a legal point of "separate life", our arguement is entirely relevant. A parasitic organism such as this is not an individual with a right to rights. As that physical connection "needs" to exist, it is not an individual life, and we repeat our assertion it is a pile of cells and not a distinct "person" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.

It is not a parasite. It is growing and developing into a complete organism, which it will be before born. There is a point while still in the womb where that absolute physical connection does not need to exist. Even when outside of the womb a physical connection is still needed for food and immune system buildup. So an infant does not fully fit your main premise for indivuality and not being what you consider a parasite.

Personhood. If you can acurately define what a person is, please do, inquiring minds want to know. The best information you give is that it has to have a brain to be a person. Fine, around twenty weeks, its brain is developing. Prior to birth, its brain is still forming. After birth, its brain is still forming. For about the first five years after being born, this is still the case. So, quit waffling between life and personhood. If you need to be alive to have rights, you lose, a fetus is alive. If you need to be a person to have rights, then you are saying infants and young children do not have rights. Which is fine, either you allow parents to terminate them without discretion or consequence until they are persons, or a duty of care is owed to them not to physically harm or kill them.

If there is no "starting point", there is no "beginning". Life just continues.

There is a starting point, there is an ending point. Life in general continues given reproduction occurs, the actual life of the individual does not.

Just life - nothing all that important at all.

Ok, that is fine. Nobody really needs to do anything, we could just die right now. In either event, why do you care if AP fishing boats steal fish thus murdering Vastivians if life is not important?

We thank you for your blessing but do not need luck to remain correct.

Your right, at this point you need nothing short of divine intervention to pull through.;)

Are worms "alive"? Certainly. Are they deserving of rights? No.

Phew... something of note... welcome back ;)

That is the question is everything alive deserving of rights or a duty of care? If not, what is. Those that are deserving, when are those rights bestowed, or duty to care observed?

Is a fetus alive, certainly. Is it a parasite, no. Is it deserving of rights? Probably not. Is it deserving of being free from intentional infliction of harm while it grows and develops? If so, when? Those are the million dollar questions that warrant consistent answers.

On a side note, putting (temporarily) aside any moral questions, I have to wonder whether abortion should be allowed in the UN, particularly in light of Resolution 53, 5-a...

5) Declares and enshrines in law the freedom of all people to make choices according to their own conscience, particularly with regard to their philosophy of life, social/cultural development and awareness of the world, without unreasonable interference from the State, subject to the following limitations:

a) The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them or physical or psychological harm on others; where this is the case, normal criminal law of the country in question applies

Key phrase - "The decisions taken do not directly inflict physical harm on the individual making them..". If you like to use the argument that an unborn baby (to a point) is just a part of a woman's body, then isn't a woman choosing abortion harming herself, thus being in contradiction with Res. 53?

But by that extention anyone who has any type of surgery would be in violation of that resolution. Even if they are not supposed to be, cancer cells are part of your body, and if you have an operation or procedure to remove them, you are harming part of yourself to do it.

And, further to that point, following the letter of that part of the resolution would put it in violation of the Sexual Freedoms resolution and make it illegal, because there are some sex activities that can hurt a little - physical harm, but they are protected by a previous resolution.

So if you keep going down this track, the resolution you mentioned would have to be repealed due to being illegal in light of earlier resolutions.

Having read all of the pro-abortionists' arguments in this thread, it is clear that all of their arguments are based on sophistries of denial.

1. The pro-abortionists deny the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, despite the reality that DNA science has proven that conception is the begining of a unique human being's very life, and despite the truth of the matter that we have all known in our heart ever since we discovered what conception is.

2. Part and parcel to denying the truth of "1." above is the pro-abortionists' pseudoscience sophistries whereby they use scientific phrases to minimalizingly belittle the reality of the newly conceived human being. Words and phrases like "a clump of cells", "a mere zygote", "not alive", "a mass of cells", "logical", etc. are frequently embeded in sophistries used by pro-abortionists to deny the real DNA science proof that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception. Indeed, present the reality of DNA science proof that a unqiue individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, and the pro-abortionist will irrationally counter with "proof please". No matter how much summary-to-detail proof of the DNA science reality that is provided, the pro-abortionist suffering from science-addiction will denially respond with some form of broken-record irrational request for "proof please".

3. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that their "science", "logic", "rationalism" is a superior method of "mind", and that any opposing viewpoint is "emotional" and therefore "invalid". Their perspective here reflects a truly sad aspect of the pro-abortionists' mentalisms. The horror of their killing-advocation has exacerbated their already pathological affective detachment disorder, a neruopsychological disorder whereby they are memory-and-emotionally detached from repressed/suppressed relationship experiences in their life. The symptoms of this disorder are extremes of thought that are irrational and violate known truths. Nevertheless, they are oblivious to their own errors of both logic and scientific reference. Indeed, sufferers of this malady speak as if science is their god and they talk in scientific terms. This addiction to science is a reaction to their disorder, as science is, they will tell you, "unfeeling" and "unemotional", and so their irrational pseudoscienceism acts as a reactive defense mechanism, a method of functionally coping with their neuropsychological disorder, a coping method they employ in an unconconscious attempt to hide their disorder from both their conscious self and others. Thus they come off cold and unfeeling in the matter when in reality they are merely detached from those parts of themselves relevant to this matter. But, of course, when presented with the reality of their neuropsychological disorder of affective detachment, they will vehemently deny it, part and parcel of their denial-based coping mechanism with the disorder itself.

4. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that all pro-life arguments are religious in orientation and they are therefore thereby "invalid". Because science is often at contentional odds with its older cousin religion, it is not suprising that the polemic dualistic tendency of the mentally-centered, whom the pro-abortionists are, would compel them to create an either-or conclusion in the matter. Though many anti-abortionists are religious, owing to matters of their own neuropsychological dysfunctions, there is no valid religious support-argument for the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception as DNA science and every heart knows. Yet when confronted with the reality of the human heart, the very metaphorical center of being of every person, wherein lies the truth of the matter, the pro-abortionists irrationally cry "Religion!", as if such a reference to the center of being of every human being is somehow a "Christian" or whatever "religious" perspective when in truth it is not.

5. A favorite sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is the ubiquitous appeal to "women's rights". They irrationalize away the reality that the newly conceived human being is alive, saying the newly conceived human being is "not" alive "by virtue of" a woman's right "to control her own body". This is, obviously, an illogical statement.

6. Regarding a woman's right "to control her own body", this is often a phrase employed by pro-abortionists as a projection of their own unresolved control issues onto the pregnant woman, unresolved control issues stemming from damage they experience in their family-of-origin and subsequently in interpersonal peer relationships. These people have "controlled by" issues that are best resolved by a visit to the therapist's office rather than a visit to the abortuary. Indeed, no one owns the life of another, no matter whether that other is without or within them, and thus they cannot rightly claim the so-called "right" to kill another on the basis of "ownership", and such claiming is symptomatic of neuropsychological dsyfunction warranting the help of a competent mental health practitioner. Regardless of the horrific history of the subjugation of women, such does not give anyone the right to deprive the newly conceived of their right to life in a transferred act of indignant defiance of the "controllers" onto the newly conceived human being. Indeed, such an act should thereby be a hint to women that the string-pullers in the pro-abortion movement are men, dysfunctionally immoral fuk-and-kill funster men who are so cowardly frightened of taking responsibility for the very life they participated in creating, that they would submit their partner to the neuropsychologically damaging guilt-inculcating act of abortion, forcing their partner to kill the living human being within her. Talk about an act of subjugation of women by men! Indeed, the originial feminists were aware of this, and they opposed abortion. Sadly, socioeconomic dynamics have forced many women to the self-abuse of abortion merely to stay independent from the very controllingly abusive men which they revile.

7. Indeed, socioeconomics are often the divertive sophistrical appeal employed by the pro-abortionists when they argue that a woman couldn't time-and-money afford to raise a child by herself in this economy when her cowardly partner runs from the responsibility inherent in his act. But, regardless of the stressful life they imply for the woman, none of these pro-abortion advocates ever admit that the newly conceived unique living individual human being within her is ever anything more than a "mere clump of cells", and that is the nature of this divertive sophistry in the matter. The truth of the matter is that economic hardship is no excuse to kill.

Regardless of the sophistry employed by the pro-abortionists, it is quite clear that they are both neuropsychologically dysfunctional and wrong in their rhetoric. It is simply unacceptable to healthy and civilized people to have U.N. policy based on a neuropathology. A repeal of all abortion-condoning measures that are not based on the self-defense of the mother's very life is absolutely imperative. Also imperative is the harnessing of science to actually serve humanity by developing the perfect conception prevention chemicals and making them available for both men and women of any age free of charge no questions asked.

Since the presence of DNA plays no part in the determination of rights, nor that merely being an homo sapien sapien grants you any special rights. We could care less about True Hearts presuppositional arguments.

People are granted rights... One has to be proven to have personhood to have rights and representation.

Since the presence of DNA plays no part in the determination of rights, nor that merely being an homo sapien sapien grants you any special rights. We could care less about True Hearts presuppositional arguments.

People are granted rights... One has to be proven to have personhood to have rights and representation.

Rights, Agreed.
Personhood required for Representation, hard to swallow as a stand alone statement.

Again, a fetus, an infant, and a child lack the full capabilities of a person, as do mentally challenged individuals, either they are granted a duty of care by society, or killed without consequence as they have not attained personhood.

So, you if you grant a duty of care to non-persons, when does that care start, and why? Is it based on a single stage of growth and development, some state of mental capacity, or on future capability?

True Heart.

That any cell has human DNA is not the qualifier. That a single human cell meets the qualifications for life does not make it a living human being. That the single cell has the capacity to grow and develop into a fully developed human being means a new life has begun. Now, that does not mean it has a right to life, as no one has such a right, we lack the capability of physical immortality. It may be granted a right or duty bestowed on others not to interfere or harm the growing and developing entity. However, if non-persons are not granted such rights, but rather a duty from others, when does society stipulate that the mother, father, and society have acted such that the duty exists? That is a value judgment for individual NS to hash out amongst themselves.

Sophistry... a new addition to my favorite words and phrases list alongside Justification and the Moral High Ground :)

Sophistry... a new addition to my favorite words and phrases list alongside Justification and the Moral High Ground :)

Yes, we must maintain a womens right to choose, it is "the moral high ground" ;)

Having read all of the pro-abortionists' arguments in this thread, it is clear that all of their arguments are based on sophistries of denial.

No, I'm basing mine on the enlightenment of proof. If there is not proof, then it is not a fact. I find a lot of yours to be a sophistry of pseudoscience, emotional arguements, and flamebait.

1. The pro-abortionists deny the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, despite the reality that DNA science has proven that conception is the begining of a unique human being's very life, and despite the truth of the matter that we have all known in our heart ever since we discovered what conception is.

No, we deny the fiction that it is fact that life begins at a certain point and choose one that is convenient for what little we have to judge with. Also, DNA is not required for life. AIs are recognized in DLE as both alive and sentient despite the fact they have no DNA, as they have shown the capacity to adapt and even reproduce when needed. What you are stating is not a fact.

Oh, emotional arguements are not accepted as valid.

2. Part and parcel to denying the truth of "1." above is the pro-abortionists' pseudoscience sophistries whereby they use scientific phrases to minimalizingly belittle the reality of the newly conceived human being. Words and phrases like "a clump of cells", "a mere zygote", "not alive", "a mass of cells", "logical", etc. are frequently embeded in sophistries used by pro-abortionists to deny the real DNA science proof that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception. Indeed, present the reality of DNA science proof that a unqiue individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, and the pro-abortionist will irrationally counter with "proof please". No matter how much summary-to-detail proof of the DNA science reality that is provided, the pro-abortionist suffering from science-addiction will denially respond with some form of broken-record irrational request for "proof please".

Guess what? Dead bodies also have unique DNA, and often certain parts of the body live on long after the actual person dies. What you are arguing is not scientific fact, but an emotional misinterpretation of scientific evidence. I am not asking for proof because I know you have none.

3. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that their "science", "logic", "rationalism" is a superior method of "mind", and that any opposing viewpoint is "emotional" and therefore "invalid". Their perspective here reflects a truly sad aspect of the pro-abortionists' mentalisms. The horror of their killing-advocation has exacerbated their already pathological affective detachment disorder, a neruopsychological disorder whereby they are memory-and-emotionally detached from repressed/suppressed relationship experiences in their life.

This is flamebait. Just because we rely on scientific evidence for proving life instead of a bunch of unreliable emotions does not mean we are crazy or crippled in some way.

To be honest, I find this rather amusing to see someone take their limited knowledge of science and the pseudoscience of psychology and twist it to try to invalidate their opponents.

The symptoms of this disorder are extremes of thought that are irrational and violate known truths. Nevertheless, they are oblivious to their own errors of both logic and scientific reference. Indeed, sufferers of this malady speak as if science is their god and they talk in scientific terms.

You do realize you are talking about all scientists, including the ones who provided the information you are so maliciously raping for this, right? You just invalidated your own arguement by invalidating the evidence it stands on.

This addiction to science is a reaction to their disorder, as science is, they will tell you, "unfeeling" and "unemotional", and so their irrational pseudoscienceism acts as a reactive defense mechanism, a method of functionally coping with their neuropsychological disorder, a coping method they employ in an unconconscious attempt to hide their disorder from both their conscious self and others. Thus they come off cold and unfeeling in the matter when in reality they are merely detached from those parts of themselves relevant to this matter.

Actually, most of us are quite emotional. We've just learned when it is appropriate to control those emotions and not let them cloud our mind. Once of the greatest weaknesses of humanity is, as you have demonstrated, the ability to let emotions take evidence and twist it in the wrong way.

Oh, and this is still flamebait and unsupported by fact.

But, of course, when presented with the reality of their neuropsychological disorder of affective detachment, they will vehemently deny it, part and parcel of their denial-based coping mechanism with the disorder itself.

Actually, I have all of my psychological orders catalogued for future reference. None of them include what you are talking about. In fact, one of them is the fact I am too emotional and must struggle to control them.

4. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that all pro-life arguments are religious in orientation and they are therefore thereby "invalid". Because science is often at contentional odds with its older cousin religion, it is not suprising that the polemic dualistic tendency of the mentally-centered, whom the pro-abortionists are, would compel them to create an either-or conclusion in the matter.

I've complained about the "either-or conclusion" many times in the past. However, in this case the evidence supports the validity of such a view. After all, it can't be both alive and dead without us getting into fiction.

And, us being mentally-centered means we like knowledge and fact. If people who prefer facts are arguing against you, you should really examine your arguement.

Though many anti-abortionists are religious, owing to matters of their own neuropsychological dysfunctions, there is no valid religious support-argument for the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception as DNA science and every heart knows.

Actually, the heart knows nothing. The statement "the heart knows" comes from the Egyptian belief the heart does what we now know the brain to do. So, by stating it you are supplying a religious belief.

Also, you are right on that part about religion. It doesn't stop them, though, from arguing it. Check out the General forum and start a debate on abortion.

Yet when confronted with the reality of the human heart, the very metaphorical center of being of every person, wherein lies the truth of the matter, the pro-abortionists irrationally cry "Religion!", as if such a reference to the center of being of every human being is somehow a "Christian" or whatever "religious" perspective when in truth it is not.

The cry of "Religion!" is valid because the idea of the heart as the center of the being comes from Egyptian religious beliefs. So, it's not irrational.

And, the heart is not the metaphoric center of every person. Some are centered metaphorically in the heart and some are centered metaphorically in the brain. Stop using generalizations that you can't prove.

5. A favorite sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is the ubiquitous appeal to "women's rights". They irrationalize away the reality that the newly conceived human being is alive, saying the newly conceived human being is "not" alive "by virtue of" a woman's right "to control her own body". This is, obviously, an illogical statement.

Uh, we don't argue that... At least, the smart ones don't...

6. Regarding a woman's right "to control her own body", this is often a phrase employed by pro-abortionists as a projection of their own unresolved control issues onto the pregnant woman, unresolved control issues stemming from damage they experience in their family-of-origin and subsequently in interpersonal peer relationships.

I had a very good family life and view pregnancy as a wonderful, glorious thing. So do many of my fellows. Point disproven by the reality of the people.

These people have "controlled by" issues that are best resolved by a visit to the therapist's office rather than a visit to the abortuary. Indeed, no one owns the life of another, no matter whether that other is without or within them, and thus they cannot rightly claim the so-called "right" to kill another on the basis of "ownership", and such claiming is symptomatic of neuropsychological dsyfunction warranting the help of a competent mental health practitioner.

More flamebait. Once again, just because we oppose you doesn't mean we are crazy. Stay away from the psychology books until you can use them properly.

Regardless of the horrific history of the subjugation of women, such does not give anyone the right to deprive the newly conceived of their right to life in a transferred act of indignant defiance of the "controllers" onto the newly conceived human being. Indeed, such an act should thereby be a hint to women that the string-pullers in the pro-abortion movement are men, dysfunctionally immoral fuk-and-kill funster men who are so cowardly frightened of taking responsibility for the very life they participated in creating, that they would submit their partner to the neuropsychologically damaging guilt-inculcating act of abortion, forcing their partner to kill the living human being within her.

Once again, not matching reality. A lot of pro-abortionists, in fact the leaders of it for awhile in the past, are women. Women not being controlled by men, but by their want to have that choice. Now, you're being sexist and posting flamebait for the guys.

Talk about an act of subjugation of women by men! Indeed, the originial feminists were aware of this, and they opposed abortion. Sadly, socioeconomic dynamics have forced many women to the self-abuse of abortion merely to stay independent from the very controllingly abusive men which they revile.

Uh, it's actually unhealthy to utterly hate the opposite sex, as you hint at. It's usually the result of psychological trauma. Also, most of the women who get abortions are single and middle class. So, you are posting misinformation as well and none of that is true.

7. Indeed, socioeconomics are often the divertive sophistrical appeal employed by the pro-abortionists when they argue that a woman couldn't time-and-money afford to raise a child by herself in this economy when her cowardly partner runs from the responsibility inherent in his act. But, regardless of the stressful life they imply for the woman, none of these pro-abortion advocates ever admit that the newly conceived unique living individual human being within her is ever anything more than a "mere clump of cells", and that is the nature of this divertive sophistry in the matter. The truth of the matter is that economic hardship is no excuse to kill.

Tell that to the French Revolutionists. I'm sure they will see the "light" of what you say instead of guillotining you for what they view as stupidity.

There is no evidence, from science, it is more than a clump of cells. Keep in mind your finger also has human DNA. Cutting it off doesn't make it a separate lifeform.

Regardless of the sophistry employed by the pro-abortionists, it is quite clear that they are both neuropsychologically dysfunctional and wrong in their rhetoric. It is simply unacceptable to healthy and civilized people to have U.N. policy based on a neuropathology.

Once again, emotional flamebait with no basis in facts. Leave the books to those qualified to use them properly.

A repeal of all abortion-condoning measures that are not based on the self-defense of the mother's very life is absolutely imperative. Also imperative is the harnessing of science to actually serve humanity by developing the perfect conception prevention chemicals and making them available for both men and women of any age free of charge no questions asked.

Uh, some contraceptive chemicals actually destroy the zygote. And, it's not imperative just because of your pseudoscientific and unfactual postings make it so.

There is no evidence, from science, it is more than a clump of cells. Keep in mind your finger also has human DNA. Cutting it off doesn't make it a separate lifeform.

Invalid comparison. Your finger was never meant to be anything more than a finger, so it never will become more than that. An unborn baby (that "clump of cells"), on the other hand...

Since the presence of DNA plays no part in the determination of rights, nor that merely being an homo sapien sapien grants you any special rights. We could care less about True Hearts presuppositional arguments.

People are granted rights... One has to be proven to have personhood to have rights and representation.
Here you are employing a variant combination of sophistries 2 and 3 (please see my post on page 11 of this thread where I list pro-abortionists' sophistries), and you employ your sophistries in an attempt to, once again, minimalizingly belittle the reality that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

You start your sophistry via the minimalizing belittlement of the science-addictive use of the term "homo sapien sapien" in lieu of the more humanly meaningful term human being.

Then you demean the right to life as "special" as if it was an afterthought granted to a subset of people on the basis of special circumstances. But in truth, the right to life is not a limitedly applied "special right" -- it is a right we are all "endowed by our creator (our "parents")". Such was recognized in a founding document of the United States, and it holds true from the moment of our conception when such endowment begins.

The dictionary's primary definition of "person" is: 1. a human being. Since you holler for proof that the newly conceived is a person, there it is. By virtue of being a unique individual living human being, the newly conceived qualifies as a "person" from that moment on.

And, of course, you attempt to dismiss my list of pro-abortionists' sophistries ... merely because they truthfully indict you.

There. I just stated the straightforward truth, revealed your sophistries for what they are, debunked them, and left you looking foolish and dysfunctional afterward ... further indication that we cannot afford to base U.N. policy on the dysfunctional disorders of fools.

Invalid comparison. Your finger was never meant to be anything more than a finger, so it never will become more than that. An unborn baby (that "clump of cells"), on the other hand...

If you remove the zygote from the womb, it dies before it ever becomes a child. That is why I used a finger.

If you want a valid example, then I can always use sperm. They are intended to become a child. However, removed from their environment they die.

Here you are employing a variant combination of sophistries 2 and 3 (please see my post on page 11 of this thread where I list pro-abortionists' sophistries), and you employ your sophistries in an attempt to, once again, minimalizingly belittle the reality that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

Actually, he's pointing out the fact that not everything recognized as a person in NS is human or, for that matter, even existing outside of a computer (like my AIs).

Also, using DNA as a base is saying dead bodies deserve the same rights as the living.

You start your sophistry via the minimalizing belittlement of the science-addictive use of the term "homo sapien sapien" in lieu of the more humanly meaningful term human being.

Arguement not based on fact. Tekania, myself, and most of the people on here do not use the species classification, nor did Tekania use it in his post. When I say human, I mean human as in the species Homo sapiens sapiens (note the corrections I made for the next time you use it, as "sapiens" is always with the "s" and "Homo" is always capitalized). In fact, if you knew what it means you would be complaining that people are not using it more often.

"Homo" means "man." "Sapiens" means "wise." So, the name translates to Wise Wise Man. That is, of course, a misnomer and historically proven to be untrue. I have a more appropriate name in mind, but I will not post it at this time.

Then you demean the right to life as "special" as if it was an afterthought granted to a subset of people on the basis of special circumstances. But in truth, the right to life is not a limitedly applied "special right" -- it is a right we are all "endowed by our creator (our "parents")". Such was recognized in a founding document of the United States, and it holds true from the moment of our conception when such endowment begins.

The United States does not exist in NS. Nor is the idea from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the document the US is based on.

Also, your parents do not grant you life. They allow a process to start that may result in life. It also, quite often, doesn't result in life.

If you get right down to it, the only universal human right is death. All humans die. Not all are allowed to even live.

The dictionary's primary definition of "person" is: 1. a human being. Since you holler for proof that the newly conceived is a person, there it is. By virtue of being a unique individual living human being, the newly conceived qualifies as a "person" from that moment on.

A clump of human cells does not equate a human being. If it did, that would mean every dead body, disconnected body part, piece of skin shedded naturally, hair shedded, etc. are all separate human beings.

Also, that definition is invalid. Definitions are only valid if they are not changed in general usage in NS. NS has changed person, man, woman, child, etc. to extend beyond humans.

And, of course, you attempt to dismiss my list of pro-abortionists' sophistries ... merely because they truthfully indict you.

They don't indict anything except you. They lack the evidence to back them up and are unfounded on actual evidence.

There. I just stated the straightforward truth, revealed your sophistries for what they are, debunked them, and left you looking foolish and dysfunctional afterward ... further indication that we cannot afford to base U.N. policy on the dysfunctional disorders of fools.

Flamebait. Keep it up, sonny.

No, you left yourself the laughing stock. Your arguements are flawed, based on essential assumptions to you that are not universal, rely heavily on misinterpreted scientific evidence, actually prove or disprove nothing, are flamebait, and have left your side with no defense.

That any cell has human DNA is not the qualifier.
Here you are employing sophistry 1 (please see my list of pro-abortionists' sophistries on page 11 of this thread) and you are bordering on sophistry 2.

The qualifier is that a conception has taken place, for, as DNA science has proven and every heart knows, that is the beginning of a new, unique, living individual human being. At the moment of conception, the 43 chromosomes have become, and in a way that began the life of a human being who is unique, as that DNA is human and not possessed by any other person. The conception of a new unique individual human being is the qualifer for the right to life.


That a single human cell meets the qualifications for life does not make it a living human being.
True, but, of course, your presentation here is just diversionary sophistries 2 and 3 again.

The relevant matter at hand is that the "cell" in question is a conception. A conception, by definintion, is an independent unit that is a living being, yes, and, by virtue of being a conception -- a human being conception -- makes that conception, logically, a living human being.

The conception, Anti Pharisaism, is everything.


That the single cell has the capacity to grow and develop into a fully developed human being means a new life has begun.
It matters not how subtle your sophistries, Anti Pharisaism, it only matters that they are sophistries.

That "capacity" about which you speak is not implied "potential", but real life and kinetic from the moment of conception.

And that the "new life has begun" is not to be misconstrued as "not fully complete and thereby undeserving of the right to life". A newly conceived unique living individual human being is complete in human being status to have been granted the first and foundational right: the right to life.


Now, that does not mean it has a right to life,
The newly conceived unique individual human being is alive. Thus this person's creators -- this person's "parents" -- have endowed that person with life. Had the newly conceived person had no right to life, that person could not have accepted his life. The mere existance of the newly conceived unique individual human being's very life is evidence that he has a right to it.

The right to life is not granted by government. It is granted by a more foundational source upon which government sits, and government has no jurisdiction to rightly deprive one of their right to life.


as no one has such a right,
I believe I have disproved your sophistry here above.

Nevertheless, it is quite obvious you have an agenda, that it is important to you, likely for some "killing" reason, that the inherent right to life we all possess be sophistrically non-existent in your mind.


we lack the capability of physical immortality.
The right to life, Anti-Pharisaism, means that such a right, once granted -- from the moment of conception -- cannot rightly be deprived by another human being without just cause.

That you imagine the right to life as being anything more than it is, that such would require immortality to exist, is quite the sophistrical diversion from the heart of the matter of what rights truely are.


It may be granted a right or duty bestowed on others not to interfere or harm the growing and developing entity.
Granted by whom, Anti Pharisaism? And under what circumstances?

Here you error in assuming that any other person has an unjust right to kill another, and you argue sophistrically by saying, in effect, that the lack of being "granted a right or duty bestowed on others not to interfere or harm the growing and developing entity" means that if the parents do not care for their newly conceived human being, that means that, when that human being logical-conclusionarily dies, that person was not "killed".

This is pure sophistry, Anti Pharisaism, tantamount to saying that a person who was pushed off of a building was "killed by" the fall, sophistrically excusing the pusher.

That you would argue the right to life in terms of the power of another person "not" to kill, as if that "right" superceeded the right to life we all share, the right to life of the potential victim, implies that you have unresolved issues with regard to the power of "others" over your own very life or the life of someone close to you.


However, if non-persons are not granted such rights, but rather a duty from others, when does society stipulate that the mother, father, and society have acted such that the duty exists?
Since there is no heart-centered or mentally reasonable doubt that a newly conceived unique living individual human being is a person, as I easily and straightforwardly proved to you in the beginning of this post, your premise here is, thereby, false, and, therefore, the rest of your statement, complete with implied conclusion, is invalid, and must be restated with all-true premises in order to be of validity.


That is a value judgment for individual NS to hash out amongst themselves.
No, Anti Pharisaism, even setting the invalidity of your preamble aside, the right to life cannot be justly deprived by the U.N. or any nation, as that right is within a foundation of reality upon which sits both the U.N. and every nation.

Indeed, the U.N. pro-abortion resolution must be repealed, as it allows unjustified deprivation of the inherent right to life.

And ... the U.N. must pass a resolution recognizing the inherent right to life and limiting abortion in member nations based upon that right.

No, I'm basing mine on the enlightenment of proof. If there is not proof, then it is not a fact. I find a lot of yours to be a sophistry of pseudoscience, emotional arguements, and flamebait.



No, we deny the fiction that it is fact that life begins at a certain point and choose one that is convenient for what little we have to judge with. Also, DNA is not required for life. AIs are recognized in DLE as both alive and sentient despite the fact they have no DNA, as they have shown the capacity to adapt and even reproduce when needed. What you are stating is not a fact.

Oh, emotional arguements are not accepted as valid.



Guess what? Dead bodies also have unique DNA, and often certain parts of the body live on long after the actual person dies. What you are arguing is not scientific fact, but an emotional misinterpretation of scientific evidence. I am not asking for proof because I know you have none.



This is flamebait. Just because we rely on scientific evidence for proving life instead of a bunch of unreliable emotions does not mean we are crazy or crippled in some way.

To be honest, I find this rather amusing to see someone take their limited knowledge of science and the pseudoscience of psychology and twist it to try to invalidate their opponents.



You do realize you are talking about all scientists, including the ones who provided the information you are so maliciously raping for this, right? You just invalidated your own arguement by invalidating the evidence it stands on.



Actually, most of us are quite emotional. We've just learned when it is appropriate to control those emotions and not let them cloud our mind. Once of the greatest weaknesses of humanity is, as you have demonstrated, the ability to let emotions take evidence and twist it in the wrong way.

Oh, and this is still flamebait and unsupported by fact.



Actually, I have all of my psychological orders catalogued for future reference. None of them include what you are talking about. In fact, one of them is the fact I am too emotional and must struggle to control them.



I've complained about the "either-or conclusion" many times in the past. However, in this case the evidence supports the validity of such a view. After all, it can't be both alive and dead without us getting into fiction.

And, us being mentally-centered means we like knowledge and fact. If people who prefer facts are arguing against you, you should really examine your arguement.



Actually, the heart knows nothing. The statement "the heart knows" comes from the Egyptian belief the heart does what we now know the brain to do. So, by stating it you are supplying a religious belief.

Also, you are right on that part about religion. It doesn't stop them, though, from arguing it. Check out the General forum and start a debate on abortion.



The cry of "Religion!" is valid because the idea of the heart as the center of the being comes from Egyptian religious beliefs. So, it's not irrational.

And, the heart is not the metaphoric center of every person. Some are centered metaphorically in the heart and some are centered metaphorically in the brain. Stop using generalizations that you can't prove.



Uh, we don't argue that... At least, the smart ones don't...



I had a very good family life and view pregnancy as a wonderful, glorious thing. So do many of my fellows. Point disproven by the reality of the people.



More flamebait. Once again, just because we oppose you doesn't mean we are crazy. Stay away from the psychology books until you can use them properly.



Once again, not matching reality. A lot of pro-abortionists, in fact the leaders of it for awhile in the past, are women. Women not being controlled by men, but by their want to have that choice. Now, you're being sexist and posting flamebait for the guys.



Uh, it's actually unhealthy to utterly hate the opposite sex, as you hint at. It's usually the result of psychological trauma. Also, most of the women who get abortions are single and middle class. So, you are posting misinformation as well and none of that is true.



Tell that to the French Revolutionists. I'm sure they will see the "light" of what you say instead of guillotining you for what they view as stupidity.

There is no evidence, from science, it is more than a clump of cells. Keep in mind your finger also has human DNA. Cutting it off doesn't make it a separate lifeform.



Once again, emotional flamebait with no basis in facts. Leave the books to those qualified to use them properly.



Uh, some contraceptive chemicals actually destroy the zygote. And, it's not imperative just because of your pseudoscientific and unfactual postings make it so.
It is truly sad to watch you twist when exposed to the truth, DemonLordEnigma.

Your commentary by itself is an all to common example of the employment of every sophistry in the book (please see my post of the list of pro-abortionists' sophistries on page 11 of this thread).

As a compentent mental health practitioner, I strongly admonish you to seek therapy for affective detachment disorder. Seriously, for the sake of your life's happiness, do consider it.

Here you are employing a variant combination of sophistries 2 and 3 (please see my post on page 11 of this thread where I list pro-abortionists' sophistries), and you employ your sophistries in an attempt to, once again, minimalizingly belittle the reality that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

I do not belittle anything. Life is not a special thing that possesses any unique protections of its own, however, life is a right to the individual "person". But, the only way they can possess that right, is in lieu of being a "person"; an intelligent, conscious, self-aware being. There is no disctinction between a "human being" and "homo sapien sapien" and differentiation is one of your own construct, and meaningless to this debate; it's refference to species type, but rights are not granted or limited to the bigoted concept of limitations to species, but in lieu of the existance of personhood in the being, so whereas you limit rights to your own species (regardless whether they possess personhood or not), we transcend species borders on the basis of personhood, and not special membership by character of ancestry. A fetus does not demostrate personhood; and is therefore no different than any other animal, and exists in posession of the mother; to which she has every right to destroy her own property if she wishes. If life was enough to qualify for special protection, True Heart, you would be dead now, or brought up on charges of mass murder for ending the life of a large compliment of creatures for everytime you ate, blew your nose, or took medication or any form of anti-biotics.... Sorry; life is not a thing to which special protection is granted; unless it is the question of the possessed life of a person.


Then you demean the right to life as "special" as if it was an afterthought granted to a subset of people on the basis of special circumstances. But in truth, the right to life is not a limitedly applied "special right" -- it is a right we are all "endowed by our creator (our "parents")". Such was recognized in a founding document of the United States, and it holds true from the moment of our conception when such endowment begins.
It is... and you yourself admit do, in your sophitical limitations to it on the arbitrary principle of species descent... So you yourself, even when not directly admiting it, infer it by other criteria. That the possession of unique DNA and being in descent or in the scope of a certain animal classification, enjoins it special privilidges. But it is inconsistent, because all forms of biological life, regardless of compexity enjoy your limited qualifiers on the subject... so the mere fact you are alive, proves you violate your own governing rules on a daily basis... because had you been consistent, you would have starved to death by now.


The dictionary's primary definition of "person" is: 1. a human being. Since you holler for proof that the newly conceived is a person, there it is. By virtue of being a unique individual living human being, the newly conceived qualifies as a "person" from that moment on.

Wrong definition... "A human being" is not necessarily a person... not in the philosophical sense, we are reffering to the universal principle of "person" and not your xenophobic bigoted definition of the term, a person must posses specific qualifiers to be legally a person; namely (1)Intelligence, (2)Self-Awareness, and (3) Consciousness.... without all three qualifiers you have a thing, or a simple animal....


And, of course, you attempt to dismiss my list of pro-abortionists' sophistries ... merely because they truthfully indict you.

They are dismissed because they show the ingrafted bigotry and xenophobia of your beliefs... You are no better than Hitler, limiting certain qualifiers based on race, as opposed to true personhood outside the boundries of DNA and special barriers. Your mind is too limited to engraft the step of attaining universal definition to personhood to be protected beyond your own species. You are a racist of universal scope...

Where is the Supreme AI Engima when you need him....

Turns out I wasn't done after all.


....and every heart know......


Every heart? Not mine. Not a number of people's apparently. Just because you think it so does not make it true for everyone. I happen to think the world is flat, that elves are very sexy when they smile and that you can get a good deal from a used cart salesman. But that doesn't make it true, not does it make every heart believe it.

For someone who is accusing other people of relying on faulty logic and sophistry, you are engaging in quite a lot of it yourself.


The right to life is not granted by government


If the right ot life is not granted by the government, then why are you trying to pass a law that lets the government grant it?


Indeed, the U.N. pro-abortion resolution must be repealed, as it allows unjustified deprivation of the inherent right to life.


But you just said that the government can not grant the right to life, and if this repeals the governments of the UN will be doing just that.


And ... the U.N. must pass a resolution recognizing the inherent right to life and limiting abortion in member nations based upon that right.

So that the government, which - according to you - can not grant the right to life, can grant the right to life?

As a compentent mental health practitioner, I strongly admonish you to seek therapy for affective detachment disorder. Seriously, for the sake of your life's happiness, do consider it.
You'd be much more amusing to read if you stuck to silliness that had some kernal of possible truth to it.

If you remove the zygote from the womb, it dies before it ever becomes a child. That is why I used a finger.

If you want a valid example, then I can always use sperm. They are intended to become a child. However, removed from their environment they die.



Actually, he's pointing out the fact that not everything recognized as a person in NS is human or, for that matter, even existing outside of a computer (like my AIs).

Also, using DNA as a base is saying dead bodies deserve the same rights as the living.



Arguement not based on fact. Tekania, myself, and most of the people on here do not use the species classification, nor did Tekania use it in his post. When I say human, I mean human as in the species Homo sapiens sapiens (note the corrections I made for the next time you use it, as "sapiens" is always with the "s" and "Homo" is always capitalized). In fact, if you knew what it means you would be complaining that people are not using it more often.

"Homo" means "man." "Sapiens" means "wise." So, the name translates to Wise Wise Man. That is, of course, a misnomer and historically proven to be untrue. I have a more appropriate name in mind, but I will not post it at this time.



The United States does not exist in NS. Nor is the idea from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the document the US is based on.

Also, your parents do not grant you life. They allow a process to start that may result in life. It also, quite often, doesn't result in life.

If you get right down to it, the only universal human right is death. All humans die. Not all are allowed to even live.



A clump of human cells does not equate a human being. If it did, that would mean every dead body, disconnected body part, piece of skin shedded naturally, hair shedded, etc. are all separate human beings.

Also, that definition is invalid. Definitions are only valid if they are not changed in general usage in NS. NS has changed person, man, woman, child, etc. to extend beyond humans.



They don't indict anything except you. They lack the evidence to back them up and are unfounded on actual evidence.



Flamebait. Keep it up, sonny.

No, you left yourself the laughing stock. Your arguements are flawed, based on essential assumptions to you that are not universal, rely heavily on misinterpreted scientific evidence, actually prove or disprove nothing, are flamebait, and have left your side with no defense.
Your sophistry, DemonLordEnigma, is all diversionary. You indeed must have an agenda to kill.

You are thereby foundationally unsafe to human beings, and you are not to be trusted with the care of other human beings.

Thereby I warn all who come this way to be wary of DemonLordEnigma's agendas to kill -- his opinion is foundationally unsafe to you.

Your sophistry, DemonLordEnigma, is all diversionary. You indeed must have an agenda to kill.

You are thereby foundationally unsafe to human beings, and you are not to be trusted with the care of other human beings.

Thereby I warn all who come this way to be wary of DemonLordEnigma's agendas to kill -- his opinion is foundationally unsafe to you.

* Racist statements in bold.

And may I enquire as to your killing agendas? Or your failure to address rights to anything other than homo sapien sapiens, my dear little racist friend?

You'd be much more amusing to read if you stuck to silliness that had some kernal of possible truth to it.
Translation: "I don't like your perspective."

Whether or not you like my perspective is not the issue, Frisbeeteria.

That you have a tendency to minimalizingly belittle what you don't understand that runs counter to your pre-conceived ideology, is the issue with you.

Your sophistry, DemonLordEnigma, is all diversionary. You indeed must have an agenda to kill.

Now you're being a hypocrite and posting more flamebait. Your are trying to distract from my arguement against you by trying to argue I am trying to kill everyone, and even that is not based on any form of fact.

Also, you don't need an agenda to kill. Accidents and unintended side-effects happen, and sometimes people are accidentally killed by others as a result. Part of life.

You are thereby foundationally unsafe to human beings, and you are not to be trusted with the care of other human beings.

Once again, trying to distract from the issue at hand and not based on fact or reality.

I run an entire NS empire. I'm in charge of more people than you care to imagine (or, for that matter, can). The fact the Empire still has people speaks to the contrary.

Thereby I warn all who come this way to be wary of DemonLordEnigma's agendas to kill -- his opinion is foundationally unsafe to you.

Still trying to distract others from the truth. Keep it up. You're only making yourself look bad.

That you have a tendency to minimalizingly belittle what you don't understand that runs counter to your pre-conceived ideology, is the issue with you.

Once again, trying to distract from the arguement by targetting others and accusing them of insanity. Where are the mods at?

* Racist statements in bold.

And may I enquire as to your killing agendas? Or your failure to address rights to anything other than homo sapien sapiens, my dear little racist friend?
Your attempt at sophistrical diversion is rejected, Tekania.

Stick to the topic at hand and don't divert.

The topic at hand is human beings and the reasons for repealing the U.N. pro-abortion measure are as I have stated them, complete with valid "personal illustrations" of the anti-human-being agenda of others.

Now, if you care to be included in that anti-human-being club, keep up the diversionary sophistries, as they are all reflective of an agenda to kill people ... and such reflects neuropsychlogical damage-oriented dysfunction and self-destructive tendencies.

Your attempt at sophistrical diversion is rejected, Tekania.

Stick to the topic at hand and don't divert.

The topic at hand is human beings and the reasons for repealing the U.N. pro-abortion measure are as I have stated them, complete with valid "personal illustrations" of the anti-human-being agenda of others.

Now, if you care to be included in that anti-human-being club, keep up the diversionary sophistries, as they are all reflective of an agenda to kill people ... and such reflects neuropsychlogical damage-oriented dysfunction and self-destructive tendencies.

I did, and you have yet to respond to my post before that one, my little racist.

"anti-human-being" ? Why because we believe in interstellar diversity, and the incorporation and rights of all persons regardless of species or mode? Now you sound like a Homo sapien version of the White Power movement. So now that we treat AI's and a multitude of beings regardless of mode or type as "persons" for possessing the unique qualifiers as "persons" we are anti-human? I don't need your bigotry child.

Your attempt at sophistrical diversion is rejected, Tekania.

Stick to the topic at hand and don't divert.

Hypocrisy. You pulled it and are now complaining when others do. If you don't like it when others use your tactics against you, then don't post.

The topic at hand is human beings and the reasons for repealing the U.N. pro-abortion measure are as I have stated them, complete with valid "personal illustrations" of the anti-human-being agenda of others.

Then why can't you stick to it? I've got several quotes of you going away from it. And all people here are posting is why your arguements are invalid.

Now, if you care to be included in that anti-human-being club, keep up the diversionary sophistries, as they are all reflective of an agenda to kill people ... and such reflects neuropsychlogical damage-oriented dysfunction and self-destructive tendencies.

The only diversion is your attempt to invalidate arguements by accusing them of sophistry, something I have caught you doing, and accusing people of insanity. And, that is still flamebait.

With all due respect, I must disagree.

Telling the heart-centered truth of a matter is always in order, no matter what sophisticated sophistries of resistant denial are employed in opposition by the minds of others.

Indeed, regarding the recently passed embryonic stem cell resolution, prior to presenting the clear and straight truth of the reality that embryos were indeed newly conceived unique living individual human beings, many apparently were unaware of that reality, and the measure was sadly passing by a very wide margin. However, after disclosing that truth on the last day of voting, the opposition made a comeback, and although the measure still passed, its percentage margin of victory was considerably smaller than before revealing the truth of the matter. Such indicates that, if a repeal was ever filed, posting the straight truth of the matter from the beginning, including exposure of the mentally centered sophistries of others, could have a successful effect in getting that horrific measure repealed.

Regardless of the outcome, it remains always of value to tell the straight truth in the matter rather than leave one's heart and climb into one's mind and manipulate for position and truly irrelevant and time-wasting gain.

In addition, coddling to the opposition, as you advocate, is codependent and, thereby, dysfunctional. Purposely acting in a dysfunctional manner is never justified. Such self-sacrificial behavior is always detrimental to one's self and others.

In truth, keeping true to one's heart and the truth it tells even while a majority of others are being untrue to theirs is of great exemplarary value, and does more to act as a convincing argument for the future than any compromise with dysfunctional untruth ever could.

Impressive. As a nation which values scientific justification above impulsive, reactionary statements, I have to say I enjoyed this post quite a lot.

First, I would like to discuss the idea of "heart-centered truth". WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? From reading your other posts, it seems to me that this view of the world is, well, limited. It takes the beliefs of one particular cultural group, defines them as a norm, and relates all conflicting ideas as amoralistic. Anthropologically, this is a fairly common phenomena that normally does nothing but increase general hatred and paranoia about other people, without ANY understanding whatseover.

"sophisticated sophistries of resistant denial" big redundant words = ?????

I am also curious what the 'clear and straight truth of the reality' is. It seems to me that someone is trying to glorify their own perception of a study or two. I question this because sentience is scientifically impossible to prove. Why? Because sentience is a social term whose comparisons use arbitrary discriminants. Whether people responded to the 'clear and straight truth of the reality' by changing their vote due to rational thought, or reactionary thought is also yet to be shown.

"codependent and, thereby, dysfunctional" Pardon? Codependence and altruism are trademarks of most civilized peoples, and any organism with any social order can be described as codependent. If you hope to find any success in banning any type of abortion, or even creating international regulations, you will have to act in a codependent manner. This is the only platform that will allow any sort of mutual satsifaction.

"Purposely acting in a dysfunctional manner is never justified. Such self-sacrificial behavior is always detrimental to one's self and others."

Funny thing about 'self sacrifricing behavior' is that it does a lot of good. In fact, in social organisms it is one of the most important behaviors of all. Case example - homosexuality in primates. It's estimated that in most of the great apes, around 35% of all individuals are homosexual. At first glance, this would seem purposeless, as these individuals would fail to reproduce. But, as it turns out, that's a good thing, becuase it limits the popluation while increasing the number of resource gathering members. Hence, homosexuality in these apes actually IMPROVES the quality of life for the ENTIRE GROUP.

"In truth, keeping true to one's heart and the truth it tells" You really like that word 'truth'... unfortunately, it's probably the most debated word in the English language, with 'reality' a close second.


"even while a majority of others are being untrue to theirs is of great exemplarary value, and does more to act as a convincing argument for the future than anycompromise with dysfunctional untruth ever could"

Hitler said (rough translation) "It is the virtue of the motherland to do what it knows in it's heart is the truth of it's people's future. No peoples of other nations shall ever be compromised with in pursuing this holy dream." In short, he said what you did. The context was a rally at a concentration camp. Thought you might enjoy that.

Hitler said (rough translation) "It is the virtue of the motherland to do what it knows in it's heart is the truth of it's people's future. No peoples of other nations shall ever be compromised with in pursuing this holy dream." In short, he said what you did. The context was a rally at a concentration camp. Thought you might enjoy that.

If you ever get tired of running your own nation, would you like to be my press secretary?

Having read all of the pro-abortionists' arguments in this thread, it is clear that all of their arguments are based on sophistries of denial.

This is gonna be fun.

1. The pro-abortionists deny the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, despite the reality that DNA science has proven that conception is the begining of a unique human being's very life, and despite the truth of the matter that we have all known in our heart ever since we discovered what conception is.

Ah, a classic argument, with classic problems. You need to show me several things in order for this to work:
1. What does it mean when something is 'living'. Don't give me the 'everyone knows the difference' response, because that's just a way of hiding. Show me an empirical system to determine what is living, and what is nonliving. What is the difference between a 'living thing' and 'a group of chemicals and biological materials reacting to one another'.
2. Can you cite the 'DNA science' that you refer to? See, whether or not the DNA is available to begin a human being's life, you can mix DNA and NOT GET HUMAN LIFE.

2. Part and parcel to denying the truth of "1." above is the pro-abortionists' pseudoscience sophistries whereby they use scientific phrases to minimalizingly belittle the reality of the newly conceived human being.

Do you read what you type? consider the phrases 'pseudoscience sophistries', 'minimalizingly belittle', and 'newly concieved'. You are being redundant, self-depreciative, and just plain stoopid.

Words and phrases like "a clump of cells", "a mere zygote", "not alive", "a mass of cells", "logical", etc. are frequently embeded in sophistries used by pro-abortionists to deny the real DNA science proof that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception.

In other words, you object to the use of proper, technical terms, because they don't have emotion. Which suggests that you really don't know or care what's actually happening during conception, since these terms are essential to that process. ALSO, you FAIL to cite ANY 'DNA SCIENCE PROOF' of any sort, and instead rely on it as a veneer of legitimacey for your argument.

Indeed, present the reality of DNA science proof that a unqiue individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, and the pro-abortionist will irrationally counter with "proof please".

It's irrational to ask for proof? So being able to justify your position with anything besides personal preference is unnecessary? Is your mind that numb?

No matter how much summary-to-detail proof of the DNA science reality that is provided, the pro-abortionist suffering from science-addiction will denially respond with some form of broken-record irrational request for "proof please".

So what you're saying is that if you give a 'science addicted person' scientific proof then they're going to not believe it? Aren't these the people who do the scientific research that generates the scientific proof? Regardless, you've never shown any proof.

3. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that their "science", "logic", "rationalism" is a superior method of "mind", and that any opposing viewpoint is "emotional" and therefore "invalid".

For the purposes of legislation, we do require more than an emotional reason. Why? Because subjective arguments change person to person, region to region, and culture to culture. It has no universal value.

Their perspective here reflects a truly sad aspect of the pro-abortionists' mentalisms.

Our mentalisms? You like making up words.

The horror of their killing-advocation has exacerbated their already pathological affective detachment disorder, a neruopsychological disorder whereby they are memory-and-emotionally detached from repressed/suppressed relationship experiences in their life. The symptoms of this disorder are extremes of thought that are irrational and violate known truths. Nevertheless, they are oblivious to their own errors of both logic and scientific reference. Indeed, sufferers of this malady speak as if science is their god and they talk in scientific terms. This addiction to science is a reaction to their disorder, as science is, they will tell you, "unfeeling" and "unemotional", and so their irrational pseudoscienceism acts as a reactive defense mechanism, a method of functionally coping with their neuropsychological disorder, a coping method they employ in an unconconscious attempt to hide their disorder from both their conscious self and others. Thus they come off cold and unfeeling in the matter when in reality they are merely detached from those parts of themselves relevant to this matter. But, of course, when presented with the reality of their neuropsychological disorder of affective detachment, they will vehemently deny it, part and parcel of their denial-based coping mechanism with the disorder itself.

So you're saying that anyone who uses scientific criteria is unable to lead a health emotional life, via your concocted psychological disorder? If that is so, then perhaps you need to take a few more psych classes before pretending to understand all of humanity.

4. Another sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is that all pro-life arguments are religious in orientation and they are therefore thereby "invalid". Because science is often at contentional odds with its older cousin religion, it is not suprising that the polemic dualistic tendency of the mentally-centered, whom the pro-abortionists are, would compel them to create an either-or conclusion in the matter.

Not all pro-life arguments are religious, I will concede. But a lot of them are. And one religion should not be given political preference over others. Also, just because religion supports something doesn't mean science won't. That's a narrowminded belief. Have you ever sat back and realized how much you are stereotyping everyone on both sides of this issue when you write this crap? It's really very disgusting.

Though many anti-abortionists are religious, owing to matters of their own neuropsychological dysfunctions, there is no valid religious support-argument for the reality that a unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception as DNA science and every heart knows.

So the heart knows DNA science? Wow. Also, you suggest rather directly that the desire to pursue religion is a neuropsychological dysfunction, which I doubt much of your constituency would agree to. If you can prove that statement, using neuropsychology (since that's how you claim you can do it), I'd love to give it a look. I happen to be friends with quite a few neuropsychologists, and we've been looking for a fun read.

Yet when confronted with the reality of the human heart, the very metaphorical center of being of every person, wherein lies the truth of the matter, the pro-abortionists irrationally cry "Religion!", as if such a reference to the center of being of every human being is somehow a "Christian" or whatever "religious" perspective when in truth it is not.

Actually, the human heart is only metaphorically the center of being in a few select religions. Other religions use the navel, the eye, or the genitals, just to name a few. It's your personal worldview that makes you see any attack on the 'heart' as the 'center of a person' as a feature common to all people. OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK OUTSIDE OF YOUR PERSONAL BOX.

5. A favorite sophistry of denial used by pro-abortionists is the ubiquitous appeal to "women's rights". They irrationalize away the reality that the newly conceived human being is alive, saying the newly conceived human being is "not" alive "by virtue of" a woman's right "to control her own body". This is, obviously, an illogical statement.

Whether or not a newly concieved human being is alive is irrelevant. Women (& Men) have the right to decide what they do with their bodies. EVEN IF A CHILD IS ALIVE, a woman does not have to consent to giving her body as a source of nutrients and safeharbor for the child. It is her choice where those nutrients and tissues go, and what they are contributed to.

6. Regarding a woman's right "to control her own body", this is often a phrase employed by pro-abortionists as a projection of their own unresolved control issues onto the pregnant woman, unresolved control issues stemming from damage they experience in their family-of-origin and subsequently in interpersonal peer relationships.

Funny how you don't have any evidence to support your claim. In fact, it seems like you're pretty much trying to say that anyone who believes other than you has severe mental issues, and ought to be locked away. Stalin used that policy to lock up his political enemies too. It works, but nobody will like you if you pursue it.

These people have "controlled by" issues that are best resolved by a visit to the therapist's office rather than a visit to the abortuary. Indeed, no one owns the life of another, no matter whether that other is without or within them, and thus they cannot rightly claim the so-called "right" to kill another on the basis of "ownership", and such claiming is symptomatic of neuropsychological dsyfunction warranting the help of a competent mental health practitioner. Regardless of the horrific history of the subjugation of women, such does not give anyone the right to deprive the newly conceived of their right to life in a transferred act of indignant defiance of the "controllers" onto the newly conceived human being. Indeed, such an act should thereby be a hint to women that the string-pullers in the pro-abortion movement are men, dysfunctionally immoral fuk-and-kill funster men who are so cowardly frightened of taking responsibility for the very life they participated in creating, that they would submit their partner to the neuropsychologically damaging guilt-inculcating act of abortion, forcing their partner to kill the living human being within her.

First, please work on not running sentences together. It creates gibberish. Second, you apparently don't like men, and have no real concept of psychology. Third, though a woman does not have the right to deprive a newly concieved fetus of life, she does have the right to deny it the use of her body. As this would result in the eventual death of the fetus, the humane response to allowing this is killing the fetus (which cannot be proved to be sentient, or a human being, as these are social terms with vague meanings). Fourth, I encourage you to stop trying to justify your position through concocted stories and begin using actual facts.

Talk about an act of subjugation of women by men! Indeed, the originial feminists were aware of this, and they opposed abortion.

Actually, the original feminists were arrested for handing out condoms, helping women get street abortions, and handing out literature describing the care of the female reproductive system.

Sadly, socioeconomic dynamics have forced many women to the self-abuse of abortion merely to stay independent from the very controllingly abusive men which they revile.

Again, you suggest many things. 1. You know the specific circumstances of the life of every woman who has ever wanted an abortion. 2. You suggest that women who have abortions are automatically independent of any sort of male control (which has been shown false - look up teenage abortions caused by incestuous fathers). 3. Apparently all men are absuive, controling, fuk-n-kill oriented creatures (which is why they created civilization?)

7. Indeed, socioeconomics are often the divertive sophistrical appeal employed by the pro-abortionists when they argue that a woman couldn't time-and-money afford to raise a child by herself in this economy when her cowardly partner runs from the responsibility inherent in his act.

You love buzzwords (socioeconomic), but can't use them very well. You also suggest that all women who get abortions for economic reasons are victims of men who left them. This is far from true. Statistics (consult the American Psychological Association for a copy) show that most men oppose their wives and sexual partners getting an abortion, while most women who do recieve abortions actually pursue them on their own.

But, regardless of the stressful life they imply for the woman, none of these pro-abortion advocates ever admit that the newly conceived unique living individual human being within her is ever anything more than a "mere clump of cells", and that is the nature of this divertive sophistry in the matter. The truth of the matter is that economic hardship is no excuse to kill.

But we kill all the time. We kill germs, bugs, viruses, etc. The only difference in this case is that you are declaring this particular 'lump of cells' to be a human being with full sentiency and rights, which you have yet to justify. EVEN THEN, no human being is forced to sacrifice their own health and body for another being to subsist. If you would argue otherwise, then it would be equally logical to legalize cannibalism for poor people.

Regardless of the sophistry employed by the pro-abortionists, it is quite clear that they are both neuropsychologically dysfunctional and wrong in their rhetoric. It is simply unacceptable to healthy and civilized people to have U.N. policy based on a neuropathology. A repeal of all abortion-condoning measures that are not based on the self-defense of the mother's very life is absolutely imperative. Also imperative is the harnessing of science to actually serve humanity by developing the perfect conception prevention chemicals and making them available for both men and women of any age free of charge no questions asked.

Except you can't actually prove any of your neuropathology whatsoever. And you can't provide a valid argument who's tangents you would also support. And you really, really, don't know how to write a conclusion. Your sophistries are simply demonstrations of your overall ability to confine your beliefs and understanding of complex issues to a few select experiences and accounts. You ridicule conflicting arguments without giving them any real analysis, and you are quite satisifed to say that anyone who doesn't think like you do is crazy and had an abusive childhood. You also appear to believe that men have enslaved women through the act of sex, and that men are actively pursuing the worldwide destruction of babies to satisfy their 'fuk'n kill' instincts. In short, I invite you to take back your juvenile comments to other arguments and rethink your ENTIRE paradigm. Your argument is only valid in a select group of people, and applying it to the entire population is not only irrational, it's abusive towards those people. It is an act of segregation favoring a self declared 'morally/psychologically superior' group, which is in many senses what the 'freedom' that 'leftist' UN nations are protecting is trying to prevent.

Delegate of Thgin
Itchy Spot

If you ever get tired of running your own nation, would you like to be my press secretary?

nah, I like to argue too much... and besides, press secretaries dont' dictate national policy... at least directly... hehehehehe

Impressive. As a nation which values scientific justification above impulsive, reactionary statements, I have to say I enjoyed this post quite a lot.
Yes ... but in what way did you "enjoy" it?!


First, I would like to discuss the idea of "heart-centered truth". WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Every person has a center of being, a metaphorical heart, that is served, in a neuropsychologically healthy person, by the mind and the soul (and by soul I don't mean religion's "ghost in the machine" that continues on after one dies, but merely that which feels and interfaces primarily our body to our heart and secondarily our world to our heart).

All human hearts share common human truths, and each heart possess idiosyncratic personal truths. Personal truths are never in conflict with common truths.

The mind is where one thinks, and it interfaces primarily the world to our heart and secondarily our body to our heart.

You ask what "heart-centered truth" means. You would have to be out of your mind to grasp the meaning. ;)


From reading your other posts, it seems to me that this view of the world is, well, limited.
Indeed, my view of the world is limited -- it excludes mentally-centered sophistries of denial as being of any value to the human heart, and there are certainly a lot of those sophistries masquerading as an accurate representation of reality, sophistries that many derive a degree of neurochemical addictive enjoyment from expressing.


It takes the beliefs of one particular cultural group, defines them as a norm, and relates all conflicting ideas as amoralistic.
You are in error -- my perspective is not based on any "culture" or "group". I'm afraid, that you are projecting your own subtle expression of such.

My perspective is leading-edge state-of-the-art human neuropsychology. It is based on the reality of 20 billion neurons with over 1.4 quadrillion ever-changing synaptic connections.

There are consistent realities in the human neuropsyche that apply to all, even across culture boundaries.

This may be news to you ... so you might want to reserve foolish judgment.


Anthropologically, this is a fairly common phenomena that normally does nothing but increase general hatred and paranoia about other people, without ANY understanding whatseover.
Maybe what you're imagining may do so ... but, as you may see by now, such does not accurately apply to my perspective.

Regardless, I find it interesting that you have yet to state your perspective on the thread-topical matter, and I can only guess as to your perspective based on your choice to engage my perspective.


"sophisticated sophistries of resistant denial" big redundant words = ?????
There is no errant redundancy here, not that it really matters. Regardless, your need to find analytical fault with the phrase does however speak volumes as to your compulsion to pick apart without any apparent general direction or motive, especially that which may be indicting.


I am also curious what the 'clear and straight truth of the reality' is.
Relevantly speaking, it's what's obviously left after the sophistries disappear.


It seems to me that someone is trying to glorify their own perception of a study or two.
It seems to me that someone is hoping to read something into the statement to prove his pre-conceived point.


I question this because sentience is scientifically impossible to prove. Why? Because sentience is a social term whose comparisons use arbitrary discriminants. Whether people responded to the 'clear and straight truth of the reality' by changing their vote due to rational thought, or reactionary thought is also yet to be shown.
You speak like a scientist. Are you a scientist? What branch of science?

You seem to think that the clear and straight truth of reality is "out there".

Have you considered the possibility that such may not be a scientifically measurable objectivity, and that it may lie within and yet still be common to all?


"codependent and, thereby, dysfunctional" Pardon? Codependence and altruism are trademarks of most civilized peoples, and any organism with any social order can be described as codependent.
Translation: "I'm codependent."

You are mistaking codependent for cooperative. I'm afraid your pseudo social-scientist slip is showing.

Cooperative is not codependent -- there's a significant difference between the two. The former is healthy, the latter is not.

You error in saying that codependence and altruism are tradmarks of most cilivized peoples. The truth is that they are both prevalent in nearly all if not all present societies, civilized or otherwise.

Codependency is a dysfunction. The elimination of codependency through healing and recovery will improve society immensely.


If you hope to find any success in banning any type of abortion, or even creating international regulations, you will have to act in a codependent manner. This is the only platform that will allow any sort of mutual satsifaction.
Success, Thgin, is not always measured by the end result.

I will tell the straight truth unencumbered by manipulative dysfunction, and I will thereby alienate many ... for a time.

But I will be true to my own heart and to the process of following my heart unwaveringly. That is success, Thgin.


"Purposely acting in a dysfunctional manner is never justified. Such self-sacrificial behavior is always detrimental to one's self and others."

Funny thing about 'self sacrifricing behavior' is that it does a lot of good. In fact, in social organisms it is one of the most important behaviors of all.
I'm sure from the perspective of the sacrificing leader and the controlling "social scientist" it is important to see good in dysfunction that mantains the privileged's hierachy.

The reality remains, that for human beings, the compulsion to self-sacrifice needlessly is rooted in codependency and other neuropsychological dysfunctions.

That you seem to think such behavior is necessary to survival implies that you are content to suffer dysfunction yourself, coping with it instead of recovering from it.


Case example - homosexuality in primates. It's estimated that in most of the great apes, around 35% of all individuals are homosexual. At first glance, this would seem purposeless, as these individuals would fail to reproduce. But, as it turns out, that's a good thing, becuase it limits the popluation while increasing the number of resource gathering members. Hence, homosexuality in these apes actually IMPROVES the quality of life for the ENTIRE GROUP.
And in what way were these homosexual apes self-sacrificing?

You seem to have gotten lost in making your point.


"In truth, keeping true to one's heart and the truth it tells" You really like that word 'truth'... unfortunately, it's probably the most debated word in the English language, with 'reality' a close second.
Do you have supportive statistics on that, Thgin, or is that merely a convenient hyperbole for the casting of doubt.

The degree to which truth and reality are debated, would, however, imply that debate is of the mind, and not of the heart, the heart being the orienting place of experiencing truth and reality that the mind cannot grasp.


"even while a majority of others are being untrue to theirs is of great exemplarary value, and does more to act as a convincing argument for the future than anycompromise with dysfunctional untruth ever could"

Hitler said (rough translation) "It is the virtue of the motherland to do what it knows in it's heart is the truth of it's people's future. No peoples of other nations shall ever be compromised with in pursuing this holy dream." In short, he said what you did. The context was a rally at a concentration camp. Thought you might enjoy that.
Actually, it was you who enjoyed your little anecdotal analogy. You do have a tendency to project, Thgin.

However, a "motherland" does not have a heart, so Hitler errored, literally, and he was merely projecting, no doubt, the collective unconscious of most Germans who were sufficiently similarly German-culture abused adult-children to agree with him.

Each of us does have a heart, Thgin, and, though most are out of touch with theirs, that does not negate the reality that every one of us has a heart and that the common beliefs (read: acknowledgments of truth) of all human hearts, such as the origin of our lives at the moment of our conception, is, nonetheless, reality.

And, by the way, I do find it curious that you never once in your "analysis" here bothered to tell your perspective on the thread-topic at hand.

Did you simply forget to do so ... or were you conveniently sidetracked?! ;)

<Appeal to Emotion>

While such tactics certainly aren't against forum rules, don't expect the regulars to be moved by them.

- "My heart will go on..."
UN Gnome #1640a922

Disagreement is not having lost capacity.

Agreed. But the method employed today is indicative of someone who is not their usual sharpshooting, listen to me sparky, self. Not at full capacity


Pft.


Irrelevant.

Exactly, that was illustrating what you are saying you consider a human life cycle to be, continuos, without begining or end. What you say is quite irrelevant, for several reasons. Let us delve deeper into the rabbit hole...

LIFE is without beginning or end. Do please not stoop to word twisting.



We disagree with this assertion. One pile of cells makes another pile of cells, as part of the "reproduction" ability of the first pile of cells. So, yes, a woman does "divide", if you wish to be crude. It is two sets of specialized cells creating another set of cells.

No, it is not. A sperm is not a cell, nor is the egg. There are no cells coming from the mother or father. So, there is no cell splitting ad infinitum. Life of the individual is not continuos. Genes and species, maybe. But you are not talking about that.

And here I was going to avoid the dictionary:
n. pl. sperm or sperms
1. A male gamete or reproductive cell; a spermatozoon.

Point mine, you lose, try again. That it is specialized does not make it not a cell.



Gosh, a woman divides. Like an ameoba. Fascinating. So male sperm presently are not necessary contributors for reproduction? A woman does just divide.

:rolleyes:

If you expand the definition and the method, in essence cells create cells. That the process results in a more complex pile of cells then an ameoba does not make it any less a process of creating more cells.



Who is we? The royal we? You mean to tell me I can't expect you to look at the screen, type, and think by yourself all at the same (Play on Big Lebowski, awesome movie, I wholeheartedly recomend)

Never seen, will probably rent.



You assume "soul=life". This is not the case. Ergo, wrong.


No, not at all. At best what I said was soul=consciousness, or is a manifestation of it. But you know the case. Awesome, enlighten everyone as to what a soul is, and how it exists outside of life and the physical person. Inquiring minds want to know.

Not today, as it is only peripherally germaine to the arguement at hand.



Proof. Otherwise, false.


Is a brain dead individual conscious. Remove your skull, start touching your brain, see what happens. What happened when the Rail Road Work had a pipe go through his head? Was he the same individual afterwards?(This is a pretty famous case, I am sure you know of and can find it given your omniscience)

Hate to bring this up, but there have been many cases of those with jello for brains - literally - yet had conciousness. The brain never fully formed, they should not have been concious, and yet they were - and fully active.

Parts of the radio being amputated does not mean much, except a limitation of the radio.



Why would a physical object have anything to do with the other process? Illogical, irrelevant.

Ok, maybe you are really ignorant of the human reproductive cycle and human development.

Nope, but cells have nothing to do with the process being referred to.



Mitosis or meiosis, it is cell division. Whichever process, it remains cell division, growth, reproduction, cycle. This is merely life doing what it does, nothing more.

Well, now that you say it is alive, and now that you know it is not a cell from the mother dividing and replicating. You can discuss why it is without rights and a duty of care. Or when rights or a duty of care is owed.

A) Its a pile of cells.
B) "No Sale" on "Duty of Care" to a pile of cells.
C) We already discussed this - when the three way test is passed, and not before.

You see, one piece you are entirely missing - by design or accident, we will not quibble - is that it is a matter of choice. A pile of cells cannot choose for itself. The host of the parasite can. Therefore, the host is a human with rights, and the pile of cells is a pile of cells.



Within the mother, it is a set of cells supported by a host - a parasite, and nothing more.

This isn't even a straw to grasp at anymore. Umpteen people have told you what a parasite is, and how a fetus is not a parasite. Either way, if you consider it a cell from the mother, or the mother actually dividing as part of this continuos life cycle, it is not a parasite, as you consider it part of the mother and her continuus life cycle by adopting that stance. Next closes thing would be two circle back to it being cancerous (it appears you have two different trains of thought meshing together). However, as previously stated, it does not qualify as cancer either.

Every speaker has missed the point - Legally, in Vastiva, it is a parasite, and nothing more. It absorbs, it gives nothing back, it is a parasite. And it remains a parasite until it becomes a "human being/person with rights".



You will have to point out where we said it is "re-associated".

For it to be, as you say, merely a cell from the mother self dividing as life does, it is a cell that just disassociates from the ovum, travels down the felopian tube, and re-associates in the womb. This is false. But is how one has to explain your continuos life, woman dividing, reproductive cycle. It is of course, false, everyone knows it is false. Even you I hope.

Good Lord, you will eventually perhaps understand that each pile of cells making more piles of cells is part of something larger then any pile of cells in and of itself. That part of "the process of making a pile of cells that may eventually separate and maybe become a person after birth, severing the umbilical cord, and first breath" is "and two gametes get together, and the house begins to be made" is just part of the process. Gah, but I'd swear you're intentionally dense occasionally. As it is different in DNA from the mother simply points further to its being a parasite - different, yet drawing nutrients. Whoopie! That this is part of a long biological process is still not stating "Life starts here", for Life has no "point of beginning" - it is an ongoing macroprocess. Until you can show me a human emerging from a desk, or a fly "appearing" from dog poop in a sterile container, the "Spontaneous emergence" theory is dead - we can agree on this, yes?

Then it remains - life is a process. It has neither beginning nor end. And a living cell - even one formed of reproductive cells - is just a cell, or pile of cells. If not, a dead thing should somehow have rights, and it does not.



Ah. Expand the "cycle", grasshopper. Cell growth becomes cell growth.

Does what grows inside a host mother some sort of "unique life"? No - it is cell division, following rules. There is nothing "special" about this division, it is merely specialized cells doing what they do, mechanically according to rules of biology.

Do point out at what point there is no life, and it "springs into being". Specialized cells (living) attach to other specialized cells (living) which makes more specialized cells (living). Life is making more life. Whoopie! Thats what cells do.

I have expanded cycle, quite explicitly. Such that a single self replicating skin cell cannot be considered a living human being.

We are discussing "life" not "humanity", AP. Mixing terms will not help you. A human skin cell is not "a human being" any more then a gamete is "a human being" any more then a fetus is "a human being". Potentially, the last has the greatest potential for the moment, but I give full nod to the potential of cloning.



What makes a conceptust special is that it is not like self replicating skin cells, or liver cells. It is a group of replicating cells that become specialized, that become skin cells, that become heart cells, that become brain cells. You did not come into being by a bunch of specialized cells attaching together. Embryonic stem cells, already attached, multiplied an developed into specialized cell. Other wise, you are a staunch advocate that stem cells do not exist, and are a worthless endeavor.

My, you are thick in this. That, or using bad technique.

Stem cells repair cells. Whoopie! They allow new cells to appear, to repair mechanisms that keep the "human" alive, to create a new thing that may potentially become "a human being/person with rights". And yes, you do come into being because a bunch of cells came together in the right order, according to DNA blueprints, modified by environmental conditions. That's it, that is cell replication in the reproductive cycle.

The question becomes - when did you become you? Legally, in Vastiva, it was after our three way test was met, and not before.



A sperm is not alive, an egg is not alive. When the two come together, a cell is formed, which is alive, is one stage of growth and development towards a complex organism.

According to that illogic, a sperm which has been exposed to the air for - oh, lets say a month - which mixes with an egg which has been outside the female for - oh, lets say a month - should spontaneously create a complex being. Wrong. Both cells are alive in some fashion, otherwise fertilization does not occur. Therefore, on base definition you are still wrong.



As we are discussing a legal point of "separate life", our arguement is entirely relevant. A parasitic organism such as this is not an individual with a right to rights. As that physical connection "needs" to exist, it is not an individual life, and we repeat our assertion it is a pile of cells and not a distinct "person" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.

It is not a parasite. It is growing and developing into a complete organism, which it will be before born.

That does not make it any less the parasitic organism while it is developing.



There is a point while still in the womb where that absolute physical connection does not need to exist. Even when outside of the womb a physical connection is still needed for food and immune system buildup. So an infant does not fully fit your main premise for indivuality and not being what you consider a parasite.

The test has three parts, not one.

When outside the womb - and when the three way test has been passed - a new set of law takes effect, as this is now a "somebody", a "human being/person with rights". Therefore, legally it is not a parasite.

We do not expect a baby human to fend for itself - this was part of the design of mankind. We could name dozens of species which do not require parents to continue.



Personhood. If you can acurately define what a person is, please do, inquiring minds want to know. The best information you give is that it has to have a brain to be a person. Fine, around twenty weeks, its brain is developing. Prior to birth, its brain is still forming. After birth, its brain is still forming. For about the first five years after being born, this is still the case. So, quit waffling between life and personhood. If you need to be alive to have rights, you lose, a fetus is alive. If you need to be a person to have rights, then you are saying infants and young children do not have rights.

Yep, intentionally dense. We named our three way test, you are aware of it, ergo, you are being intentionally dense.


Which is fine, either you allow parents to terminate them without discretion or consequence until they are persons, or a duty of care is owed to them not to physically harm or kill them.

Pass our three way test, you're a "human being/person with rights".
If you have not, its a "pile of cells with no rights".
We think that is rather simple.
We know we've pointed this out repeatedly.
We know you're being intentionally dense.

And "all life" is not "human life". Pointless - again, life is a continuum, not an event.



If there is no "starting point", there is no "beginning". Life just continues.


There is a starting point, there is an ending point. Life in general continues given reproduction occurs, the actual life of the individual does not.

Ah - good, you do understand. "Life" does continue. "The life of a specific individual" is not the same as "Life". Good, progress. Finally.

There is a starting point to the "lifespan" of an individual. And it starts after our three way test is passes. Before, that "thing" is a pile of cells, a house without occupant and nothing more. After, that is a "human being/person with rights".

Now you're getting somewhere.



Just life - nothing all that important at all.


Ok, that is fine. Nobody really needs to do anything, we could just die right now. In either event, why do you care if AP fishing boats steal fish thus murdering Vastivians if life is not important?

*sigh* still dense.

If the Earth exploded, so what, the universe continues, life continues.

If you steal fish, you are impinging on choice, and that has consequences. In this case, in the form of a torpedo or three.



We thank you for your blessing but do not need luck to remain correct.


Your right, at this point you need nothing short of divine intervention to pull through.

We seem to be doing fine.



Are worms "alive"? Certainly. Are they deserving of rights? No.


phew... something of note... welcome back

*thwock* Just because you haven't been paying attention...



That is the question is everything alive deserving of rights or a duty of care? If not, what is. Those that are deserving, when are those rights bestowed, or duty to care observed?

Is everything alive deserving of rights or "a duty of care"? No.
If not, what is? That which has passed our three way test, and is recognized as a "sentient" being (and we are using "Sentient" as we defined it in the UN Bill of Human Rights, to be clear).



Is a fetus alive, certainly. Is it a parasite, no. Is it deserving of rights? Probably not. Is it deserving of being free from intentional infliction of harm while it grows and develops? If so, when? Those are the million dollar questions that warrant consistent answers.

Alive? Yep.
Parasite? Yep, legally.
Deserving of Rights? No.
Is it deserving of being free from intentional infliction of harm while it grows and develops? After three way test is passed, yes to an extent as "harm" has not been defined here.

There, consistant and simple. Pass test, win yer rights. (/moment of sillyness)

And, further to that point, following the letter of that part of the resolution would put it in violation of the Sexual Freedoms resolution and make it illegal, because there are some sex activities that can hurt a little - physical harm, but they are protected by a previous resolution.

So if you keep going down this track, the resolution you mentioned would have to be repealed due to being illegal in light of earlier resolutions.

BDSM R US! I'd forgotten about that.

Invalid comparison. Your finger was never meant to be anything more than a finger, so it never will become more than that. An unborn baby (that "clump of cells"), on the other hand...

Uhm, wrong. Or rather "in light of the motion of technology, there is no reason to believe a finger, a hair folicle, or any other living cell could not eventually be modified through science to become a "house for a human being"."

Now, if you said "naturally", you might be on to something. But nature oft bends to science.

Gah! Do you realize that whole pages vanish off this thread when you ignore True Heart?

Discussion on AIM:

"On page 15..."
"Wait, mine only goes up to 13?"

NEAT!

While such tactics certainly aren't against forum rules, don't expect the regulars to be moved by them.

- "My heart will go on..."
UN Gnome #1640a922
You may be surprised what will move the regulars ... about which they may remain silent.

I do find it disheartening, though, that so many people are of the erroneous assumption that not only is appeal to emotion a "bad" thing, but that my presentations of rational thought operating on a broader set of criteria than found in most's egocentric information limitations are considered "emotion".

There seems to be a bias in discussion against using all of one's brain.

And this "person" talks about sophistry? Their entire post was nothing but sophistical bull****, built from some quack pseudo-science.

A bigoted and racist fool, wishing to pass his racism off as "neurophysiological stability"....


You ask what "heart-centered truth" means. You would have to be out of your mind to grasp the meaning.

Which would mean, at this stage, you must have a pretty firm grasp on what it means.... because you are out of your flipping mind.

At this point, the Representative from the Constitutional Republic of Tekania moves to have the representative of True Heart declared insane.... and commited to a nice friendly institution where they can be put in one of those "I love me" jackets in a nice soft-walled room.

---

"Being" exists only as a qualifier of those who posses Intelligence, Self-Awareness, and Consiousness... regardless of special or typological class. The Constitutional Republic of Tekania moves to publically condemn the humanist racism of True Heart, and will have no part in the furtherment of their blatant racist philosophies... Μάιος το μυαλό που σας είναι μια ημέρα ανοικτή στην καθολική αλήθεια.

Regardless of species, mode or form of creature; all whom possess the qualifiers of being, have rights; and those who do not possess those qualifiers, have no rights as individuals. a fetus is not a being by the universal definition of the principle... they lack the three neccessary qualifiers, they are therefore a living object, but not an individual; and therefore have no rights as persons.

But we kill all the time. We kill germs, bugs, viruses, etc. The only difference in this case is that you are declaring this particular 'lump of cells' to be a human being with full sentiency and rights, which you have yet to justify. EVEN THEN, no human being is forced to sacrifice their own health and body for another being to subsist. If you would argue otherwise, then it would be equally logical to legalize cannibalism for poor people.
Well, finally -- you strike your colors. You're a pro-abortionist, Thgin. Here you clearly and overtly employ sophistry number 2 (please see my list of pro-abortionist's sophistries on page 11 of this thread) and thereby reveal the reality of your pro-abortionist's mindset.

It took you two posts of sophistries (mostly covert sophistry number 3s) and a myriad of attack-ego displays of subtle to brutal unjustified and diversionary personal attacks on topically absolute nothings before you finally revealed near the end of your second post here the reality that you are a pro-abortionist and that all of your sophistries, attacks, and diversions were merely an egocentric defense mechanism for your untenable position, a position that conflicts with your very heart.

You have been emotionally dishonest and deceitful, Thgin. You are nothing more than ubiquitous.

I may choose to respond to your other sophistries if time permits and it serves my purpose. But since you have now come out of the closet, so to speak, there's really no reason for me to stimulate you further.

And this "person" talks about sophistry? Their entire post was nothing but sophistical bull****, built from some quack pseudo-science.

A bigoted and racist fool, wishing to pass his racism off as "neurophysiological stability"....



Which would mean, at this stage, you must have a pretty firm grasp on what it means.... because you are out of your flipping mind.

At this point, the Representative from the Constitutional Republic of Tekania moves to have the representative of True Heart declared insane.... and commited to a nice friendly institution where they can be put in one of those "I love me" jackets in a nice soft-walled room.

---

"Being" exists only as a qualifier of those who posses Intelligence, Self-Awareness, and Consiousness... regardless of special or typological class. The Constitutional Republic of Tekania moves to publically condemn the humanist racism of True Heart, and will have no part in the furtherment of their blatant racist philosophies... Μάιος το μυαλό που σας είναι μια ημέρα ανοικτή στην καθολική αλήθεια.

Regardless of species, mode or form of creature; all whom possess the qualifiers of being, have rights; and those who do not possess those qualifiers, have no rights as individuals. a fetus is not a being by the universal definition of the principle... they lack the three neccessary qualifiers, they are therefore a living object, but not an individual; and therefore have no rights as persons.
Translation: "I, Tekania, am a pro-abortionist ... and after reading True Heart's posts I feel as guilty as hell about it! So to hide from my overwhelming guilt, I will simply attack True Heart in hope of suppressing True Heart and burying my guilt in that suppression."

Translation: "I, Tekania, am a pro-abortionist ... and after reading True Heart's posts I feel as guilty as hell about it!"

Translation: I, True Heart, think I am winning even when I'm losing, because I'm falling deeper into my well of self-deception.

I don't feel guilty at all about it, because you have not actually provided any information contesting this grand Republic's views, but have done great work in cementing the universality of the Repulics philosophical principles on this issue, and an understanding of the homo-centricity of your racism.

Translation: I, True Heart, think I am winning even when I'm losing, because I'm falling deeper into my well of self-deception.

I don't feel guilty at all about it, because you have not actually provided any information contesting this grand Republic's views, but have done great work in cementing the universality of the Repulics philosophical principles on this issue, and an understanding of the homo-centricity of your racism.
You seem to think it's about winning and losing, Tekania, when in reality it's all about taking one's journey from mind to heart.

That you demean your own species by means of the phrase "homo-centricity of your racism" and that you do so when doing so is irrelevant to the topic at hand, indicates you have some unresolved abuse issues inflicted by the hands of members of your own species, issues which you project onto other species for the sake of dealing with your painful personal issues from a safe emotional distance, in which scenario you transfer those who hurt you onto all who are "cruel to animals" where you also store anyone who disagrees with your self-deprication of your own species, upon whom you displace your pent-up wrath.

Alright, I, among all others whom you have probably ever encountered, have offered you a scientific rational that leads to a moral justification for limitting or abolishing abortion. You choose to ignore that science, and make proper value judgments from it. A way to scientifically counter pro-abortion arguments, you choose to pay no attention. Do you need to be forcefed information, or can you figure things out on your own from reading, and accurately discern what is implied? Apparently, no, you cannot.

Still, you rely on metaphysical reasoning and poor genetic understanding. True Heart, you work more against saving the lives of those you try to protect than any pro-abortionist, as you cloud reason and create a stigma of scientific ignorance that is damn near impossible for those of us not in favor of unjustified abortions to overcome in discussion.

Here you are employing sophistry 1 (please see my list of pro-abortionists' sophistries on page 11 of this thread) and you are bordering on sophistry 2.

The qualifier is that a conception has taken place, for, as DNA science has proven and every heart knows, that is the beginning of a new, unique, living individual human being. At the moment of conception, the 43 chromosomes have become, and in a way that began the life of a human being who is unique, as that DNA is human and not possessed by any other person. The conception of a new unique individual human being is the qualifer for the right to life.

A Hair has human DNA, a piece of crap has human DNA. What seperates a conceptus from these other sources of DNA? The ability to grow and develop. Your first statment of a sophistry is crap. Bad Science based on poor genetic understanding leading to invalid and unsound reasoning.

Countless times it has been said by me, probably before you, that conception is the beginning of life. That life, however, has not attached to the mother. She has done nothing to promise it can grow and develop inside her. Especially if she has undertaken methods to prevent implantation.

It has no right to life, it is the product of two unliving gametes. It can not excercise that illusory right. It dies without support, as do infants, and young children. Until the mother, or society has undertaken a duty to care for it, it is on its own. It may even be destroyed by the mothers immune system before implanting.

True, but, of course, your presentation here is just diversionary sophistries 2 and 3 again.

If it is true, and you disagree, then you are wrong. No amount of metaphysical reasoning will change that.

The relevant matter at hand is that the "cell" in question is a conception. A conception, by definintion, is an independent unit that is a living being, yes, and, by virtue of being a conception -- a human being conception -- makes that conception, logically, a living human being.

Liked that the first time I said it a month ago in the general forum. However, I correctly used genetics, the biological qualifiers for life, and the concept of a life cycle to make it more complete. Also, note, a conceptus is not a being, it is a stage of growth and development into what will be a being, the end product, the fully developed complex organism.

The conception, Anti Pharisaism, is everything.

No, the act inducing reliance is everyothing. Sex is not the act inducing relaince, as their is no third party being promise a duty of care to fully develop and finish out its life cycle.

It matters not how subtle your sophistries, Anti Pharisaism, it only matters that they are sophistries.

What I say is valid and sound, you even labeled it true. There are not degrees of being subtle. I am or am not subtle. Sophistries are by definition subtle. Furthermore, be consistent, it can not label and argument deceptive if it is true you ignorant, redundant fool.

That "capacity" about which you speak is not implied "potential", but real life and kinetic from the moment of conception.

It has the potential. The mother could drink, there could be an accident, lead or sulfur could be in the air and it may not develop a brain. A child can fall off monky bars and injure their brain. Even adults can lose this capacity. Real life, no one is guaranteed the capacity for consciousness. Any way, I meant capacity in that way. It develops if not interfered with and absent a genetic condition once fertilization occurs.

And that the "new life has begun" is not to be misconstrued as "not fully complete and thereby undeserving of the right to life". A newly conceived unique living individual human being is complete in human being status to have been granted the first and foundational right: the right to life.

This is not a right. You can not live forever. You can not be compensated if it is violater. This is pro-life sophistry number 1. Nothing more.

The newly conceived unique individual human being is alive. Thus this person's creators -- this person's "parents" -- have endowed that person with life. Had the newly conceived person had no right to life, that person could not have accepted his life. The mere existance of the newly conceived unique individual human being's very life is evidence that he has a right to it.

It is not a person, it is devoid of thought, consciousness, and consent, therefore lacking the power of acceptance. In fact, it accepts nothing. It is the result of a sperm and and egg fusing. It was not some third party that said, I accept this sperm and this egg to come together, so that I may come into being.

Existence is not evidence of a right to exist. Sophistry Number 2.

The right to life is not granted by government. It is granted by a more foundational source upon which government sits, and government has no jurisdiction to rightly deprive one of their right to life.

Yes it does. Government is society. Society is people. If a person threatens the lives of society the government has the right to terminate that individual.

Do you one better, a person accidently gets lost on safari. Runs out of food and water. Does their right to life extend beyond their physical capabilities? Will the person survive? NO.

Sophistry number 3: That no one can be denied their right to life.


I believe I have disproved your sophistry here above.

No, you have done nothing but pissed a person with asperger syndrome off in a conversation with your inability to put concepts together and read between the lines.

Nevertheless, it is quite obvious you have an agenda, that it is important to you, likely for some "killing" reason, that the inherent right to life we all possess be sophistrically non-existent in your mind.

There is nothing subtle about my denying the concept of a right to life, carte blanche, it does not exist.

I have an agenda. It is called justification. It has been stated here, in the general forums, and in the ban the death penalty thread. And, with respect to my reasoning, you have never been more wrong about anything in your life.

The right to life, Anti-Pharisaism, means that such a right, once granted -- from the moment of conception -- cannot rightly be deprived by another human being without just cause.

Again plagurizing the person you are attempting to argue with, as though it is to your benefit.

That you imagine the right to life as being anything more than it is, that such would require immortality to exist, is quite the sophistrical diversion from the heart of the matter of what rights truely are.

No, take away any of my real rights unjustly, and you are required to compensate me for that abuse. You kill me unjustly, I can not be compensated for that violation. That you die is a natural law. Living is not a right.

Absent a god, those rights that exist are only those which society grants.


Granted by whom, Anti Pharisaism? And under what circumstances?

Society. As are all real rights and duties to care. The circumstances I consider I will not share. This is where you could have made a good value judgment and a valid argument. Say, sex is not consent to pregnancy, but allowing fertilization is.

Here you error in assuming that any other person has an unjust right to kill another, and you argue sophistrically by saying, in effect, that the lack of being "granted a right or duty bestowed on others not to interfere or harm the growing and developing entity" means that if the parents do not care for their newly conceived human being, that means that, when that human being logical-conclusionarily dies, that person was not "killed".

Something of substance, good. Now Turn this into an argument in your favor. It is a value judgment. Explain how it is more lofical than when implantation occurs, or some other act that places a fetus in detrimental reliance on the parents.

This is pure sophistry, Anti Pharisaism, tantamount to saying that a person who was pushed off of a building was "killed by" the fall, sophistrically excusing the pusher.

No, it was the sudden stop. The pushing that lead to the fall and stop was a battery to the other. That person is a criminal in my mind.

At least explain how that is a good analogy. It does not follow from anything I have said.

Sophistry 4. If I think therefore I am, then, If I think it therefore it is fact.

That you would argue the right to life in terms of the power of another person "not" to kill, as if that "right" superceeded the right to life we all share, the right to life of the potential victim, implies that you have unresolved issues with regard to the power of "others" over your own very life or the life of someone close to you.

Again, I say there is no such right. The thoughts of Freud and Jung are bs, and accepted in the scientific and psychological community as such.

Explain how your interpretation of what I say implies anything about me.

Sophistry 5: Psychoanalysis is a valid and sound method of reading the psyche of another.

That you would argue unsoundly and invalidly means you do not care about what is right, but that others listen to you, as you desire power.
That you speak of heart knowledge implies you are only capable of thinking emotionally, and not logically. Yeah, any fool can make such statements all day long.

Since there is no heart-centered or mentally reasonable doubt that a newly conceived unique living individual human being is a person, as I easily and straightforwardly proved to you in the beginning of this post, your premise here is, thereby, false, and, therefore, the rest of your statement, complete with implied conclusion, is invalid, and must be restated with all-true premises in order to be of validity.

If you base your knowledge on a dictionary, I feel sorry for you. You have proven nothing. You have not disproven anything. I explain how a conceptus and fetus are considered alive, and that there is a point where it is deserving of care. You assume a right exists, but give no valid or sound explanation of it existing. I have easily and straightforwardly proven this. Therefore, your entire argument and thought process false and illogical.


No, Anti Pharisaism, even setting the invalidity of your preamble aside, the right to life cannot be justly deprived by the U.N. or any nation, as that right is within a foundation of reality upon which sits both the U.N. and every nation.

Society creates rights. Nations and the UN. Not some wacko who bases their decisions on heart intelligence.

Indeed, the U.N. pro-abortion resolution must be repealed, as it allows unjustified deprivation of the inherent right to life.

There, we agree on something. Abortion should not be allowed if not adequately justified.

And ... the U.N. must pass a resolution recognizing the inherent right to life and limiting abortion in member nations based upon that right.

No right is inherent. However, if the UN were to pass it, it would exist.

You seem to think it's about winning and losing, Tekania, when in reality it's all about taking one's journey from mind to heart.

That you demean your own species by means of the phrase "homo-centricity of your racism" and that you do so when doing so is irrelevant to the topic at hand, indicates you have some unresolved abuse issues inflicted by the hands of members of your own species, issues which you project onto other species for the sake of dealing with your painful personal issues from a safe emotional distance, in which scenario you transfer those who hurt you onto all who are "cruel to animals" where you also store anyone who disagrees with your self-deprication of your own species, upon whom you displace your pent-up wrath.

Haha! You think you have everything figured out, don't you Dr. Quack?

Dude, your entire field is quack-science... I don't demean my own species... you do so through your inherant racist slant in the granting of rights. As far as you are concerned, possessing unique Homo sapien sapien DNA is the qualifier of all rights (A position which is illegal under present NSUN resolution as per the bio-rights declaration), and which is afront to all other non-human UN members in this august body. Unique DNA cannot be a qualfier cause it clearly denies members of rights which they most certainly have by the universality of personhood. See, that is where your definition fails, child... It seeks to exalt a single race at the expense of any other. It is an attempt at philosophizing xenophobia into a "good" thing. Unique DNA cannot be a qualifier because a "being" does not need to have DNA.

The universal truth, that you seem to think lies within your "metophorical heart" is not universal... a mere glance around you proves that. Not a single person would disagree with my statements, because, they know, regardless of their level, that limiting the definitive right to "life" to Homo sapien sapiens, is inherantly wrong, and that "life" is not necessarily merely being "living" but a possession of personhood beyond the scope of biology. An understanding that our life, is our own self-possession as individuals, playing no part in whether we are organo-carbon, organo-silicate, or even non-organic.... Your philosophy seeks to declare the DLE's leader, through precedent, of not having rights, merely because they are not a "Human with unique DNA". It seeks to tell countless persons they are not humans enjoying rights because they are clones without their own DNA, and are therefore posessions. Your philosophy seeks to go against the maxims of absolute universal truth at the behest of a quack pseudo-science, through factless sophistical emotional pleadings with persons who know far more about universality than you may ever hope to understand at the rate you are presently advancing. Is it demeaning to place the life of the Homo sapien sapien on par with that of an AI? Or place the life of a single Homo sapien sapien on par with his clone? No it is not, it is the acceptance of a universal maxim, that mere posession of unique DNA, or your species classification, can never be a qualifier for the posession of rights to anything in particular, but that possession has to originate not by mere biology, but through transcendental elements to our natures beyond the limited scope of biology and physiology.

This is not about demeaning species, it's about transcending them, young paduan. As long as you are limited to physical qualifiers, you will never fully grasp universality.

YES! THERE IS A SUMMARY AT THE BOTTOM!



Every person has a center of being, a metaphorical heart, that is served, in a neuropsychologically healthy person, by the mind and the soul (and by soul I don't mean religion's "ghost in the machine" that continues on after one dies, but merely that which feels and interfaces primarily our body to our heart and secondarily our world to our heart).

So you want to dance. Ok, show me this metaphorical heart. Demonstrate to me that it exists. Further, demonstrate what you mean by neuropsychologically healthy, as none of my associates in the field of neuropsychology seem to know what that means. They can talk about abnormalities and singularities, but health is something neurospsychology doesn't deal with. Last, I challenge the validity of the mind/soul/heart trinity. It's a spiritual construct, and not an ok platform for debating human rights.

All human hearts share common human truths, and each heart possess idiosyncratic personal truths. Personal truths are never in conflict with common truths.

Again, I ask you to demonstrate this. Are you trying to talk about archetypes, or is this just some mumbo jumbo you've created to pacify yourself. If it is Archetypes, then you really need to read up some more because you don't understand them.

The mind is where one thinks, and it interfaces primarily the world to our heart and secondarily our body to our heart.

That's a lovely metaphor, and a poetic image of the human spirit, but not much else.

You ask what "heart-centered truth" means. You would have to be out of your mind to grasp the meaning. ;)

Ah, so it is a load of pidgeon crap. If not, then you'll actually have to be able to show it if you want to create a valid argument against allowing abortion. Using the 'it is beyond your understanding' argument is not only is weak, but it suggests that you don't care about the issue enough to post a full argument (should it exist). You come off as rude, arrogant, and ficticious.

Indeed, my view of the world is limited -- it excludes mentally-centered sophistries of denial as being of any value to the human heart, and there are certainly a lot of those sophistries masquerading as an accurate representation of reality, sophistries that many derive a degree of neurochemical addictive enjoyment from expressing.

Please find a new word. You don't seem to know what 'sophistries' means, besides the general idea of a ruse. In fact, it reminds me a good deal of things you'll find at www.landoverbaptist.com. I know it's important for you to think you sound smart, but please quit trying to talk about things that you dont' understand. Your statement above is an excellent example about how to say nothing in 50 words or less.

You are in error -- my perspective is not based on any "culture" or "group". I'm afraid, that you are projecting your own subtle expression of such.

No, I'm using anthropological terminology, which defines the individual experience in a limited way through the group. Whether you realize it or not, you are applying the perspective of a select cultural group in your argument. Since you show no knowledge of groups outside your own, I am forced to infer that you know or care nothing about other cultural groups.

My perspective is leading-edge state-of-the-art human neuropsychology. It is based on the reality of 20 billion neurons with over 1.4 quadrillion ever-changing synaptic connections.

Ah, so in other words your perspective (as you see it) is your own brain. Which means that everything you've spouted about neuropsychology is meaningless. I'm not terribly suprised. BTW, it sounds more like you want to talk about neurophysiology... the neurons and 'synaptic connections' aren't actually neuropsychology in the sense you just used them.

There are consistent realities in the human neuropsyche that apply to all, even across culture boundaries.

This may be news to you ... so you might want to reserve foolish judgment.


Naturally, you can't be bothered to show any of them. Or even mention them by name. YOu also talk about the 'human neuropsyche' a term used mostly by linguists and infant cognition specialists. And neither of those fields uses that term in the context you just did. This suggests to me that you don't know what you're talking about. At least you're consistent.

Regardless, I find it interesting that you have yet to state your perspective on the thread-topical matter, and I can only guess as to your perspective based on your choice to engage my perspective.

My 'perspective' by which I suspect you mean 'opinion', doesn't really matter. I'm not here to take sides in the debate, I'm here to question arguments to the fullest rational extent. If your 'opposition' were to make such vague, empty, and emotionally charged statements as you do, then I would criticize them with just as much vigor as I am currently applying to you. Which isn't much, I might add.

'There is no errant redundancy here, not that it really matters. Regardless, your need to find analytical fault with the phrase does however speak volumes as to your compulsion to pick apart without any apparent general direction or motive, especially that which may be indicting.'

I criticize your language because it shows quite clearly that you are more interested in sounding official and authoritative than actually arguing a point. I know a redundancy when I see one, whether you may interpret it that way or not. I also find it funny that you complain I attacked your language, when your 'sophistries of denial' seem so deeply based in your preference for non-scientific terms. As you ultimately confess in your 'sophistries of denial', you are more concerned with the emotional baggage that words have than the validity of your argument. You've got lights, smoke, sirens, heat, and yet no fire.

You speak like a scientist. Are you a scientist? What branch of science?


Well, I'm a zookeeper. Which means I've got training in general biology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, logic, philosophy, comparative religion, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, behavioral modification, and complex organismal physiology. From there, I work with primates and study learning adaptations, so I've got a background in neurology and reproductive psychology. In short, I'm not a 'scientist' (nice vague word in itself), but I've got extensive knowledge of science.

You seem to think that the clear and straight truth of reality is "out there".

No, I really don't. I'm not a subscriber to the "Big T" school of thought that is so basic to your argument.

Have you considered the possibility that such may not be a scientifically measurable objectivity, and that it may lie within and yet still be common to all?

Yes, but without an ability to be quantified in some sense it isn't reasonable to attempt to apply it to legislation.

Translation: "I'm codependent."

Translation: "You don't know what this word actually means"

You are mistaking codependent for cooperative. I'm afraid your pseudo social-scientist slip is showing.

No, I'm quite familiar with both terms. You will have to be codependent for anything you produce with your opposition to be rational. You will have to be cooperative in order to acheive the codependence. Without the codependence, however, you will never reach an agreement that partially satisfies either party. Perhaps you should think about that a little more before you try to show off.

Cooperative is not codependent -- there's a significant difference between the two. The former is healthy, the latter is not.

Ok, Dr. Phil. Cooperative - 2 parties both contributing without relying in any way on the other party's contributions. Codependent - 2 parties using a system of checks and balances to arrive at a mutual compromise which requires each party to be in full faith and dependence on the promises and actions of the other party. Only the codependent solution has any incentive for either party to maintain the agreement. So you see, I really do mean codependent.

You error in saying that codependence and altruism are tradmarks of most cilivized peoples. The truth is that they are both prevalent in nearly all if not all present societies, civilized or otherwise.

First, let's be clear what is meant by civilized. When I say civilized, I include everyone from the new york politicians to the Jo'hansi tribe. Key characteristics of civilized groups include codependence and altruism. Study up on your ethnology.

Codependency is a dysfunction. The elimination of codependency through healing and recovery will improve society immensely.

You still can't summon a proof that codependency is a dysfunction, let alone an example of a case where it would be. You simply use superficial terms to try to sound profound. You also can't support your statement that a lack of codependency would improve society immensely. Use concrete examples, or stop arguing.

Success, Thgin, is not always measured by the end result.

Success is a conclusion reached after meditating on the course of a journey. At least in my book. Others will measure it as the end result. Others will measure it as the 'intent' of the action. It's a word without definite meaning.

I will tell the straight truth unencumbered by manipulative dysfunction, and I will thereby alienate many ... for a time.

You will tell what you percieve as 'the straight truth unencumbered by manipulative dysfunction'. So will everyone else here. I'm not here to judge whether or not you've found the straight truth, but if you can't even begin to offer evidence then I'm not going to believe you've found 'the straight truth'. I suspect you'll ask me if I've found 'the straight truth', and the answer is no. I'm still looking, just as you ought to be, for the answers that fit best. What is best? Read some philosophy. As far as 'truth encumbered by manipulative dysfunction', what does that mean. You've attatched a series of empty modifiers in order to make your opposition seem stupid. After all, anyone can fill in the blanks as to what they think those words mean, but you have failed in giving htem a specific meaning, effectively doing nothing but attempting to manipulate readers into supporting you by default. Next time give me an honest, concrete argument rather than this empty hull of an opinion.

That[/i] is success, Thgin.

Well, that's very sweet, but it's not something that is in any way real to anyone other than you, so you can't expect the UN to pass legislation based out of it.

I'm sure from the perspective of the sacrificing leader and the controlling "social scientist" it is important to see good in dysfunction that mantains the privileged's hierachy.

I'm not interested in the 'good' or 'bad' of 'dysfunction'. I'm not really into judging society. However, I can use those terms to describe how a society acts within it's own judgement parameters. And yes, I can see how in your worldview it is important that there be 'dysfunction' in order to allow your priveledged 'functional' group to exist and pass judgement.

The reality remains, that for human beings, the compulsion to self-sacrifice needlessly is rooted in codependency and other neuropsychological dysfunctions.

Let me ask you a question. Who built your house? Who grows the food you eat? Where are you employed? See, these are codependent relationships that we take for granted. You need a house, the contractor needs money. You don't have the option of not having a house. Similarly, the contractor does not have the option of not having money. As for self-sacrifice, how often do you contribute to charity? How often do you hold the door for someone else? How often do you tip at restaurants? Do you ever step aside so a handicapped person can pass? These are all acts of 'self-sacrifice'. They are situations where you put your personal best interest aside for the purposes of aiding others and promoting a caring society. Someone who claims to be acting from the heart ought to know a thing or two about that. If caring about people is dysfunctional, as it appears you think, then maybe you should reconsider calling your position one 'from the heart'.

That you seem to think such behavior is necessary to survival implies that you are content to suffer dysfunction yourself, coping with it instead of recovering from it.

Yes, I am 'content to suffer dysfunction', because what you call dysfunction I call empathy. While it is not absolutely necessary for any sort of survival, it can be shown empirically to be beneficial to society and individuals.

self[/i]-sacrificing?

Surrendering the potential to pass on genes is biological self-sacrifice.

The degree to which truth and reality are debated, would, however, imply that debate is of the mind, and not of the heart, the heart being the orienting place of experiencing truth and reality that the mind cannot grasp.

So, in other words, you don't have a real case, so you're claiming there is a higher element that I can't understand, and that you can't really prove.

However, a "motherland" does not have a heart, so Hitler errored, literally, and he was merely projecting, no doubt, the collective unconscious of most Germans who were sufficiently similarly German-culture abused adult-children to agree with him.

I don't suppose you knew that Germany had the most progressive child care system in the world until the fall of hitler. He may have done bad things, but you can be sure that there weren't abused children in Nazi Germany. At least not ones that Hitler liked.

Each of us does have a heart, Thgin, and, though most are out of touch with theirs, that does not negate the reality that every one of us has a heart and that the common beliefs (read: acknowledgments of truth) of all human hearts, such as the origin of our lives at the moment of our conception, is, nonetheless, reality.

All of this may be true, but you can't prove it, and you know you can't prove it. Which makes arguing with you pointless, because you base your position in an arbitrary amorphus construction called 'heart', which you claim is universal even though many people disagree with what you say 'heart' tells them to do. You explain this by claiming that these people are 'out of touch with heart', thus making them dysfunctional and not worthy of listening to. It's a very elaborate way of claiming moral superiority and pretending to have a legitimate case.

And, by the way, I do find it curious that you never once in your "analysis" here bothered to tell your perspective on the thread-topic at hand.

If I were to say 'everyone knows abortion is great!' then you would dismiss me as trying to support my own position without considering yours. If I were to say 'all that said, abortion is an abomination' then you would say that I need to get more in touch with my heart, and that I'm lost. So I won't tell you my opinion of this particular issue, because I'm not giving you that easy way out. The fact that you're desperate to label me really does show the weakness of your position - you feel you need a way to contrast against me in order to legitimize yourself.

SUMMARY FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T CARE TO READ

Thgin has demonstrated that the arguments and 'sophistries of denial' presented by True Heart in previous posts are the result of an unprovable 'heart' that may or may not exist. This construction called 'heart' dictates the moral direction of individuals, and cannot be comprehended by 'mind' or 'soul'. It is maintained that all people have 'heart' and can listen to it. Those people who do not act in accordance to the instructions of 'heart' are termed dysfunctional, and by this system given no real consideration. As a result, individuals with 'heart' become a moral superelite who expect their views to be heard and accepted over the beliefs of those who are 'neuropsychologically dysfunctional'. Interestingly, these dysfunctional peole can change their neuropsychological dysfunctions by simply thinking like people 'with heart', and require no brain surgery. It is also noted that altruistic behaviors, such as giving to charity, holding doors open, and helping old ladies cross the road are all forms of dysfunction and people who perform these functions ought not be eligible for political or social voice. It has also been shown that while there is no concrete basis for any of the claims made, the language used to convey them is powerful and manipulative. While True Heart's concept of 'heart' cannot be proven for or against, it is thus deemed unacceptable for arguing for OR against abortion rights in a legal setting.

Your statement above is an excellent example about how to say nothing in 50 words or less.

What do you mean. As a whole, this unperson illustrates how you can speak ad infinitum, and say nothing.

Nationstates, we present True Heart, The Deepak Chopra of the United Nations.

Well, finally -- you strike your colors. You're a pro-abortionist, Thgin. Here you clearly and overtly employ sophistry number 2 (please see my list of pro-abortionist's sophistries on page 11 of this thread) and thereby reveal the reality of your pro-abortionist's mindset.

Agian, you're rather quick to label. As it turns out, I'm actually opposed to a lot of abortions. However, because you're desperate to give me label to throw rocks at (like you just did), you've jumped the gun rather nastily. As for your 'sophistries', you oppose using technical terminology, which tells me that you're afraid to really get into the nitty gritty of the topic.

It took you two posts of sophistries (mostly covert sophistry number 3s) and a myriad of attack-ego displays of subtle to brutal unjustified and diversionary personal attacks on topically absolute nothings before you finally revealed near the end of your second post here the reality that you are a pro-abortionist and that all of your sophistries, attacks, and diversions were merely an egocentric defense mechanism for your untenable position, a position that conflicts with your very heart.

It's amazing how you reek of desperation. You can't beat my logic, so you've resorted to name calling. It's sad, considering the name isn't accurate.

You have been emotionally dishonest and deceitful, Thgin. You are nothing more than ubiquitous.

How, pray tell, have I been any of these things? It would seem that in order to make that judgement, you'd actually have to know me.

I may choose to respond to your other sophistries if time permits and it serves my purpose. But since you have now come out of the closet, so to speak, there's really no reason for me to stimulate you further.

Ah, so there we have the real heart of the matter. Because you can't deal with my arguments in a responsible, rational way, you've declared me a 'pro-abortionist' and fell content that you now don't have to back your position against my inquiries. After all, you've declared me 'dysfunctional', so I couldn't possibly have something worth saying. In short, you've shown your true heart again - the heart of an elitist without critical thinking skills who'se run out of ideas. Grow Up.

Is there a reason you believe a developing baby to be akin to a virus or germ? Because if that's how you think, then something is horribly wrong with your reasoning.

Is there a reason you believe a developing baby to be akin to a virus or germ? Because if that's how you think, then something is horribly wrong with your reasoning.
From a biological standpoint, they're very similar.

Just because you assign an emotional or religious value to human life doesn't make the analogy invalid or the poster's viewpoint spurious or wrong. Perhaps you should be the one examining your reasoning.

Is there a reason you believe a developing baby to be akin to a virus or germ? Because if that's how you think, then something is horribly wrong with your reasoning.

Biologically, they are the same thing. They do the same thing to the body.

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning. I'm basing it on facts and evidence.

I notice True Heart is ignoring my posts. Does that mean he is too much of coward to face me? Or does it mean he recognizes me as the one person here who has utterly defeated him and feels the best way is to ignore me?

Seriously, I know what he's doing. Standard smoke and mirrors with flamebait thrown in to try to get others to flame him so he can turn them in to the mods and feel morally superior. Just ignore him for the troll he is.

Or does it mean he recognizes me as the one person here who has utterly defeated him and feels the best way is to ignore me?
Try "the one person here who rose to the bait and wasted several days arguing with a troll" instead.

Silly Demon.

nah, I like to argue too much... and besides, press secretaries dont' dictate national policy... at least directly... hehehehehe

Darn. (I don't get to set national policy either, but it's not something I miss all that much)

Try "the one person here who rose to the bait and wasted several days arguing with a troll" instead.

Silly Demon.

Actually, I'm not the only one who rose to the bait. I just wanted confirmation of what he was doing when I did it. Sometimes they start out on that path and then blow you away with one hell of an arguement and laugh because they set you up by having you assume something. If he was going to do that, he would have done it by now.

Haha! You think you have everything figured out, don't you Dr. Quack?

Dude, your entire field is quack-science... I don't demean my own species... you do so through your inherant racist slant in the granting of rights. As far as you are concerned, possessing unique Homo sapien sapien DNA is the qualifier of all rights (A position which is illegal under present NSUN resolution as per the bio-rights declaration), and which is afront to all other non-human UN members in this august body. Unique DNA cannot be a qualfier cause it clearly denies members of rights which they most certainly have by the universality of personhood. See, that is where your definition fails, child... It seeks to exalt a single race at the expense of any other. It is an attempt at philosophizing xenophobia into a "good" thing. Unique DNA cannot be a qualifier because a "being" does not need to have DNA.

The universal truth, that you seem to think lies within your "metophorical heart" is not universal... a mere glance around you proves that. Not a single person would disagree with my statements, because, they know, regardless of their level, that limiting the definitive right to "life" to Homo sapien sapiens, is inherantly wrong, and that "life" is not necessarily merely being "living" but a possession of personhood beyond the scope of biology. An understanding that our life, is our own self-possession as individuals, playing no part in whether we are organo-carbon, organo-silicate, or even non-organic.... Your philosophy seeks to declare the DLE's leader, through precedent, of not having rights, merely because they are not a "Human with unique DNA". It seeks to tell countless persons they are not humans enjoying rights because they are clones without their own DNA, and are therefore posessions. Your philosophy seeks to go against the maxims of absolute universal truth at the behest of a quack pseudo-science, through factless sophistical emotional pleadings with persons who know far more about universality than you may ever hope to understand at the rate you are presently advancing. Is it demeaning to place the life of the Homo sapien sapien on par with that of an AI? Or place the life of a single Homo sapien sapien on par with his clone? No it is not, it is the acceptance of a universal maxim, that mere posession of unique DNA, or your species classification, can never be a qualifier for the posession of rights to anything in particular, but that possession has to originate not by mere biology, but through transcendental elements to our natures beyond the limited scope of biology and physiology.

This is not about demeaning species, it's about transcending them, young paduan. As long as you are limited to physical qualifiers, you will never fully grasp universality.
Tekania, you seem to be so caught up in the fantasy of NS that you're missing the obvious point.

I was not attempting by referencing only human beings to be racist within the limits of the NS paradigm.

I was merely discussing the matter from a real-world non-NS perspective, and that's all.

If it is important to you to apply my perspective to every race found in NS, elves, dwarves, extra terrestrials, et al, it would probably make sense to do so. Because every relevant specie here has a heart, then within the framework of NS, my heart-centered perspective is a transferrable concept to all races.

Actually, I'm not the only one who rose to the bait. I just wanted confirmation of what he was doing when I did it. Sometimes they start out on that path and then blow you away with one hell of an arguement and laugh because they set you up by having you assume something. If he was going to do that, he would have done it by now.
I present the straight truth in every post, DemonLordEnigma -- there's no trickery to my presentation, planned or otherwise.

You appear to be a bit paranoid.

Tekania, you seem to be so caught up in the fantasy of NS that you're missing the obvious point.

I was not attempting by referencing only human beings to be racist within the limits of the NS paradigm.

I was merely discussing the matter from a real-world non-NS perspective, and that's all.

If it is important to you to apply my perspective to every race found in NS, elves, dwarves, extra terrestrials, et al, it would probably make sense to do so. Because every relevant specie here has a heart, then within the framework of NS, my heart-centered perspective is a transferrable concept to all races.

What about races that don't have hearts?

I notice True Heart is ignoring my posts. Does that mean he is too much of coward to face me? Or does it mean he recognizes me as the one person here who has utterly defeated him and feels the best way is to ignore me?

Seriously, I know what he's doing. Standard smoke and mirrors with flamebait thrown in to try to get others to flame him so he can turn them in to the mods and feel morally superior. Just ignore him for the troll he is.
Wow -- you are paranoid ... and a bit narcissistic as well!

What about races that don't have hearts?
And what NS races would those be?

And what NS races would those be?

(OOC) I don't know. Mostly I was just killing time while the solder on my glasses dried and went hard.

But honestly I think that given the wide range of races within the wonder that is in NS, it's not beyond reason there might be ones that are not carbon based, that can fly, that can breathe through their feet and that don't have hearts.

Plus (somewhat off topic) the heart is not what generates all this - it's the brain. The heart is just a nice idea for it.

Anyway - I will stop babbling now as I think my glasses might actually be fixed.

From a biological standpoint, they're very similar.

Just because you assign an emotional or religious value to human life doesn't make the analogy invalid or the poster's viewpoint spurious or wrong. Perhaps you should be the one examining your reasoning.
Actually, Frisbeeteria, there are multiple ways of knowing: pure mental (pure thought), pure soulistic (pure feeling), mental memory-and-emotion, soulistic memory-and-emotion, and heart.

There is no such thing as "assigning" an emotional "value" to human life. One can know from a memory-and-emotional experience, but the "assignment" of "value" as you are referencing is a function of pure mental superegocentricity-egocentricity.

When errors of reality assessment occur, then one or more of the secondary methods of knowing are inaccurate and in conflict with heart.

In the case of your pure mental equivalency of a newly conceived unique living individual human being to a virus or germ, you violate reality, as even your mental memory-and-emotion disagrees with that, let alone your very heart.

Such erroneous analagous equivalencies are reflective of the mentally centered, who have limited access to their memory-and-emotion, especially their soulistic memory-and-emotion, and are virtually completely cut off from their heart as well.

They thus have a tendency to trip all over form while completely ignoring the massive substantive differences in their pure mental analogies, almost as if they erroneously think Einstein meant E=AC^2 (where "A" equals surface area) instead of the reality of E=MC^2 where M equals the massive substance of the matter.

Your pehaps implied assumption that those who may not be in error as are you and who disagree with your analagous equivalency here are thereby somehow using the mental paradigm of religion to devine knowledge is, again, erroneous.

Wow -- you are paranoid ... and a bit narcissistic as well!

Once again, proving you know little about psychological disorders.

Narcissism I do not deny. It is inherent in all beings. I just try to limit it when it is not important. Influence-wise, it's number 73.

Paranoia is being convinced there is a conspiracy against you or people out to get you. Anyone reading my posts can see I have not assumed that. Therefore, baseless accusation with no facts to support it.

I present the straight truth in every post, DemonLordEnigma -- there's no trickery to my presentation, planned or otherwise.

Then why do you try to distract people from your arguements by accusing them of insanity? I've already proven on here that your arguements have little to no basis in fact, neither in NS or in reality.

You appear to be a bit paranoid.

Nope. I do not assume a conspiracy against me. Why? Who would want to? Those that have a reason to come after me I can easily destroy and those who can destroy me have no reason to come after me. Life is good.

Plus (somewhat off topic) the heart is not what generates all this - it's the brain. The heart is just a nice idea for it.
The thalamus and hypothalamus and relevant proximital regions that sit on the brainstem like the flame of a torch, to be precise ... though in the newly conceived they are initially all heart :eek: .

Then why do you try to distract people from your arguements by accusing them of insanity? I've already proven on here that your arguements have little to no basis in fact, neither in NS or in reality.
I don't distract, intentional or otherwise, by referencing the specific neuropsychological dysfunction that accounts for the error in reality assessment, as such causative information, when received by the dysfunctional, can lead to recovery and the acceptance of reality, a process that is foundational for resolving matters relevant to the topic at hand in this thread.

I don't distract, intentional or otherwise, by referencing the specific neuropsychological dysfunction that accounts for the error in reality assessment, as such causative information, when received by the dysfunctional, can lead to recovery and the acceptance of reality, a process that is foundational for resolving matters relevant to the topic at hand in this thread.
Wow, you know some really big words. You must be right then!

Agian, you're rather quick to label. As it turns out, I'm actually opposed to a lot of abortions. However, because you're desperate to give me label to throw rocks at (like you just did), you've jumped the gun rather nastily. As for your 'sophistries', you oppose using technical terminology, which tells me that you're afraid to really get into the nitty gritty of the topic.
No, Thgin, I was quite patient, hoping that you would do the honest and right thing and state your position clearly and straightfowardly on the relevant topic matter at hand and therefore eliminate the need to identify your position via comparison to the list of pro-abortionists' sophistries I posted on page 11 of this thread. But ... you didn't.

If you are "actually opposed to a lot of abortions", then why didn't you relevantly state the ones you are opposed to -- along with the ones you are in favor of, including your position on when a human being begins to live -- clearly and straightforwardly. There was nothing stopping you from doing the relevant right thing by this thread. But ... you didn't.

You error in saying that I am "desperate ..." -- it is you who inappropriately prolongingly withholds telling the straight truth about himself. Your projection is really quite revealing of how you cope with your own dishonesty.

I have provided adequate relevant DNA science to the matter -- the rest is about the neuropsychological reasons you fail to accept this reality. Because I am not mentally centered, I do not wallow in a mentally masturbative science addiction as do you, and I am free to address the many ways a human being "knows" that are relevant to the matter.


It's amazing how you reek of desperation. You can't beat my logic, so you've resorted to name calling. It's sad, considering the name isn't accurate.
Your mind seems to think we were engaged in some kind of a contest, Thgin.

Guess again.


How, pray tell, have I been any of these things? It would seem that in order to make that judgement, you'd actually have to know me.
You entered discussion with me in a thread where the topical matter was the beginning of a human being's life, the application of abortion, and the repeal of that relevant U.N. resolution.

Yet not once did you present to me clearly and straightforwardly your position on the relevant matter at hand. That's being dishonest.

Instead, you proceded to attempt to discredit my perspective, without giving any clear and straightforward reason for doing so. That's being dishonest.

When the natural intelligent implication of your behavior leads to the conclusion that you are pro-abortion, you then chastise me for "jumping to conclusion", when it is you who inappropriately to the topic at hand was purposely withholding your position on the matter, which you now reveal you may have done in a deliberate attempt to be misleading. That's emotional dishonesty.

My accurate assessment of your behavior, Thgin, does not require that I "know you" to the degree you'd like to conveniently assume. My aptitude, training, and experience as a counselor provides me the expertise to make an accurate assessment of you in this regard with the information you've provided, and I did.


Ah, so there we have the real heart of the matter. Because you can't deal with my arguments in a responsible, rational way, you've declared me a 'pro-abortionist' and fell content that you now don't have to back your position against my inquiries.
You are again in error, Thgin, though your statement here, like so many similar statements you've made recently, does imply you have at least a mild case of covert narcissism.

I declared you a pro-abortionist because you provided the unmistakable evidence of such, deceitfully or otherwise, in lieu of your speaking clearly and straightforwardly on the matter as an honest person would have done.


After all, you've declared me 'dysfunctional', so I couldn't possibly have something worth saying.
Though you have indeed revealed your dysfunction, not merely via your perspective on the matter but by your dishonesty as well, whether you truly have something worth saying in the matter would depend on its content.


In short, you've shown your true heart again - the heart of an elitist without critical thinking skills who'se run out of ideas.
You are projecting again, Mr. Science Elitist. You are quite the master projector, Thgin.


Grow Up.
My counselor's advice to you, Thgin, is to recover sufficient to reduce your tendency to project and also so as to begin dealing honestly with all the people you encounter.

Wow, you know some really big words. You must be right then!
Your repetitive sarcasm, Frisbeeteria, could mean you feel threatened.

If you have a relevant substantive issue with the content of my posts, let's see you state so clearly, straightforwardly, and honestly.

So far, you have avoided substantive discussion in lieu of taking pot shots.

I don't distract, intentional or otherwise, by referencing the specific neuropsychological dysfunction that accounts for the error in reality assessment, as such causative information, when received by the dysfunctional, can lead to recovery and the acceptance of reality, a process that is foundational for resolving matters relevant to the topic at hand in this thread.

A thesaurus and a psych book don't an educated man make. Besides, you have assessed people on here using a method that depends upon your own beliefs and is biased in your favor and have, at least six times, assessed incorrectly. Your method of examination is incorrect and needs to be redesigned to follow a more scientific method.

The psychobabble is irrelevant to this thread and is only a distraction technique to discredit those who disagree with you and keep them from examining your arguements. I notice you only broke that out when people were disproving your arguements and did not start that way, which provides evidence to support what I am saying. What is relevant is scientific evidence about when life starts and what is considered alive, which you have purposefully moved the arguement away from.

You have failed to provide evidence to support your arguement, have purposefully derailed the thread, and have posted flamebait. Your arguement is invalid and you are not willing to admit it. When you can support your fallacious claims in a manner that actually supports them with factual evidence, then feel free to post. In the meantime, I am forced to conclude you are just here to waste time and, as such, will not take you, your arguements, or your side seriously. If your side of the arguement wishes to dump you from supporting them, they will regain credibility. You, however, have none and, due to being unable to find any form of logical evidence to support your inveracities, will never regain any. Consider yourself dismissed as a comedian in an entertainment.

Alright, I, among all others whom you have probably ever encountered, have offered you a scientific rational that leads to a moral justification for limitting or abolishing abortion. You choose to ignore that science, and make proper value judgments from it. A way to scientifically counter pro-abortion arguments, you choose to pay no attention.
You appear to paint yourself as quite the enigma, Anti Pharisaism -- a supposed pro-lifer (? to a degree ?) who wallows in the same mentally masturbative science addiction as the pro-abortionists, similarly creating your own idiosyncratically erroneous paradigmic "science" application, that you imagine will trump that of your similarly addicted opponents.

You both remind me of two people caught in opposite ends of the ubiquitous oriental finger puzzle, both pulling as hard as you can, deluding yourself into thinking that the harder you pull in your present M.O. that you will escape victoriously, yet in truth, you never ever separate from each other, doomed ultimately to a compromise that serves neither, and at the horrific sacrificial expense of the newly conceived unique living individual human beings.

I patiently wait for you to push away gently from your no-win trap.

So, to that end, why don't you just do what Thgin failed to do. Stop demeaning me because I choose not to get caught in the trap that imprisons you, and state clearly and straightforwardly in a single post by itself your complete position on when a human being begins to live along with your complete list as to when abortion is okay and when it isn't. Then we can go from there and discuss the meaning of your position transcendent to your science-addictive paradigmic mindset.


you work more against saving the lives of those you try to protect than any pro-abortionist, as you cloud reason and create a stigma of scientific ignorance that is damn near impossible for those of us not in favor of unjustified abortions to overcome in discussion.
Actually, Anti Pharisaism, you are deluding yourself in thinking that you can "win over" the pro-abortionists by "fellowshipping" with them in like science-addictive paradigmic mindset.

The truth of the matter is that transcending that paradigmic mindset as part of a journey to heart is the only hope pro-abortionists have of seeing the truth in the matter. I can understand how anyone caught in the science-addictive paradigimic trap of reality denial would not voluntarily leave the "comfort" of their familiar surroundings. Nevertheless, by the time I'm done chipping away at your paradigm's sophistry, you all will begin to see the real world on the outside, and like the religious who eventually come to see that "the Devil" was really their own fundamentalism, you will gradually become free and begin to resume your personal journey to heart.

As to your phrase "unjustified abortions", perhaps you might want to do as I suggested above here, and list what abortions you think are unjustified as well as justified, and we can then talk about them in the manner I suggested.

Your repetitive sarcasm, Frisbeeteria, could mean you feel threatened.

If you have a relevant substantive issue with the content of my posts, let's see you state so clearly, straightforwardly, and honestly.

So far, you have avoided substantive discussion in lieu of taking pot shots.
Your persistent and repetitive dismissal of relevant points makes it obvious to me, and I'm sure to many others, that your only substantive contribution here is ad hominem attacks disguised as psychological advice. As such, I have no interest in anything other than taking pot shots at your foolish and illogical answers. Is that substantive enough for you?

Tekania, you seem to be so caught up in the fantasy of NS that you're missing the obvious point.

I was not attempting by referencing only human beings to be racist within the limits of the NS paradigm.

I was merely discussing the matter from a real-world non-NS perspective, and that's all.

If it is important to you to apply my perspective to every race found in NS, elves, dwarves, extra terrestrials, et al, it would probably make sense to do so. Because every relevant specie here has a heart, then within the framework of NS, my heart-centered perspective is a transferrable concept to all races.

Every relevant species does not have a "heart", a "soul", a even neccarily a mind or body.... and in some cases parts of colonial beings are not even individuals. Your qualifiers and inapplicable to universal status, because the originate from homo-centristic thought, as opposed to a trascendation of mode.

The Republic has encountered organo-silicate colonial species, AI's, non-corporeal energy based beings, and in some cases beings that do not even exist in our plane.

All this is of course pointless drivel now. A fetus does not possess the characteristics of universal personhood.

Every relevant species does not have a "heart", a "soul", a even neccarily a mind or body.... and in some cases parts of colonial beings are not even individuals. Your qualifiers and inapplicable to universal status, because the originate from homo-centristic thought, as opposed to a trascendation of mode.

Even in the real world not every species has a heart and not every person has a "soul" according to his definition.

A thesaurus and a psych book don't an educated man make. Besides, you have assessed people on here using a method that depends upon your own beliefs and is biased in your favor and have, at least six times, assessed incorrectly. Your method of examination is incorrect and needs to be redesigned to follow a more scientific method.
My assessments, DemonLordEnigma, have been accurate with respect to the information supplied. If I have been wrong about you (though I haven't), it is because you attempted to behave deceitfully and provided divertively erroneous information ... and that speaks more to your character flaws than it ever would to my supposed errors of assessment.

Demeaning me credentially is futile, DemonLordEnigma, especially in light of the accuracy of my assessments.

Indeed, your ploy is revealed in your last sentence, whereby you wish me to reduce my awareness of reality by succumbing to your idiosyncratic false science-addictive paradigm. Request denied, DemonLordEnigma -- it is you who needs to transcend your paradigm and raise your level of understanding reality.


The psychobabble is irrelevant to this thread and is only a distraction technique to discredit those who disagree with you and keep them from examining your arguements. I notice you only broke that out when people were disproving your arguements and did not start that way, which provides evidence to support what I am saying. What is relevant is scientific evidence about when life starts and what is considered alive, which you have purposefully moved the arguement away from.
Ah yes, "psychobabble" -- the complaint of the truly dysfunctional ... especially when the "psyhchobabble" applies to them. Yes, I'm sure you find the sudden accurate assessment of your science-addictive dysfunction to be a bit distracting in its startlization, but that's your issue, not mine.

That you "notice" that I only referenced your dysfunctions supposedly when "people were disproving your arguments" is an error in perception on your part. I pointed out your relevant error of thinking and its genesis in dysfunction merely the moment you made it manifest. There's nothing more to it than that.

And again, you finish your paragraph here by assigning your pseudoscience addiction all decision power in the matter, when truly the reality that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception is knowledge found in every heart that true DNA science has unquestionably corroborated, about which there is no rational conjecture.


You have failed to provide evidence to support your arguement, have purposefully derailed the thread, and have posted flamebait. Your arguement is invalid and you are not willing to admit it. When you can support your fallacious claims in a manner that actually supports them with factual evidence, then feel free to post. In the meantime, I am forced to conclude you are just here to waste time and, as such, will not take you, your arguements, or your side seriously. If your side of the arguement wishes to dump you from supporting them, they will regain credibility. You, however, have none and, due to being unable to find any form of logical evidence to support your inveracities, will never regain any. Consider yourself dismissed as a comedian in an entertainment.
I posted sufficient evidence with regard to accurately stating both the reality that every heart knows that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception and I also presented true DNA science's summary of the same claim. No more evidence needs be said on the matter, DemonLordEnigma.

"Purposely derailed the thread" is DLE-speak for not having succumbed to DLE's mental addictive way of posting.

"Flamebait" means that I presented reality in terms not within your paradigm of "safe cold emotion-free" science addiction. Perhaps you associate the other-than-pure-mental four ways of ascertaining reality with the feeling of anger, and thereby your employment of the word "flame"bait.

The rest of your statement is just the same old "nothing is valid if it doesn't come from my science-addictive erroneous idiosyncratic paradigm". You would do well to recover from your addiction, LordDemonEnigma, and broaden your awareness in the process.

Every relevant species does not have a "heart", a "soul", a even neccarily a mind or body.... and in some cases parts of colonial beings are not even individuals. Your qualifiers and inapplicable to universal status, because the originate from homo-centristic thought, as opposed to a trascendation of mode.
In the real world, every species has a heart, Tekania, including a body.

And in the real world, many species also have a development differentiated mind and soul as well, including human beings, cats, dogs, etc., etc.

Now, I don't know all of the NS beings you've imagined encountering or how you choose to define them.

But it's difficult for me to imagine that a significant number of NS nations truly see and think in terms of the NS world composed of your fantasy beings when they vote.

In truth, the validity of this discussion is in its application to real-world human beings, as that is truly the rational relevance of the matter at hand seeing that every NS nation is created and administerd by real-world human beings.

Your persistent and repetitive dismissal of relevant points makes it obvious to me, and I'm sure to many others, that your only substantive contribution here is ad hominem attacks disguised as psychological advice. As such, I have no interest in anything other than taking pot shots at your foolish and illogical answers. Is that substantive enough for you?
No, that's not substantive enough for me. ;)

I would like to see something truly substantive from the head honcho of articulation -- I'm sure you can do better than ad hominem attacks "disguised" as sarcasm ... that is unless rising to the top around here is predicated on such orienting from the paradigm of an addiction to pseudo science.

So come now, Frisbeeteria, let's see if you can honestly state your position in detail relevant to the matter at hand, sans projection.

My assessments, DemonLordEnigma, have been accurate with respect to the information supplied. If I have been wrong about you (though I haven't), it is because you attempted to behave deceitfully and provided divertively erroneous information ... and that speaks more to your character flaws than it ever would to my supposed errors of assessment.

Actually, you have been quite off in your psychological examinations, including of me. To use the evidence provided, you must use all evidence available. In my case, that's nearly 1500 posts plus all of my puppets. And even then you must try to boil down what is just persona and what is the real person shining through. Good luck.

Demeaning me credentially is futile, DemonLordEnigma, especially in light of the accuracy of my assessments.

Throw an "in" in front of "accuracy" and you are correct. For one thing, your posts are off in even the basic attempts to analyze people.

Take Frisbeeteria, for example. While you are correct in that he often chooses cheap shots instead of trying to actually argue (Fris, don't deny it) and uses sarcasm heavily (personally, I'm glad I don't have to point out to you that is was such), he doesn't do it because he feels threatened. He does it because he feels superior, and in this case rightfully so, and he is not willing to put up with crap from people.

In my case, I argue heavily because I like to argue while my superiority complex is actually a persona trait of a fictional character, though I mix my real self in with that on these boards to provide the unique combinations in my arguements you see here but do not see in my RPs or real life conversations. About the only reason I am even bothering to waste time on you is, frankly, I need the laughs.

You need to realize that not everyone you deal with on NS is presenting the real them. This, being a roleplay forum, is a mixture of fantasy and reality. Sometimes, even users on here can't tell the difference, but it exists.

Indeed, your ploy is revealed in your last sentence, whereby you wish me to reduce my awareness of reality by succumbing to your idiosyncratic false science-addictive paradigm. Request denied, DemonLordEnigma -- it is you who needs to transcend your paradigm and raise your level of understanding reality.

Ah yes, this is going to be fun.

You wish to know reality? I understand what you fail to: Reality is just perception. It is your personal perceptions and the lies, half-truths, and illusions you subcribe to and force yourself under. Each person molds their own reality and each comes up with a unique perspective, but each uses the same method. But I also understand what the underlying reality is, and the truths of it are things most people do not even want to think about.

Going back to your illusions, you need to understand that my basis is from people who have had over 500 years working and thinking and comming up with a process in order to investigate. I am advising their work, which has been done by professionals for at least that long and is based on far much more experience and knowledge than you have at your disposal. You are using a system you made up in a week that has failed to stand up to its first test. Who here is the delusional one? It's certainly not the one relying on something made, tested, and refined down through the centuries.

Ah yes, "psychobabble" -- the complaint of the truly dysfunctional ... especially when the "psyhchobabble" applies to them. Yes, I'm sure you find the sudden accurate assessment of your science-addictive dysfunction to be a bit distracting in its startlization, but that's your issue, not mine.

Actually, I view science as just another human religion that popped up. It has the capacity to find some truths, but those will be so far distant from now that it won't matter.

I use science because it relies on logic and facts. In this case, I called what you have posted "psychobabble" because it is not even based on the inherent principals of how to conduct a psychological exam (over the internet is against that) and can't even get the psychology information correct. Since it is not a science, just a bad misuse of information, it cannot be given the respect one has.

And while I enjoyed laughing at your assessment, I must point out something. By relying partially on science, even in the mutated form you present, you are just as guilty of that "addiction," which is nonexistant in anyone, as I am.

The only thing accurate about your assessment, the narcissism, was accurate for a fictional character I mix with my real personality for posting on this forum, as I use the fictional character to represent the elements of the nation (which is entirely fictional as well) while using my real self for the occasional bits of reality I deal with or to add the reality of myself in some posts when I feel like it. You actually have no clue what you are doing, who you are dealing with, or what goes through their mind on a daily basis.

That you "notice" that I only referenced your dysfunctions supposedly when "people were disproving your arguments" is an error in perception on your part. I pointed out your relevant error of thinking and its genesis in dysfunction merely the moment you made it manifest. There's nothing more to it than that.

Actually, that's pure crap and we both know it. Any "manifestations" of your idea of "dysfunctions" came long before people had been arguing with you. You only made that up and posted it because we had torn apart your arguements. I did notice you refused to post a reply to me after I asked where the mods were, meaning you were afraid I was going to turn you in and your whole falacious arguement would be revealed for what it really is.

There was no genesis. There was no manifestation. There was only you deciding you can't win an arguement legitimately and deciding to troll your way out of it. And now we won't even let you do that.

And again, you finish your paragraph here by assigning your pseudoscience addiction all decision power in the matter, when truly the reality that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception is knowledge found in every heart that true DNA science has unquestionably corroborated, about which there is no rational conjecture.

And this is where your arguement fell apart last time. DNA science does not establish sentience. DNA science does not establish life. All DNA science does is determine species it belongs to and what traits it has that makes it unique from the others. Your misinformation has already been established as not found in every heart and as irrational.

You have no evidence to back up your claim and we both know it.

I posted sufficient evidence with regard to accurately stating both the reality that every heart knows that a newly conceived unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception and I also presented true DNA science's summary of the same claim. No more evidence needs be said on the matter, DemonLordEnigma.

You have presented no evidence, just your unsupported claims that don't even bother to pay attention to DNA science. And what was it you said about science addiction? Seems you are showing signs of it again. There is no evidence to back up your claim and you refuse to provide it because you know I and everyone else who has said it is right.

"Purposely derailed the thread" is DLE-speak for not having succumbed to DLE's mental addictive way of posting.

I say what I mean. You are throwing in meaning that is not there in hopes of salvaging your pitiful arguement. Just admit you are wrong already and save us all the time.

"Flamebait" means that I presented reality in terms not within your paradigm of "safe cold emotion-free" science addiction. Perhaps you associate the other-than-pure-mental five ways of ascertaining reality with the feeling of anger, and thereby your employment of the word "flame"bait.

You even show ignorance of the word "flamebait." Flamebait means you are trying to elicite insults from others with your posts. And anyone who has read any of my posts off of here know that I do not call emotional arguements flamebait unless they are.

And if I felt anger, you would know it. I wouldn't be using the kid gloves I am now.

The rest of your statement is just the same old "nothing is valid if it doesn't come from my science-addictive erroneous idiosyncratic paradigm". You would do well to recover from your addiction, LordDemonEnigma, and broaden your awareness in the process.

You wish us to take you seriously, and yet cannot get my name right in your last comment? Ha!

You accuse me of being addicted to science because I use it, yet you also use it to support your claim. Can you say "hypocrite?" And you have proven you have little clue about the evidence you rely on.

As for awareness: I have already proven I have surpassed you in that as well. When you are ready to join those of us living in the real world, let me know and I can guide you there.

In the real world, every species has a heart, Tekania, including a body.

And in the real world, many species also have a development differentiated mind and soul as well, including human beings, cats, dogs, etc., etc.

Now, I don't know all of the NS beings you've imagined encountering or how you choose to define them.

But it's difficult for me to imagine that a significant number of NS nations truly see and think in terms of the NS world composed of your fantasy beings when they vote.

In truth, the validity of this discussion is in its application to real-world human beings, as that is truly the rational relevance of the matter at hand seeing that every NS nation is created and administerd by real-world human beings.

Wrong, the validity of this discussion is to nationstates and her members... Merely because you are homo-centric, does not mean I will back philosophical understand up 400 years, to reach your primate level levels of thought.

Further, I move that we end this discussion, and officially remove True Hearts chimpanzee shreeking from the UN floor... Someone throw the primate a bannana.

While you are correct in that he often chooses cheap shots instead of trying to actually argue (Fris, don't deny it)Deny it? Heh. I revel in it.

No, that's not substantive enough for me.In the words of a wiser sage than myself (the Dread Pirate Westley), "Get used to disappointment."

DNA science does not establish sentience.
Sentience, as you experience it, is not required to define either life or a unique individual human being.

The sentience argument for determining when a human being begins to live is also pure egocentric sophistry.


DNA science does not establish life.
Conception establishes the reality of a human being's life. DNA science accurately categorizes the newly conceived life as being that of a unique human being.

In the words of a wiser sage than myself (the Dread Pirate Westley), "Get used to disappointment."
Indeed, your lack of relevant substantive participation is truly disappointing.

Sentience, as you experience it, is not required to define either life or a unique individual human being.

Sentience, or at least a fascimile thereof, is a requirement of the mental state of humanity. Some people apply to the idea humanity is a mental state, so I covered it as well.

Keep in mind that a functioning brain is a requirement. Without it, all you have is a corpse. And corpses are recognized as human only in DNA.

The sentience argument for determining when a human being begins to live is also pure egocentric sophistry.

Here, you reveal a sophistry by ignoring the sentence after that for this portion.

Conception establishes the reality of a human being's life. DNA science accurately categorizes the newly conceived life as being that of a unique human being.

There is where your flaw lies. Conception establishes a cell that may someday grow to be a human life. It is not, however, a life under what even DNA science relies on for determining life. I've explained in the morality thread why that is not so.

Also, your fallacy is to assume that it is a unique human life just because it has human DNA. A human hair that is still growing has human DNA and may, depending on how the cells have mutated, have unique DNA. Is it a human? No.

DNA does not a human make. By itself, it just establishes whether or not it came from a human. Life is established elsewhere.

Sentience, or at least a fascimile thereof, is a requirement of the mental state of humanity. Some people apply to the idea humanity is a mental state, so I covered it as well.
Which is, of course, irrelevant to the matter at hand.


Keep in mind that a functioning brain is a requirement.
A requirement for what, DLE?

That a "functioning brain" is required as evidence that a unique individual human being is alive is, once again, your ego's projected sophistry.


Without it, all you have is a corpse.
You once again error thanks to your pseudoscience addiction, DLE.

A newly conceived unique individual human being does not have a "functioning brain" as you project it, but that human being is far from any relevant definition of a corpse (meaning a "dead" body), as that person is most certainly both alive and growing, not dead and decaying.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, DLE? I mean, compared to what Frisbeeteria could offer, I'm not getting much of a workout here.


And corpses are recognized as human only in DNA.
Irrelevant, based on the error in your previous sentence. Besides, I can recognize a human corpse on heart-sight, without the need for DNA identification, so the word "only" in your statement here is also erroneous.


Conception establishes a cell that may someday grow to be a human life.
Conception establishes a new unique individual human being that is alive. The newly conceived human being is alive as every heart knows, and the newly conceived human being even meets life science's definition of life by virtue of the reality that the newly conceived human being: is self-motivating, self-replicating, burns nucleic fuel, grows as a result, and responds to external stimuli.

Once again, you're pseudo-science addiction is revealed.


It is not, however, a life under what even DNA science relies on for determining life.
DNA science relies on life sciences definition. Good enough, as I specified above.


Also, your fallacy is to assume that it is a unique human life just because it has human DNA. A human hair that is still growing has human DNA and may, depending on how the cells have mutated, have unique DNA. Is it a human? No.
DNA damage is irrelevant, as is mutation.

Again, DLE, by virtue of being a conception, a unique individual human being is alive.


DNA does not a human make. By itself, it just establishes whether or not it came from a human. Life is established elsewhere.
Yes ... a unique life is established by virtue of conception -- the DNA defines that life as unique and a human being.


( :sigh: ) Truly disappointing, Frisbeeteria.

True Heart, your ability to use a thesaurus and randomly emphasise words with the use of the italic tags doesn't change the fact that making personal attacks is not welcome.
If you really wish to psychoanalyse people, go take a psychology course at college or something. It's not necessary here.
Attack the issues, not the people.

I do conceed that at conception the zygot is alive, that is performs the full functioning of an operational metabolizing cell (this has no bearing on True Hearts fabled "heart" this is mere observational criteria of the creature).... However, being in possession of DNA whether unique or not, and being "alive" are not qualifiers or personhood, nor does it specifically mean you are in ownership of self...

A fetus may metabolize and exist as a life-form... but it does not enjoy life as an individual person, because it lacks the full criteria of an individual being... Being alive does not grant a creature the same rights as that of a person... They are two seperate conceptualizations...

Thus, all arguments as to the fetus being alive are specious, and irrelevant to this topic.

( :sigh: ) Truly disappointing, Frisbeeteria.
I don't debate abortion with anyone, anywhere, because for me it's a non-issue. If you take the time to get to know me in real life for a year or three, I might open up and tell you why.


Beyond that, I only make fun of trolls and zealots. It's pointless to debate with them.

You once again error thanks to your pseudoscience addiction, DLE.

You know, I've been following this thread with varying responses of amusement, admiration, and disgust, and the only debater who seems addicted to any pseudoscience is you.


Besides, I can recognize a human corpse on heart-sight, without the need for DNA identification

And here is a lovely example: your philosophy centered around 'the heart,' into which you attempt to incorporate psychology and other meaningless dabbles of science. If I had the patience, I would go through all of your posts on this thread and count how many times you used the word 'heart,' as well as other amorphous terms such as 'truth' and 'live.'

The newly conceived human being is alive as every heart knows, and the newly conceived human being even meets life science's definition of life by virtue of the reality that the newly conceived human being: is self-motivating, self-replicating, burns nucleic fuel, grows as a result, and responds to external stimuli.

There it is again. That damn 'heart.' MY heart does not recognize that just any 'living' thing is 'alive' by the definition that is really the core of the abortion issue. The relevant definition includes the capacity to have a soul, whether or not anyone concedes this. If it were just a matter of being 'alive,' then I'd be convinced that you should have starved by now out of respect for life, as all plants, animals, and bacteria are 'alive' and consist of DNA-- and DNA, by the way, doesn't make human life sacred, as all living things have the same DNA, just strung up differently. You're attempting to apply a basic biological definition of life to a being with no physically determinable mental or spiritual parameters, but whose such parameters must be considered in determining whether it's humanly 'alive.' Science cannot justify your position, as it's not a matter of tangible fact, because it's some contrived matter of the 'heart.' It is, as you accuse others so vociferously, a pseudoscience.

The way I currently see it, abortion is guesswork as far as whether or not the fetus is 'alive.' But I also see it as a moot point in the debate. I'm concerned with every woman having the option. Some women will abuse the option, some will refuse it on moral grounds, and others will use it responsibly in cases of necessity, with the nature of necessity to be determined by them. But abortion should be made available, not forced on or restricted from people.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the matter at hand.

If you want to talk about what defines a human, it isn't. If you want to talk about what defines the human species, it is. No middle ground exists.

A requirement for what, DLE?

That a "functioning brain" is required as evidence that a unique individual human being is alive is, once again, your ego's projected sophistry.

Wait, now you're disagreeing with medical science? Wow, you're on a roll. The mountain of evidence only gets bigger with every science you contradict.

Fact: Medical science requires brain activity and heart activity for life. Without heart activity, the brain dies. Without brain activity, the entire body dies. It is missing one, it's pretty much dead.

Also, you are making it sound like I'm some immortal who has influenced the direction science has taken. If so, I want to know why I was not aware of my immortality.

You once again error thanks to your pseudoscience addiction, DLE.

Fact: That is flamebait and an attempt to flame by making up a nonexistant mental disorder. You have, from what I can tell, no basis to make up such.

A newly conceived unique individual human being does not have a "functioning brain" as you project it, but that human being is far from any relevant definition of a corpse (meaning a "dead" body), as that person is most certainly both alive and growing, not dead and decaying.

You failed biology, didn't you?

After the heart and brain stop, much of the human body remains active. In some cases, it takes a month or longer before the cells finally stop. This is part of what lead to the rise of belief in vampirism, as people could check the dead body after a week and find the nails and hair had grown.

Also, I can remove cells from your body and, in the right environment, they will continue to grow and divide until their genetically preprogrammed self-destruct time is reached.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, DLE? I mean, compared to what Frisbeeteria could offer, I'm not getting much of a workout here.

You don't get much of a workout because you are relying on something that has no evidence to back it up for stating when life starts and skews what little evidence it does bring up. The rest of us are using standards that have been tested, developed, and almost perfected over centuries and will continue to get more perfected.

To be honest, I get tired of having to point out the facts you are ignoring, and often it's the same thing over and over. It would help if you listened to facts instead of something you made up.

Irrelevant, based on the error in your previous sentence. Besides, I can recognize a human corpse on heart-sight, without the need for DNA identification, so the word "only" in your statement here is also erroneous.

Not supported by logic. Depending on the state of decay, you can recognize a humanoid corpse on sight, but until you have genetic evidence it is human the best you can do is assume it is such. Humanoid does not equate human.

Conception establishes a new unique individual human being that is alive. The newly conceived human being is alive as every heart knows, and the newly conceived human being even meets life science's definition of life by virtue of the reality that the newly conceived human being: is self-motivating, self-replicating, burns nucleic fuel, grows as a result, and responds to external stimuli.

Once again, you're taking evidence and stretching it to a conclusion it does not support. You posted only five of the seven signs. Viruses fulfill the qualifications of five of the seven signs and are not considered alive.

Also, the self-replicating portion refers to reproduction, as in increasing numbers thereof. Since you so obviously failed basic human reproduction and biology, I will state this in bold letters. Fetuses cannot reproduce. They do not have the necessary development of organs to do so.

Once again, you're pseudo-science addiction is revealed.

Once again, you make up a nonexistant psychological disease to cover the fact you are attempting to flame and flamebait.

DNA science relies on life sciences definition. Good enough, as I specified above.

Disproven as good enough.

DNA damage is irrelevant, as is mutation.

Wait, now you're disagreeing with the very science you claim to hold so dear? When using a science that relies that heavily on evidence, you either agree with all of it or none of it. You can't pick and choose what you like and what you don't.

Genetic mutation is important to life because it is what helps differentiate individuals and helps evolution.

Again, DLE, by virtue of being a conception, a unique individual human being is alive.

Already disproven.

Yes ... a unique life is established by virtue of conception -- the DNA defines that life as unique and a human being.

The idea a life is created at conception has been disproven. No matter what was stated in A Brave New World, a thousand repetitions does not make a single truth. You can continue to repeat the fallacy that life is created at conception until we both die of old age and are reincarnated seventeen times and it still won't be a fact.

All DNA does is define whether or not it is human. It doesn't define life.

True Heart, your ability to use a thesaurus and randomly emphasise words with the use of the italic tags doesn't change the fact that making personal attacks is not welcome.
If you really wish to psychoanalyse people, go take a psychology course at college or something. It's not necessary here.
Attack the issues, not the people.
ROTFLMAF. I was marveling at the dogged repetition of italics myself. :cool:

ROTFLMAF. I was marveling at the dogged repetition of italics myself. :cool:

Something else important is he has made up a psychological disease that does not exist and is getting the psychology wrong. I had to take a psychology course in college and have to keep up with it because of my job.

His testamony is irrelevant anyways; the issue is not whether or not the fetus or zygot is alive; it is whether it is an individual, thinking, conseptualizing, self-aware person... I could care less what the biological classification or metabolization paterns and chemical construction of the thing is; I'm concerned with its actual transcendent state... which he has never (to use his love of italics) addressed.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong, DLE? I mean, compared to what Frisbeeteria could offer, I'm not getting much of a workout here. You don't get much of a workout because ... <snip>
Given that I have not participated and don't plan to participate in this debate, I'll thank you not to use my name in a slam against another poster. Fight your own battles, True Heart. I don't appreciate being used as a pawn in your war.

In real life Netherlands abortion is allowed but with restrictions. Sorta comes down to abortion only in the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy. After that the foetus starts looking like a real human being in the making and that's where it all stops. There's also a 5 day time period between an intake and the actual abortion, in case women change their mind. This means a pregnant woman always has a choice. I think that's good. Abortion when a foetus is 7 or 8 months old however I think is a no go.

I myself think religious factions should cool down about the issue. Like the Roman Catholic church is fiercely opposing the use of anti-conception products such as the pill and condoms. Though times are changing, so are people. Kids learn about sex at earlier age then say a 100 years ago. They experiment. Should 14 year old girls (or younger ones) get knocked up because churches propagate not to use anti-conception products ? And when a woman gets sexually assaulted, would they have to carry the child of their molesters just cause a religious faction tells them to ? I think religion has nothing to do with this. Even better: religion is about giving people faith, trying to help people through the roughest of times by giving them hope for a better future. That is what true religion is about. Most women who go through an abortion have one hell of a rough time. The religious factions they belong to should back them up in their decisions and help them, instead of preaching hell and doom.

Although personally I support abortion for most of the pregnancy at the very least, I would like to propose a compromise with the power I do not have. If people find this acceptable, they can propose it formally.

Amend "Abortion Rights"

A resolution to ammend and limit the abortion rights resolution.

Category: Human Rights

Whereas the "Abortion Rights" resolution currently reads "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

Whereas the majority of real nations limit abortion to some degree.

Whereas many doctors beleive that a baby becomes a living human being shortly before it is born

Whereas some nations beleive all abortion is murder

Be it resolved that: The words Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not shall be stricken from the resolution.

Be it resolved that: The words before the third trimester or when the woman's life or health is in danger according to the opinion of two doctors. be added to the end of the resolution.

Although personally I support abortion for most of the pregnancy at the very least, I would like to propose a compromise with the power I do not have. If people find this acceptable, they can propose it formally.

Amend "Abortion Rights"

A resolution to ammend and limit the abortion rights resolution.

Category: Human Rights

Whereas the "Abortion Rights" resolution currently reads "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

Whereas the majority of real nations limit abortion to some degree.

Whereas many doctors beleive that a baby becomes a living human being shortly before it is born

Whereas some nations beleive all abortion is murder

Be it resolved that: The words Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not shall be stricken from the resolution.

Be it resolved that: The words before the third trimester or when the woman's life or health is in danger according to the opinion of two doctors. be added to the end of the resolution.

Resolutions Cannot Be Amended. However, your name has been amended to my list of "People Who Did Not Read The FAQs".

Resolutions Cannot Be Amended. However, your name has been amended to my list of "People Who Did Not Read The FAQs".

Well... I did read the rules... I just got caught up in the moment and was thinking of reality. And also, I had read the Proposed Amendment to the Eon Genocide Convention which confused me on this issue.

Anyway, a repeal proposal written in a similar manner making some sort of promise of supporting an replacement proposal would have basically the same effect. I was just reading the posts here and felt that it was odd that there didn't seem to be any compromises being discussed and wanted to bring one into the discussion. Then, just because I spent some time learning some sort of debate style, I thought it would be cool to phrase it formally and forgot the mention of ammendments... especially because it was small and I didn't think much of it because I generally supported the resolutions I saw on the books. Now a reiteration of the resolution, now as a repeal:

Repeal "Abortion Rights"

A resolution to repeal a previous resolution.

Category: Human Rights

Whereas the "Abortion Rights" resolution currently reads "Henceforth all women shall have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, no member nation will interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion."

Whereas the majority of real nations limit abortion to some degree.

Whereas many doctors beleive that a baby becomes a living human being before it is born

Whereas some nations beleive all abortion is murder

Be it resolved that: Henceforth the resolution titled "Abortion Rights" shall be null and void.

Be it resolved that: Supporters of this resolution are also agreeing to support, upon the passage of this repeal, a resolution allowing abortion before the third trimester or when the woman's life or health is in danger according to the opinion of two doctors.