NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion is a pretty touchy subject. I, however, have found evidence against it. Please let me know what you are: for or against it?

Abortion is a pretty touchy subject. I, however, have found evidence against it. Please let me know what you are: for or against it?

Is this "evidence" secret or may we mortals have a peak?

The Cat-Tribe is vehemently pro-choice.

I am pro-life. I want to reveal this info as the debate proceeds. It is info I found out from a book. It is called "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Rush Limbaugh.

I am pro-life. I want to reveal this info as the debate proceeds. It is info I found out from a book. It is called "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Rush Limbaugh.

:rolleyes:

That tells me all I need to know. :p

I don't get it... Anyway abortion is killing innocent babies. That, to me, is immoral and inhumane, even if it gives a woman a chance to choose.

I don't get it... Anyway abortion is killing innocent babies. That, to me, is immoral and inhumane, even if it gives a woman a chance to choose.

Pigs have more characteristics of personhood than the zygotes, fetuses, etc., that are usually aborted.

You are going to have to explain "immoral" and "inhumane" as neither term is self-evident, particularly in this context.

A woman has the right to self-ownership, to control over her own body. This is a fundamental liberty not to be lightly dismissed. To focus on illusory "babies" is to ignore the only undeniably living, human, person with rights in the situation.

Moreover, Women are moral agents. If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.

Luckily your proposed repeal will go nowhere.

Rush Limbaugh
This man does not deal in fact, only opinion.
You'll need something abit more sturdy methinks.

If she has ownership over her body, then why can't she do drugs? Why not use her body to go steal something? It's against the law. What if say a man used his body for rape? If he went out and raped somebody else? Following the abortion laws, he can legally say that he was using his own body and he had the right to use it.

Pigs have more characteristics of personhood than the zygotes, fetuses, etc., that are usually aborted.

You are going to have to explain "immoral" and "inhumane" as neither term is self-evident, particularly in this context.

A woman has the right to self-ownership, to control over her own body. This is a fundamental liberty not to be lightly dismissed. To focus on illusory "babies" is to ignore the only undeniably living, human, person with rights in the situation.

Moreover, Women are moral agents. If you trust women to have children, then you must trust them to make decisions about their pregancies. It is an unbelievably arrogant to assume you know better. To deprive women of choice is simple tyranny.

Luckily your proposed repeal will go nowhere.

If a woman takes a chance and has sex, there's a chance of a baby being born. Sexual intercourse is the only way and is only supposed to be used to have kids. What else do you have sex for? Pleasure? There are so many other ways to get pleasure with out sex. Like backrubs or massages or even a good night's rest.

If she has ownership over her body, then why can't she do drugs? Why not use her body to go steal something? It's against the law. What if say a man used his body for rape? If he went out and raped somebody else? Following the abortion laws, he can legally say that he was using his own body and he had the right to use it.

Let's not be silly.

If you steal something, you are taking another's property.

If you rape someone, you are violating another's body.

These arguments only hurt your cause, as they demonstrate a lack of rationality behind your repeal.

If she has ownership over her body, then why can't she do drugs?
Well, I don't know about Clamparapa, but in Neo-Anarchists they can use drugs.
Why not use her body to go steal something?
Because that is taking something that belongs to someone else.
False analogy.
It's against the law.
And is that the delegate from Clamparapa's entire rationalization for why it is ilegal?
It's a rather weak one, if so.
What if say a man used his body for rape? If he went out and raped somebody else? Following the abortion laws, he can legally say that he was using his own body and he had the right to use it.
No, because you don't have the right to do things to another person against their will. A patently false analogy here.

Unless you're taking the "The fetus is a person!" angle?

If a woman takes a chance and has sex, there's a chance of a baby being born. Sexual intercourse is the only way and is only supposed to be used to have kids. What else do you have sex for? Pleasure? There are so many other ways to get pleasure with out sex. Like backrubs or massages or even a good night's rest.

Oh, you're one of those. :rolleyes:

The UN does not have such a backwards, prudish view of sex.

Nor does the UN view pregnancy as punishment.

None of these arguments will win you any support.

Sexual intercourse is the only way and is only supposed to be used to have kids.
Perhaps the good delegate would care to explain this?

Well, I don't know about Clamparapa, but in Neo-Anarchists they can use drugs.

Because that is taking something that belongs to someone else.
False analogy.

And is that the delegate from Clamparapa's entire rationalization for why it is ilegal?
It's a rather weak one, if so.

No, because you don't have the right to do things to another person against their will. A patently false analogy here.

Unless you're taking the "The fetus is a person!" angle?

Yes, yes I am. Do you think that they are?

Sex only for having babies, huh?

You're missing out!

Perhaps the good delegate would care to explain this?

The good Lord decided that there should be a way to reproduce. So He invented sex. And don't go all non-Christian on me. I am a Christian and proud to be one.

I am pro-life. I want to reveal this info as the debate proceeds. It is info I found out from a book. It is called "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Rush Limbaugh.

HAHAHA.

Sorry, I had to let it out. The people of the Neutral Republic of Aeruillin, especially the 23% Atheists, have vehemently spoken out for the pro-choice side. Aeruillin medical law allows for an abortion, no questions asked, for up to four months after conception. After that and up to the seventh month after which abortions can only be considered if the mother's life is in danger, valid reasons such as poverty, birth complications or terminal disease of the parents have to be brought forward. The 47% half-elven and elven citizens have lent their support to the movement though they are hardly affected, mainly because they see with alarm the rate at which human population outgrows their own.

A tiny fraction of the 5% Christians have spoken out against, but those are also the ones always pushing for religious legislation and Aeruillinyan Native Supremacy, so their voices are mostly ignored.

Furthermore, the population has recently petitioned for a ban on the importation of the ramblings of imbecilic talkshow hosts, and pushed the bill through the Council with a staggering 76% majority. This would therefore render your argument invalid even if it was NOT a RL-reference.

~~~Obertin Arashal, UN representative of Aeruillin.

But we are not all Christian, so how on earth do you expect us to have a rationale conversation if we are confined in such limited parameters?

That's what I'm getting at. So many people are Atheists they don't see the real reasons for different issues. Including sex. There is alot of good info in this book. Even though about 15% of the book is opinion based the rest is fact. If you want me to quote from the Bible...

The good Lord decided that there should be a way to reproduce. So He invented sex. And don't go all non-Christian on me. I am a Christian and proud to be one.

Good for you. The delegate from Clamparapa and his Lord can have all the procreative sex they want.

Just keep your Lord and your hatred of sex away from the rest of us.

But the bible isn't fact. It has been re-translated and muckied up thousands of times in it's history, so that it can't be taken as anything more than fiction when debating an issue like abortion.

I mean, the same people who had a hand in the current round of Bibles also burned witches at the stake? Seriously now.

I suggest you quote someone with some sort of higher-education before resorting to Limbaugh's misguided rhetoric.

That's what I'm getting at. So many people are Atheists they don't see the real reasons for different issues. Including sex. There is alot of good info in this book. Even though about 15% of the book is opinion based the rest is fact. If you want me to quote from the Bible...

Please do not embarass both of us, sir [OOC: or lady?], by introducing religious writings into a debate of international law. As you are aware, only a fraction of all our nations even have a majority of inhabitants with the Christian faith, and this discussion would soon turn comical if we were to draw upon garbled sources of uncertain historical origin. You do not notice me quoting from the Book of Canae, do you? [OOC: fictional]

~~~ Obertin Arashal.

---

To summarize: RL references have as much value as we care to give them. For this specific reference, and for the purpose of this specific debate, I care to give it none.

That's what I'm getting at. So many people are Atheists they don't see the real reasons for different issues. Including sex. There is alot of good info in this book. Even though about 15% of the book is opinion based the rest is fact. If you want me to quote from the Bible...


:headbang:

Quote neither the Bible nor Rush Limbaugh.

The majority of UN nations recognize the authority of neither.

(Not to mention that you are referring to RL.)

And don't go all non-Christian on me.
I suppose that will sit well with the rest of the UN...
Or possibly not.

I am a sir, and I think that Church and the UN should get together let me sumarize this in a way that you might understand. You care about the rainforest, right?

Do I care about the rainforests? No. I have an entire planet with them covering nearly every square centimeter of land and another with massive numbers of them. Rainforests get in the way when you're trying to colonize, especially when we have no evidence they even help the oxygen cycle.

As for Christianity: We had it attempted once. It was kicked out due to the citizens thinking it was teaching cannibalism. In fact, if I remember correctly, they kicked it out using grenades and missile launchers. You see, even with the high rate of vampirism we don't tolerate cannibalism and encourage efforts amoung our citizens to keep it from occuring. All attempts to reintroduce it fail, since the majority of our citizens don't particularly like religion in general, let alone religions they think encourage a social problem.

We have searched our databases, and the only Rush Limbaugh of any importance we have found was a citizen who attempted a terrorist attack against one of our military bases, only to be beaten up by a bunch of schoolgirls (actual schoolgirls, not people dressed like them) with slingshots. Anyone who knows about DLE history knows this happened quite early in our nation's existance, as the attempt at having a school program overwhelmingly failed. Luckily, the education system we have seems to work better.

All of your "evidence" amounts to subjective morality, a book by someone we do not know the scientific credetials of, a religion that isn't even shared by the entirety of your species, and a waste of time. Unless you have some facts, don't waste our time with trying to repeal something supported by 90% of the DLE Empire.

I got a question for you pro choice guys ( no I'm not pro life or pro choice I'm really undecided)

What makes the developing baby any less alive then a a born baby? Then if there is a point in the pregnancy where you think it is wrong to abort the baby what makes that baby any more special then another one they all develop into children later.

Having a children when you don't want one would be a difficult situation for anyone and this is why I havn't taken a side.

I got a question for you pro choice guys ( no I'm not pro life or pro choice I'm really undecided)

What makes the developing baby any less alive then a a born baby? Then if there is a point in the pregnancy where you think it is wrong to abort the baby what makes that baby any more special then another one they all develop into children later.

Having a children when you don't want one would be a difficult situation for anyone and this is why I havn't taken a side.

Seven scientific criteria exist for determining whether or not something is alive. Using a human child as an example, we determined having six is the requirement for life. Viruses and fetuses both have five. If a fetus is alive, so is a virus. If a virus is not alive, neither is a fetus. Which way do you prefer?

Under Crydonian law, a fetus is'nt a human being until after its head is out of the birth canal (or stomach in the case of a ceserian). Until then, in our nation, it has no rights. For that reason, and our very firm belief in a woman's right to control her own fertility without government interference, we are very strongly opposed to any repeals against the Legal abortion resolution.

I posted this under my old UN nation in a similar thread a while ago, and think as I plan to build this new UN nation up the same way as I did Crydonia, it should sum up Waterana's stance quite adequately. I did change the last few words to make it more relevant to this thread.

I got a question for you pro choice guys ( no I'm not pro life or pro choice I'm really undecided)

What makes the developing baby any less alive then a a born baby? Then if there is a point in the pregnancy where you think it is wrong to abort the baby what makes that baby any more special then another one they all develop into children later.

Having a children when you don't want one would be a difficult situation for anyone and this is why I havn't taken a side.

Its not a question of "alive" in my opinion, but a question of utter dependance. A fetus is attached to the woman, and totally depends on her for its survival and development. Vastiva often calls an unborn fetus a parasite, and I agree. Until it can survive independant of its host (the woman), it is'nt a baby, and does'nt have any rights.

I support a womans right to abort at any stage of pregnacy, her body, her choice, whether to allow it to be used by anyone or thing.

First of all: Rush Limbaugh is a crackpot. This we know from watching your television signals. The man is a pill popping rightwing nutjob, who referred to an atrocity in a prison for war criminals as "Good old american porn." The man has no right in light of this to discuss morality, and certainly not from any authoritative point of view.

Now the abortion debate has two parts. First, is the question of whether a fetus is a person. This is where the most debate occurs. If it is descided that a fetus is a person (and it hasn't been) then we must descide whose rights should be at the forefront. Should a woman have a right to not have a fetus inhabit her womb more than a fetus has a right to live? Most would answer no to that question. However, it is the prevailing opinion that a fetus is not a person, and thus has no such "right to live" The fetus is instead viewed as one of the mothers organs, which can be removed should she wish it to be.

You have very little company in the enclave you have placed yourself in. You would view a pregnancy as the proper punishment for sexual promiscuity. It is people like you who in fact drive women to have abortions, to avoid the shame that they would feel should anyone know that they got pregnant. And as long as you continue to look down your nose at these women, you will have no respectable voice in the U.N.

Now, I am currently working on a proposal that will try to make abortion unnecessary, and since it has a shadow of a hope of a chance of maybe passing, maybe you should jump onto it, and off of this burning bridge.

:applauds Cyrian space:

Cyrian, please note the creator of this draft supporting your resolution is only going to add evidence to the case being made that you are trying to effectively ban abortion by making it unnecessary. You recruiting him only makes that evidence very hard to refute.

Making abortion unnecessary is not banning it.
If I were attempting to eliminate crime, would you accuse me of illegalizing self defense?

Making abortion unnecessary is not banning it.
If I were attempting to eliminate crime, would you accuse me of illegalizing self defense?

No, but I would ask you be investigated for committing one. I've seen the methods necessary, and they involve hive minds, genocide, or massive amounts of brainwashing. The third option is less effective due to individual variances in resistance to it.

Alright, now you are just getting rediculous. You know full well what I meant.
Really I am not attempting to ban abortion, I am just attempting to eliminate the necessity to have one.

Alright, now you are just getting rediculous. You know full well what I meant.
Really I am not attempting to ban abortion, I am just attempting to eliminate the necessity to have one.

Actually, you're doing one of two things, neither of which is overly admirable. Either you are trying to:


Legislate technology into existence, in which case I might refer you to the original "Global Library" resolution (#86), which was duly repealed for that reason. Passing resolutions that effectively force many nations' technological levels to rise are either useless or a violation of national sovereignty. If people want to achieve higher levels of technology, there is no shortage of advanced societies from whom they could learn.

Create an eventual ban on abortion, in which case I think that this method is a duplicitous way to do it. I can almost hear the arguments that would come up: "Since it's unnecessary, that means nobody has to do it! Ban it now!"


Thus, I see no reason for "making abortion unnecessary" through tech legislation.

Can we save the discussion of his proposal for his thread? I know I started the discussion, but it's evolved into a hijack.

Actually, I kindof started the discussion with my plug, but yes, let us return to the matter at hand.

That's what I'm getting at. So many people are Atheists they don't see the real reasons for different issues. Including sex. There is alot of good info in this book. Even though about 15% of the book is opinion based the rest is fact. If you want me to quote from the Bible...

EXCUSE ME??? Are you suggesting that there are only 2 ways of thought in the Universe? Christian or Athiest? You really need to get out more.

I have another question: What is your view on the death penalty? What is your view on Warfare? I assume, since you are "pro-life" and "fetuses are people" that you are also an extreme pacifist and think the death penalty should also be abolished. If not, how can you justify killing (adult) people and not killing (fetus) people? Certainly, innocent people are killed in warfare (it's called "collateral damage" these days, but it's non-combatants getting killed all the same), and innocent people are executed by the state (oops! they made a mistake! Sorrr-eee). What's the difference between that and abortions in the ultimate Scheme of Things?

don't all these acts of killing make Jesus cry?

don't all these acts of killing make Jesus cry?

Going by certain people I know, apparently not.

Let us, for a moment, postulate that there exists a part of sapient existence that is eternal. Let us define this part of existence a soul for lack of a better word.

Eternal implies that it is timeless; that is it has always existed and always will exist. And that this eternal soul is a component of all sapient beings.

Let us further postulate that this eternal soul incarnates into physical reality to experience "life" in a variety of forms. This soul lives a life and then returns to the non-corporeal timeless state, but does not stay there; it returns again to the physical plane again and again, experiencing a variety of lives on myriad worlds.

In the Vedas, this cycle repeats because corporeal beings haven't discovered that the physical world is an illusion, and once it is discovered by a particular soul, it does not have to return to this physical existence and can continue on in its growth.

If, in fact, reincarnation does exists (and who's to say it doesn't?), then terminating the life of a fetus places that soul back into the eternal pool, where it can incarnate again later.

If you subscribe to a more Christian outlook, the fetus goes directly to heaven, to be with God, without having to experience ANY of the pain of life. You would think that would be a GOOD thing, wouldn't you?

Seven scientific criteria exist for determining whether or not something is alive. Using a human child as an example, we determined having six is the requirement for life. Viruses and fetuses both have five. If a fetus is alive, so is a virus. If a virus is not alive, neither is a fetus. Which way do you prefer?

Please enlighten me on these 6 charachteristics of life I am very interested in most fields of science and this would interest me. But then I would like to tell you something that I'm sure you know if you are aware of that information that they same some people who set up thouse scientific criterias consider bacteria living.

[QUOTE=Waterana]
Its not a question of "alive" in my opinion, but a question of utter dependance. A fetus is attached to the woman, and totally depends on her for its survival and development. Vastiva often calls an unborn fetus a parasite, and I agree. Until it can survive independant of its host (the woman), it is'nt a baby, and does'nt have any rights.
[QUOTE]

I agree that the fetus is utterly dependent on mother and therefore some what of a parasite, but can't a parasite not be living? But then according to your oppinion a fetus of a baby of any age isn't alive until it is born, so you wouldn't consider somone who kills a mother and her fetus at eight months to have commitited 2 murders?

I agree that the fetus is utterly dependent on mother and therefore some what of a parasite, but can't a parasite not be living? But then according to your oppinion a fetus of a baby of any age isn't alive until it is born, so you wouldn't consider somone who kills a mother and her fetus at eight months to have commitited 2 murders?

No I don't consider it two murders, and this is my main reason for that. If a fetus gets the status of personhood for the purpose of a murder charge, then it also gets personhood under a lot of other circumstances.

I know its a bit of a slippery slope, but if a person can be charged with murdering an unborn fetus, then a potential mother could also be charged with manslaughter if she slips while wearing high heels, or if she falls off a ladder while painting and the fetus is miscarried,. She should also face abuse charges if she drinks or does any drugs while pregnant. Giving a fetus personhood or rights while in the womb can't just be applied to one circumstance, it would cover them all, and pregnant women would face running a legal gauntlet for the entire nine months they carried the child.

Please enlighten me on these 6 charachteristics of life I am very interested in most fields of science and this would interest me. But then I would like to tell you something that I'm sure you know if you are aware of that information that they same some people who set up thouse scientific criterias consider bacteria living.

That's because they are. They meet all seven signs.

It's from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-389408.html):

You wanted the seven signs of life? Here it is: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7652355&postcount=12

Here's an exact quote of that posting:

An end to this, once and for all. The following is what everyone, including geneticists and DNA science, uses to define life:

Biology attempts to answer the question scientifically, without resorting to philosophy or theology. Ultimately, science recognizes that a wholly biological answer is inadequate, and therefore, we try to characterize life rather than precisely define it.
What are the characteristics of life? There are a number of features that could be used to characterize life.


A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division

Now, to examine it.

A. An embryo does not have a set size or shape. In fact, they change shapes frequently as they advance.

B. Embryos do this.

C. Embryos do this.

D. Actually, the last time I checked, this is untrue for embryos. Therefore, they do not fit.

E. Embryos do not do this. They cannot do this at all.

F. They barely do this at first.

G. Embryos are not that capable of environmental adaption, so I would say they do not qualify.

By virtue of the above, embryos do not fit in enough categories to count as life. You know what else fits in some of the categories but not enough to count as life? Viruses.

And that is the standard being used. And the arguement that effectively proved embryos, and fetuses, are not alive.

This keeps up and I'm putting that link in my sig.

I agree that the fetus is utterly dependent on mother and therefore some what of a parasite, but can't a parasite not be living? But then according to your oppinion a fetus of a baby of any age isn't alive until it is born, so you wouldn't consider somone who kills a mother and her fetus at eight months to have commitited 2 murders?

A parasite can be alive, but only if they meet 6 of the 7 requirements. And, unlike them, I define life as late third trimester, though that is going to change to born in response to another piece of legislation.

this post is concerning waters post.
I agree with your points made in the statment but do you believe there is any wrong doing in the "killing" of unborn babys without the mothers consent since you don't consider them living and therefore no wrong doing done?

I don't belive a child is really living in the sense of how I am living, it is just a a few cells and is no differnt then then the cells that are dead on my arm. But as the fetus develops and grows systems of organs and its own nervous system does it not feel pain and possibly other human emotions?

But then the time when abortions are preformed is alot sooner then this and the baby then is as complicated and developed as a sea sponge (could be more or less).

But then with my believe it is impossible to determine when this is and it that is why I don't take a stand on either side. But the fact is that the fetus could have become a fully developed human like you and me. But then ya it is taking away the life (not litteraly) of the women.

That legislation won't make it through quorum. Unless it gets limited to egg-layers.

I agree with your points made in the statment but do you believe there is any wrong doing in the "killing" of unborn babys without the mothers consent since you don't consider them living and therefore no wrong doing done?

That's assault with bodily harm upon the mother. Punishable by death.

I don't belive a child is really living in the sense of how I am living, it is just a a few cells and is no differnt then then the cells that are dead on my arm. But as the fetus develops and grows systems of organs and its own nervous system does it not feel pain and possibly other human emotions?

With cloning technology, so can those cells in your arm.

But then the time when abortions are preformed is alot sooner then this and the baby then is as complicated and developed as a sea sponge (could be more or less).

Still dependent on the mother to live.

But then with my believe it is impossible to determine when this is and it that is why I don't take a stand on either side. But the fact is that the fetus could have become a fully developed human like you and me. But then ya it is taking away the life (not litteraly) of the women.

Like I said: The cells in your arm could also become a fully developped human being with cloning technology.

Thouse charachteristics can be argued about and there can be exceptions to thouse rules, for example the pygmies in Africa are outside of that average size size part (that is the main point i disagree with)

On d that can be sketchy because there is no clear cut definition of stable but I'm not really gonna disagree on this.
e. The fetus is a byproduct of reproduction they develop reproductional organs and create new cells by having them split because of the dna they have.

But then thouse charachteristics are not universally accepeted and is a just a theory (if that there is no test to prove that every living thing will have this one thing and if it doesn't it isn't living) just like how people used to think the world was flat.

deamon that post you just replyed to really wasn't aimed at you.

Update
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm
that site says nothing about death penelty for killing the fetus

I'm just trying to be open minded and have the debate for a intellectual debates, I personnally agree with nearly everything you say on this topic.

"That's assault with bodily harm upon the mother. Punishable by death."
In what court is this implemented, In my books it is horribly wrong but with the defintions given it is assault and I don't know of any cases in a recent time in a civilized nation where somone was sentenced to death for assault.

But then on the cloning no arguments on anything presented there but things down to individuals cells can be living with the current generally accepted definitions but it doesn't really apply to when a fetus is considered human, maybe living.

Thouse charachteristics can be argued about and there can be exceptions to thouse rules, for example the pygmies in Africa are outside of that average size size part (that is the main point i disagree with)

Actually, they are well within the normal range for humans. In fact, they are about the height most humans were originally.

On d that can be sketchy because there is no clear cut definition of stable but I'm not really gonna disagree on this.
e. The fetus is a byproduct of reproduction they develop reproductional organs and create new cells by having them split because of the dna they have.

The organs are not intended for reproduction until after the child reaches puberty, which is years after birth. Until then, them reproducing really isn't that much of a problem unless you are having chemical problems in your nation. And even then, they are not likely to survive it.

But then thouse charachteristics are not universally accepeted and is a just a theory (if that there is no test to prove that every living thing will have this one thing and if it doesn't it isn't living) just like how people used to think the world was flat.

Which ones?

deamon that post you just replyed to really wasn't aimed at you.

"That's assault with bodily harm upon the mother. Punishable by death."
In what court is this implemented, In my books it is horribly wrong but with the defintions given it is assault and I don't know of any cases in a recent time in a civilized nation where somone was sentenced to death for assault.

My nation. If we cannot trust them to be able to work unsupervised on the orbital platforms and they cannot make restitution for what they have done, they don't get to survive. It's harsh, but so is the region we live in.

But then on the cloning no arguments on anything presented there but things down to individuals cells can be living with the current generally accepted definitions but it doesn't really apply to when a fetus is considered human, maybe living.

The individual cells in the human body are incapable of surviving on their own. I bash your brains in, your heart has a limited time before it shuts down.

You are good dam good, But for not being universally accepted ask thouse catholic nuts (I know credibility but there are lots of them and they arn't all stupid paranoid nuts that talk to them selfs that don't think gravity exists)

Then there are sterile animals (ie mules)that since they can't reproduce and don't evolve because evolution takes over palce over thousands of years of reproduction (could have been adapt and then this little argument is worthless :D )

But like I said before I agree with you on the topic. Then I can't really discredit thouse experts on the definition of life (Micheal Chirton's Andromeda Strain brings up lots of interesting questions when comparing it to thouse requriments for life [strongly recomend the book]).

You are good dam good, But for not being universally accepted ask thouse catholic nuts (I know credibility but there are lots of them and they arn't all stupid paranoid nuts that talk to them selfs that don't think gravity exists)

OOC: Actually, I am one of those "catholic nuts", though I am of the ones who accept science.

Then there are sterile animals (ie mules)that since they can't reproduce and don't evolve because evolution takes over palce over thousands of years of reproduction (could have been adapt and then this little argument is worthless :D )

Actually, some mules (an extreme minority) can reproduce.

But like I said before I agree with you on the topic. Then I can't really discredit thouse experts on the definition of life (Micheal Chirton's Andromeda Strain brings up lots of interesting questions when comparing it to thouse requriments for life [strongly recomend the book]).

Read it, enjoyed the laugh.

OOC: Actually, I am one of those "catholic nuts", though I am of the ones who accept science.



Actually, some mules (an extreme minority) can reproduce.



Read it, enjoyed the laugh.

well #1 then you not one of the catholics nuts I am talking about

#2 wow didn't know that, learn something new everyday

#3 so you think the questions brought up in the book are completly obsurde? Ya they are far fetched but it makes you think.

WEll I'm going to bed and all that stuff. Good thing we got this discussion toned down and almost to a end.

I am pro-life. I want to reveal this info as the debate proceeds. It is info I found out from a book. It is called "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Rush Limbaugh.

OOC: Someone gave me that book when it came out. I spent two weeks putting corrections in the margins, gave up, and did a paper on how it was wrong, where, and why.

In other words - bad source material. Particularly when you consider it was written by someone who said "all drug users are bad, there is never an excuse for abusing drugs" and is/was a vicodin addict.

this post is concerning waters post.
I agree with your points made in the statment but do you believe there is any wrong doing in the "killing" of unborn babys without the mothers consent since you don't consider them living and therefore no wrong doing done?

I don't belive a child is really living in the sense of how I am living, it is just a a few cells and is no differnt then then the cells that are dead on my arm. But as the fetus develops and grows systems of organs and its own nervous system does it not feel pain and possibly other human emotions?

But then the time when abortions are preformed is alot sooner then this and the baby then is as complicated and developed as a sea sponge (could be more or less).

But then with my believe it is impossible to determine when this is and it that is why I don't take a stand on either side. But the fact is that the fetus could have become a fully developed human like you and me. But then ya it is taking away the life (not litteraly) of the women.

I don't believe myself that the fetus is alive as long as it depends on the woman carrying it for its very survival and chance to devlope, if she wishes to allow it to. Until its independant of her life line, its just an extension of her body. As long as the umbilical cord is intact, the fetus is "living" entirely off the woman, and would cease to develope (die) without it. Thats why I don't believe a fetus is a person until the cord has been cut, and its living independant of the woman.

Because of the above, in a legal sense, no I don't believe anything wrong was done to the fetus, but it was most definetly done to the woman. This is the only part of my beliefs I have difficulty with, as if a fetus is wanted and or close to term, and the woman loses it through someone else's violence, then it is a very sad thing, for her, but I have to stand by my belief that as its not born, and alive on its own, it does'nt have rights.

Actually, some mules (an extreme minority) can reproduce.


And if you remember the quoted article, the offspring are genetically HORSES; so the mules that can breed have mostly horse genes and they are bred with horses to reinforce the genetic cocktail.

I don't believe myself that the fetus is alive as long as it depends on the woman carrying it for its very survival and chance to devlope, if she wishes to allow it to. Until its independant of her life line, its just an extension of her body. As long as the umbilical cord is intact, the fetus is "living" entirely off the woman, and would cease to develope (die) without it. Thats why I don't believe a fetus is a person until the cord has been cut, and its living independant of the woman.

Because of the above, in a legal sense, no I don't believe anything wrong was done to the fetus, but it was most definetly done to the woman. This is the only part of my beliefs I have difficulty with, as if a fetus is wanted and or close to term, and the woman loses it through someone else's violence, then it is a very sad thing, for her, but I have to stand by my belief that as its not born, and alive on its own, it does'nt have rights.

WEll in the late stages of pregenecy the large majority of biologist, and other scientist believe the fetus is indeed alive and I agree with them.

So you disagree with the fetalcide rules set in place the us?

You are good dam good,

Uh... TYPO

Anyway...
It is a violation of national sovereignty to make abortion compulsorily legal; the issue is ambiguous enough to let every nation decide. Abortion is not an issue of philosophy; if the fetus is a seperate life, then killing it is bad; most non-sociopathic people will agree with that. However, the problem comes when we question whether the fetus is a life or not. The answer is scientifically ambiguous; there is not airtight case for either side. The fetus exhibits life processes, but cannot exhibit such actions independent of the mother. So, from a scientific standpoint, the fetus becomes a life, in the wording of Roe v. Wade from the U.S. Supreme Court, when it is capable of "meaningful existence outside of the womb", or, in a word, when it is viable; at the time the Supreme Court decided that it was before the twenty-second week of pregnancy. However, with this idea of viability, scientific and medical advances would be cause that time to become shorter because we would be able keep a fetus alive outside at earlier stages of its development.

On other peoples stuff:

If she has ownership over her body, then why can't she do drugs? Why not use her body to go steal something? It's against the law. What if say a man used his body for rape? If he went out and raped somebody else? Following the abortion laws, he can legally say that he was using his own body and he had the right to use it.

The argument is really weak; work with the issue at hand; try not to draw moral/ethical parallels

Sexual intercourse is the only way and is only supposed to be used to have kids.

This is based on a naïve interpretation of part of biblical law. The bible says not to have sex when a woman is on her period, which the catholic church interprets this to mean that sex is only meant to be used for childbirth.

Just keep your Lord and your hatred of sex away from the rest of us.

Question the correctness of facts, the interpretation of facts, and show contradictions in philosophy. Attacking the viewer based upon your own opinions is not legitimate.

But the bible isn't fact. It has been re-translated and muckied up thousands of times in it's history, so that it can't be taken as anything more than fiction when debating an issue like abortion.

The bible's scripts, which include many more books than are included in the bible we read today, are 80% consistant with each other, some word for word.

If you are in any way right wing or right-leaning, just drop out of the UN, it's not worth the agrivation, and should serve to de-legitimize it more.

If you are in any way right wing or right-leaning, just drop out of the UN, it's not worth the agrivation, and should serve to de-legitimize it more.

Of course. I mean none of us ever lean rightward on issues like the economy, like I do. Oh wait. I just admitted to economic conservatism. Huh. Maybe if some people didn't define "right wing" automatically in terms of monotheistic religious morality, the variability of political systems represented in the NSUN would become more readily apparent.

WEll in the late stages of pregenecy the large majority of biologist, and other scientist believe the fetus is indeed alive and I agree with them.

So you disagree with the fetalcide rules set in place the us?

This is all my opinion, its not an attempt to make you agree with abortion :).

I'm afraid I put the woman's rights to control her own fertility a heck of a lot higher than the fetus's right to "live", no matter whether scientists say its alive or not. She's a living, walking, thinking, sentient, human being, not an incubator.

I'm not American, so I don't know anything about their fetalcide rules. Could you explain them a bit, so I know what I'm commenting about.

And if you remember the quoted article, the offspring are genetically HORSES; so the mules that can breed have mostly horse genes and they are bred with horses to reinforce the genetic cocktail.

Which disproves what I said how? Also, the article I read was a result of breeding a mule with a donkey, not with a horse. Amounts to the same thing in the end.

The bible's scripts, which include many more books than are included in the bible we read today, are 80% consistant with each other, some word for word.

That 20% happens to include such things as certain translations of the Greek word for "poison", the story about what happened to Judas Iscariot, major portions of the story of Jesus, and whether or not man and woman were created at the same time or one after another.

Two of those are easily dealt with by pointing out that people rarely have accounts of the same events that totally mesh. In this case, it's more like a basic storyline with each person adding in their opinions of what happened. The last one resulted from the fact the editors of the Bible actually had multiple, and often conflicting, tales of the beginning to deal with. In the end, they muddled through the thousands of years of storytelling and altering as best they could. They had the problem that while humans did probably write down the first stories, humans also had a few thousand years to change what was written and the results are actually quite predictable.

If you think that's bad, try muddling through the contradictions in Greek mythology.

I don't believe myself that the fetus is alive as long as it depends on the woman carrying it for its very survival and chance to devlope, if she wishes to allow it to. Until its independant of her life line, its just an extension of her body. As long as the umbilical cord is intact, the fetus is "living" entirely off the woman, and would cease to develope (die) without it. Thats why I don't believe a fetus is a person until the cord has been cut, and its living independant of the woman.

Because of the above, in a legal sense, no I don't believe anything wrong was done to the fetus, but it was most definetly done to the woman. This is the only part of my beliefs I have difficulty with, as if a fetus is wanted and or close to term, and the woman loses it through someone else's violence, then it is a very sad thing, for her, but I have to stand by my belief that as its not born, and alive on its own, it does'nt have rights.

By arguing this, I take that you mean that everyone who depends upon some form of physical assistance to live "normally" is not a living being and therefore if I shot them in the face, I could not be prosecuted, including but not limited to: crutches, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, inhalers (asthma), people in a permanently vegetative state, the mentally handicapped, people on life support, premature babies in incubators.

By arguing this, I take that you mean that everyone who depends upon some form of physical assistance to live "normally" is not a living being and therefore if I shot them in the face, I could not be prosecuted, including but not limited to: crutches, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, inhalers (asthma), people in a permanently vegetative state, the mentally handicapped, people on life support, premature babies in incubators.

My, aren't you feeble in your arguements.

Once a being with rights, you remain a being with rights.

Parasites are not beings with rights until they are beings with rights.

So no, that's not what was meant, you know it, feeble attempt to give a ridiculous comparison, move along you're not even entertaining.

Once a being with rights, you remain a being with rights.Wrong. Criminals break the law. They forfeit their rights.

Parasites are not beings with rights until they are beings with rights.I'll pretend that meant something. </sarcasm> You pretty much just said something along the lines of "a light is not going to be on until it is on..."

So no, that's not what was meant, you know it, feeble attempt to give a ridiculous comparison.No, it was NOT a ridiculous comparison, but rather an extreme one with a purpose: to urge the person WHOM I QUOTED to clarify and/or better their argument, not you. Unless one can state their case as clearly as it can be stated, people are going to find nice little loopholes to make such extreme arguments as I just did. And unless you're the one being quoted, let's let those who ARE quoted defend their own statements, hmm?

move along you're not even entertaining.I really hope everyone thinks you're that much cooler for adding that.

*yawn* You haven't been here long, have you?

A criminal - by their own action - chooses to forfeit their rights. The examples you gave have no choice in their situation (save if you're going to give the simplistic "well, they chose to drive the car, so they essentially chose to be in the accident" answer, at which point I'll go :rolleyes: )

A parasite - that which lives within a womb yet does nothing to add to the life of the host - remains legally a parasite until it passes our three way test, at which time they become a "being with rights", in particular a "child with rights and protections under law applicable to one their age and/or maturity". Before that point - it's a parasite.

As to the "extremist" statement - at least make one that makes sense, not one which simply proves you do not have a grasp of what you speak. For the equivalence to be equal, it must be equal. Otherwise, you're like the simpletons who believe "selling is legal, f*cking is legal, why isn't selling f*cking legal" to be disproved by stating "well, there's a possibility of disease".

Finally - this is the UN, the ultimate dogpile. There are more comments in a thread then you can shake a stick at. Come to expect it.




Oh, yes. And I am Antarctican. "Cool" comes naturally.

By arguing this, I take that you mean that everyone who depends upon some form of physical assistance to live "normally" is not a living being and therefore if I shot them in the face, I could not be prosecuted, including but not limited to: crutches, wheelchairs, oxygen tanks, inhalers (asthma), people in a permanently vegetative state, the mentally handicapped, people on life support, premature babies in incubators.

I'm sorry, but Vastiva is right. This is a silly argument, a very silly argument.

Not one of the born, living, breathing, thinking people you discribed above are attached permenantly to another person by a life line, and utterly depend on them for every aspect of their chance to survive and develope.

Let me turn this around, and give you a scenario that is a hell of a lot closer to the argument of abortion, than your examples. I read this many, many years ago, but will try to remember it as best I can.

You (abastract you, not you personally) are at a party with a world class violinist. You are both drinking, partying and having fun. Toward the end of the party, you've had too much to drink, and pass out. While you are unconsious, something happens to your drinking partner. When you wake up, you find yourself in a hospital, attached by a tube to the violinist. The Doctor explains that the violinist will need to stay attached to you for the next nine months to survive. If the tube is detached, he will die in seconds. The Doctor further explains that because the violinist had his accident while with you, it was assumed you would want to be the one to donate your body to give him life.

Now would you feel obliged to stay attached to the violinist for the whole nine months he'll need your body, putting your own life on hold, or should you have the right to say no, and ask for the tube to be detached, knowing the violinist will die. Who has the greater claim to your body?

Pregnacy is'nt that much different.

I'm afraid I put the woman's rights to control her own fertility a heck of a lot higher than the fetus's right to "live", no matter whether scientists say its alive or not. She's a living, walking, thinking, sentient, human being, not an incubator.

*looks at the topic*

oh no, not again

*hears the dead horse being flogged yet again.....*

*looks at the topic*

oh no, not again

*hears the dead horse being flogged yet again.....*

It's the main reason I don't post on here as much as I used to in the past - so many things just keep appearing again and again and again.... :headbang:

I'm sorry, but Vastiva is right.

Nah, don't be sorry, I'm usually right. :D

Modest too.

Ok water well in America the penalties for fetacide (delibrate or undelibrate "death" of unborn child) range alot. You can be charged with battery or assualt to murder with life in prison depending on which state you are in. Some states define fetalcide within a certain timeframe (ie 12 weeks is start and ends at birth).
So you could be in jail from 10 to life, but it all depends where and the sentenceing.

This is a silly argument, a very silly argument.Of course, it's a silly argument. The point? You can't factor in dependency to determine what's alive and what's not.You (abastract you, not you personally) are at a party with a world class violinist. You are both drinking, partying and having fun. Toward the end of the party, you've had too much to drink, and pass out. While you are unconsious, something happens to your drinking partner. When you wake up, you find yourself in a hospital, attached by a tube to the violinist. The Doctor explains that the violinist will need to stay attached to you for the next nine months to survive. If the tube is detached, he will die in seconds. The Doctor further explains that because the violinist had his accident while with you, it was assumed you would want to be the one to donate your body to give him life.Certainly, in a case like this, an abortion is an option, though not one I agree with (adoption is another IMO, to at least give the child a chance). However, in acts of consensual sex, when the two involved know full well the risks they are taking, I believe they should have to live with their mistakes and not throw them in the trash, only to make the same mistakes again later in life. It just seems like such a waste of potential.

I am a sir, and I think that Church and the UN should get together let me sumarize this in a way that you might understand. You care about the rainforest, right?

The rainforest within the borders of our Federation is fine and extensive, nearly covering an eighth of our nation's area, and indeed all throughout the region of California you would have a hard time finding a place that was suffering from environmental troubles.

That said, while the Aeruillinyan chapter of the Church of Eru is known is known for its noble struggle to uphold environmental protection throughout or nation, I do not see why that issue should be primarily a church concern. Let alone the concern of a church whose followers allegedly said that their saviour will return "when the last tree is felled".

~~~~

I mean, the same people who had a hand in the current round of Bibles also burned witches at the stake? Seriously now.


No, those were supersticious fanatics, and they didn't write the current Bible.

BOT: The Dominion of Galder lends it's full support to making the ammoral act of abortion illegal everywhere, as it has already made abortion on grounds of infantcide as fetuses and embryos are still people, and the only reason any one would want to have an abortion is to prevent having an "inconvenience," and that can be solved in a moral way. Also, if we consider a fetus an organ, we must consider everyone else nothing more than organs.

Also, Myxx has a good point.

Are you a member of the U.N.? If you are, then abortion is legal in your nation. If you are not, then this discussion hardly involves you.

Of course, it's a silly argument. The point? You can't factor in dependency to determine what's alive and what's not.

Of course I can use the arguement of dependance. Like has been said before, an unborn fetus is nothing more than a parasite, attached to its host (the woman), and depends utterly on her for every facet of its survival and development. Without its dependance on her, the fetus has no chance at life. It has no life of its own, it gets everything, including oxygen and nutrients from the womans body, and without that, it would'nt survive at all. As long as the fetus is totally dependant on the woman for its chance at life, it is'nt an independant life, its just a part of the woman carrying it.

The woman is'nt a machine, an athsma inhaler, a wooden leg or a respirator, she's a human being with rights, and one of the most fundamental of her rights is control of her own fertility. If she choses to allow the parasite to live off her for 9 months, great, but if she does'nt, then she has the right to detach the cord, so to speak, and remove the parasite.

Certainly, in a case like this, an abortion is an option, though not one I agree with (adoption is another IMO, to at least give the child a chance). However, in acts of consensual sex, when the two involved know full well the risks they are taking, I believe they should have to live with their mistakes and not throw them in the trash, only to make the same mistakes again later in life. It just seems like such a waste of potential.

So you are another person who believes in "punishment by baby". Good thing the NSUN does'nt, and we have the legal abortion resolution. I posted in the last failed repeal abortion thread, or was it the one before, as my old UN nation an argument against that, and could'nt be bothered finding it to copy/paste. If your interested, just look up past posts by Crydonia.

Yes, adoption is an option, but don't you think if adoption was so easy, then more women would use it, rather than go through the pain and humiliation of an abortion? Adoption comes with its own set of problems and baggage.

Ok water well in America the penalties for fetacide (delibrate or undelibrate "death" of unborn child) range alot. You can be charged with battery or assualt to murder with life in prison depending on which state you are in. Some states define fetalcide within a certain timeframe (ie 12 weeks is start and ends at birth).
So you could be in jail from 10 to life, but it all depends where and the sentenceing.

That is just plain scary, to me anyway. Sounds like banning abortion by stealth. Wonder when the right to life groups, and/or victims of crime will start lobbying the various levels of the US government to start moving the goal posts back earlier and earlier in the pregnacy.

Water the fetalcide rules in the us are in no way aproaching banning abortion ( well maybe in like georgia :D ). They nearly all say it is damaging the mothers bodily insides ( I forgot the wording) and the way it doesn't have anything to do with the abortion laws is that these laws apply when it happens without mothers consent.

Water the fetalcide rules in the us are in no way aproaching banning abortion ( well maybe in like georgia :D ). They nearly all say it is damaging the mothers bodily insides ( I forgot the wording) and the way it doesn't have anything to do with the abortion laws is that these laws apply when it happens without mothers consent.

Glad to hear that, its reduced my fears a bit. Only a bit mind you. Giving unborn fetus's any kind of rights, even if disguised as additional protections for the mother, could be the start of a slippery slope that could potentially lead to erosion of the right to abort, but that is just my personal opinion on the subject :).

I am not necessarily for abortion, however, I am for a women's right to choose. That always comes above being for or against abortion, in my opinion.

So you are another person who believes in "punishment by baby". Good thing the NSUN does'nt, and we have the legal abortion resolution.So you're saying it's okay for people to make mistakes and get out of trouble? That's like buying a lottery ticket, losing, then getting your money back. Not even considering the fetus, how fair is it that someone should avoid the consequences of their mistakes knowing the possible outcome before they took the risk?

Yes, adoption is an option, but don't you think if adoption was so easy, then more women would use it, rather than go through the pain and humiliation of an abortion? Adoption comes with its own set of problems and baggage.I know adoption isn't easy; I've watched people go through it and how torturous it is not being able to see their child. But, I do believe it's little less selfish on the (potential) mother's part, and she will gain the respect of most of her peers. Would you lose respect for someone who chose to accept their mistakes and live with the consequences?

can someone just let this issue die in peace? we can argue the moralistic or scientific (or your interpritation of them) principles all day long, but as it stands, this is the umpteenth time this has come up, along with gay rights, definition of marriage and other subjects, all of which have not been repealed after umpteen attempts. as i indirectly pointed out in a previous post, you are just flogging a dead horse. let it die

no one says anyone has to watch this thread... or that anyone has to reply... but i can if i want to... if people want to let it die, then ignore me and maybe i'll go away :p

For I think the first time in this thead, Myxx and I are in complete agreement :D.

If you think this subject has been done to death, fine, you have the choice of not replying to the thread, not reading the thread, ignoring the thread, but leave the rest of us alone.

Just because some of you have been through these subjects numerous times, does'nt mean we all have, and as long as the thread is open, we are allowed to comment in them as much as we please.

Personally, I know more about these type of social issues, than say economic, or military issues, and feel a lot more comfortable debating in these type of threads, and have really been enjoying it over the last couple of days.

For I think the first time in this thead, Myxx and I are in complete agreement :D.LOL I'll cherish it. :p

The "normal size, limbs in same positions" argument (A) is bad. Plants are living. One might look like this: (# is a flower, / and \ are leaves)
#
|/
\|

and another like this (the / on line 2 is a stalk):
\/ #
|/
\|

The limbs come off at different places - they are topographically different.

They are both living. And furthermore, is the first member of a species non-living?

More importantly, PIGS ARE MORE ALIVE THAN EMBRYOES. Yet you continue to eat them (we assume). Note that in no way does the (largely vegetarian, and with a large ethnic Jewish minority) Holy Republic of Universal Divinity promote the eating of pig, or any other living being.

Justify your argument without a Christians-only perspective, and without saying that sex is for procreation, and I will reconsider.

So you're saying it's okay for people to make mistakes and get out of trouble? How fair is it that someone should avoid the consequences of their mistakes knowing the possible outcome before they took the risk?

I totally agree with you. We should just shut down drug rehabilitation programs; after all, everyone knows drugs are bad. They made the mistake, so we should just let them rot.

So you're saying it's okay for people to make mistakes and get out of trouble? That's like buying a lottery ticket, losing, then getting your money back. Not even considering the fetus, how fair is it that someone should avoid the consequences of their mistakes knowing the possible outcome before they took the risk?

I think this shows where we differ in perspective the most.To me, it does'nt matter how the pregnacy happened. Whether it was carelessness, accident, rape, incest, faulty conraception or anything else, I still believe its the womans choice what to do about it, and if she chooses abortion, then its no-one elses business. Its her body, her life, and her choice. I firmly believe I don't have the right to tell another woman what to do,or how to live her life where her fertility is concerned, and I certainly don't have the right to condem her for making a "mistake".

I know adoption isn't easy; I've watched people go through it and how torturous it is not being able to see their child. But, I do believe it's little less selfish on the (potential) mother's part, and she will gain the respect of most of her peers. Would you lose respect for someone who chose to accept their mistakes and live with the consequences?

I know women who have done both over the years, abortion and adoption, and I don't have anymore respect for one over the other, because their choice of what to do with their pregnacy, was theirs alone, and nothing to do with me. I also don't respect the women I know who have had children above or below them. They are all friends and their reproductive choices have no baring on my friendships with any of them. On the contrary, I would probably have less respect for someone who judges a woman more on what her reproductive choice was, than who she is.

TLA's 2 cents:

until the baby and placenta is out of the womb and vaginal track (ie: being born), to us it is still technically part of the woman, therefore her choice. also, abortion isnt the only choice. those seeking information on the subject of unwanted childbirth are given information on such things as putting the baby up for adoption.

I believe once it takes its first breath that it is alive or atleast how the un laws should interpret it, I don't care if umbilical cord is attachted or not, if its out side and has had a breath it is alive.

But Like I stated earlier I think it is a living being around the start of third trimester and before (not sure if i stated this but I do) that the fetus should have minimal rights like being able to develop with only the mother can do anything about the develop (like stop it) and if somone else does it without mothers consent they should be punished.

I totally agree with you. We should just shut down drug rehabilitation programs; after all, everyone knows drugs are bad. They made the mistake, so we should just let them rot.Wrong. Drug rehabilitation is for people who realize the mistakes they have made and are learning from them. People go to drug rehab after the consequences of a drug addiction have haunted their lives.

I would compare an unplanned pregancy and abortion to someone who develops a drug addiction, then quits cold shoulder and suffers no withdrawals: No one ever knew about it, and if they wanted to, they could go back and do it again with the same outcome. More than likely, they won't have learned anything.

Wrong. Drug rehabilitation is for people who realize the mistakes they have made and are learning from them. People go to drug rehab after the consequences of a drug addiction have haunted their lives.

What he was doing is a tactic known as "turning your own arguement against you." He used your arguement for the basis of his statement.

I would compare an unplanned pregancy and abortion to someone who develops a drug addiction, then quits cold shoulder and suffers no withdrawals: No one ever knew about it, and if they wanted to, they could go back and do it again with the same outcome. More than likely, they won't have learned anything.

More than likely, they will have learned something. That something is how expensive it is and to be more careful next time so they don't have to shell out that kind of money.

I would compare an unplanned pregancy and abortion to someone who develops a drug addiction, then quits cold shoulder and suffers no withdrawals: No one ever knew about it, and if they wanted to, they could go back and do it again with the same outcome. More than likely, they won't have learned anything.
to use your phrase, WRONG. obviously you dont know what an agonising desision it is to have an abortion. it isnt like 'oh, i got knocked up, and i dont want child. i think i might have an abortion'. it takes a long time for a prospective mother to choose to have an abortion, and in some cases, it might not be their choice. i can state one incident where managers forces a member of a well known pop group to have an abortion because it would ruin the groups image, and she has since very much regretted it. i know of another case, of someone close to me, punching her stomach till she miscarried, because she didnt want to have an association with the father, and she was very troubled about doing it, because of what people might think. of course people learn from the mistakes. for those that didnt want the child, they know to use contraception later on. things arnt as cold-cut as you make it out to be.

Heck, sometimes people use contraception the first time - very few things are perfect.

That's because they are. They meet all seven signs.

It's from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-389408.html):



This keeps up and I'm putting that link in my sig.



A parasite can be alive, but only if they meet 6 of the 7 requirements. And, unlike them, I define life as late third trimester, though that is going to change to born in response to another piece of legislation.


I can see making aborition limits if the fetus can survive on its own outside of the womb, but most abortions are done when the baby is too young to live outside of it even with todays techonogy.

Wrong. Drug rehabilitation is for people who realize the mistakes they have made and are learning from them. People go to drug rehab after the consequences of a drug addiction have haunted their lives.

I would compare an unplanned pregancy and abortion to someone who develops a drug addiction, then quits cold shoulder and suffers no withdrawals: No one ever knew about it, and if they wanted to, they could go back and do it again with the same outcome. More than likely, they won't have learned anything.

Thank you for displaying ignorance of consequences of that proceedure.

None of those getting that proceedure done who have passed through my care have ever stated "oh, that was nothing". It does have consequences to the body.

Secondly - who the hell are you to demand a "lesson"? It's not your body, it's not your morality, get your nose out of it.

What he was doing is a tactic known as "turning your own arguement against you." He used your arguement for the basis of his statement.DOES EVERYONE HERE THINK I'M A F*CKIN' IDIOT?! (RHETORICAL QUESTION... I know the answer is yes... hell, maybe I am.)

DLE: It took me all of three seconds to figure that out for myself. And I in turn used his argument for the basis of MY statement. That's how arguing is sometimes done...

Vastiva/Lynx: You're right. I've been ignorant. I know that abortion is not a quick decision for everyone (but with 4,000+ a day, I don't think every single person thinks it through). Lynx, the examples you gave were for reasons of how people would view them (which sickens me beyond belief). You think I don't give a rat's ass about the women. For the women who are raped, or have their lives threatened by a pregnancy, then I cannot say I'd do different if put in the situation. But for the people who had consensual sex and now don't want to live with the mistake?! Hell, no, they don't have my sympathy! Call me insensitive, but I am a firm believer in accepting consequences and dealing with mistakes. I have watched people get away with so much shit in my life that I wonder when the hell I'm gonna get a break. If people were a little more moral, we wouldn't even have an abortion problem. But since we aren't, and people are caught between the physical and mental anguish of either an abortion or childbirth, immediate gratification points to abortion. It's not a matter of how hard the choice is, IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT THEY'RE GETTING OUT OF!
Secondly - who the hell are you to demand a "lesson"? It's not your body, it's not your morality, get your nose out of it.Who the hell are YOU to tell me it's not my morality?! You must think it all falls on the woman's shoulders to have an abortion. I have a friend whose girlfriend left him after becoming pregnant with his child. Over the summer, she had an abortion AND BLAMED IT ON HIM! This guy now walks around with the guilt of, as he says, "murdering his own son", when the only one he has to blame is the bitch who had the abortion! (not saying everyone who has an abortion is a bitch, but in this case, in my opinion, she was).

Here is my final statement. This is my stance, and it's not gonna change: Abortion is wrong on multiple levels. Physically, the fetus loses it's potential life and the mother has the potential for injury, which could preveny future pregnancies or worse (I heard of a case where the "doctor" was attempting to remove a piece of the fetus' skull and ended up pulling the woman's bladder out; she has bowel movements in a bag for the rest of her life, which I find horribly, horribly unnecessary). Mentally and emotionally, it rides on the mother (and in some cases, the father) for a long time to come. Morally, I believe it is killing an innocent child. (Please don't criticize my Christian beliefs, because I know they mean nothing in an argument, and I've tried to avoid them when arguing my case. I can't help or change the way I was raised.)

Sex is a beautiful thing that is, in my honest and humble opinion, is meant for procreation, not for pleasure. Call me whatever you want, but goddammit, it's immoral to have sex outside of marriage, and I have little respect for people who can't control such urges. People (in general) nowadays are weak, don't want to fess up to mistakes, and are only interested in themselves. That's why we have abortions, celebrities who can get away with murder, and no gun control whatsoever. This world blows (the USA in particular). And if there are other worlds and afterlives than this, then I can't wait to leave this one and go there.

I'm done: flame me, rape my reputation, make me look more like the jackass I seem to be. Criticize the length of this, my stances, my religion, whatever. Have fun doing it.

My final advice: keep your goddam pants on and abortion will become obsolete.

Sex is a beautiful thing that is, in my honest and humble opinion, is meant for procreation, not for pleasure. Call me whatever you want, but goddammit, it's immoral to have sex outside of marriage, and I have little respect for people who can't control such urges. People (in general) nowadays are weak, don't want to fess up to mistakes, and are only interested in themselves. That's why we have abortions, celebrities who can get away with murder, and no gun control whatsoever. This world blows (the USA in particular). And if there are other worlds and afterlives than this, then I can't wait to leave this one and go there.

Uh...fine, but for those of us who hold a different view and are in the majority, your views don't trump ours. Deal. And why is it that most arguments against personal freedoms tend to involve restrictive theology that is usually lacking in logic?

That said, I'd keep out of Krioval on Soldiers' Day. :D

DOES EVERYONE HERE THINK I'M A F*CKIN' IDIOT?! (RHETORICAL QUESTION... I know the answer is yes... hell, maybe I am.)


Actually, we sometimes misinterpret. It's part of the fun of English.

DLE: It took me all of three seconds to figure that out for myself. And I in turn used his argument for the basis of MY statement. That's how arguing is sometimes done...

Actually, I thought you weren't. But that's due to stylistic differences.

I'm done: flame me, rape my reputation, make me look more like the jackass I seem to be. Criticize the length of this, my stances, my religion, whatever. Have fun doing it.

My final advice: keep your goddam pants on and abortion will become obsolete.

OOC: Good Rant. I'll do you the honor of not tearing into it, and respecting you have your opinion, I have mine, they're not going to change anytime soon. Though I will say, sex with pants on is rather kinky. But beware the evil zipper.