NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's evil. Anyone disagree?

I disagree.

I disagree.

..

I think that given reason, abortion is good.

It would be cruel to bring a child into a world when there was noone to lovbe it, or if the female had being raped, then imagin what it eould be like to be the child.

Sure everyone says it is wrong because it arms the child, but at least with abortion the child doesnnt have to suffer.

This is the best debate I've seen on all of these forums yet. Keep up the good work guys. Short, sweet, simple. Besides, pages and pages of non-sense accomplish nothing really. I mean, when was the last time anyone changed their mind in a debate on NS forums? Especially on a question of morallity...

This is the best debate I've seen on all of these forums yet. Keep up the good work guys. Short, sweet, simple. Besides, pages and pages of non-sense accomplish nothing really. I mean, when was the last time anyone changed their mind in a debate on NS forums? Especially on a question of morallity...

Too right.

Although I do feel as though we beat down Ray's opinions a bit :D He'll be marching in gay rights parades by this time next year if he stays here...

Too right.

Although I do feel as though we beat down Ray's opinions a bit :D He'll be marching in gay rights parades by this time next year if he stays here...


(I don't know who Ray is nor do I know anything about him. It's off-topic to explain here, so just post the link to that thread.)

How is this even debatable? Of course it is evil, unless one considers murder a happy-go-lucky victimless action.

(I don't know who Ray is nor do I know anything about him. It's off-topic to explain here, so just post the link to that thread.)
sry, as in Raysia/Capsule Corp. Was said in jest, naturally.

A woman who aborts her child cause she was raped.
That is truely a great evil.

How is this even debatable? Of course it is evil, unless one considers murder a happy-go-lucky victimless action.

So much for this being a good debate. :sigh:

The problem with stupidity is that it is always stupid people that feel they are right beyond a doubt, even without hearing the other side or even knowing all the facts.

(Besides all that, who said that all cultures consider murder evil? It may not be happy-go-lucky and victimless, but some cultures may not consider murder evil, which would mean they don't consider abortion evil based of the premise that you have labeled it undeniably as murder.)

It can be either... obviously it is evil for the baby. But I don't think it's 'good' either. I mean, if the baby isn't wanted, it never should have been conceived, eh? Of course there are some circumstances where something bad happened, and an abortion is best for the woman's health, survival, etc. There are pros and cons. Just depends on the circumstances.

Just my $0.02. ;)

Agree

Agree

Nice that you mention who with.

Want to lower abortion rates in the US?

http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm

So much for this being a good debate. :sigh:

I kept it short, sweet, and simple just as you praised earlier. If you disagree with me, that's your business and I won't try to force the truth on you, but I stand by my statement.

How is this even debatable? Of course it is evil, unless one considers murder a happy-go-lucky victimless action.

This is your version of short, sweet, simple, and bull-headed. If you actually have this attitude, I feel very sorry for you and am saddened to know you have the right to vote (if you are American). It's not that I'm all for political and civil rights and such, it is just that it is this kind of ignorant arrogance that sticks people like Gee Dub in office in America. (And I'm not against him based solely off the war. I may be against the war, but that is not why I'm not going to be voting for him.)

It's just that, some sources like to give an image of a woman getting an abortion as a woman who doesn't care about her child's life, who never feels guilt, who just waltzes out of the clinic and does it again. A real murderer. Not possibly a frightened woman who didn't plan a pregnancy, can't support a child, maybe the father doesn't care, or who has an illness, was raped etc. Depends on what the story is to what measure is taken.

How is this even debatable? Of course it is evil, unless one considers murder a happy-go-lucky victimless action.

Murder is hardly uncommon in society. The death penalty is murder. Police officers kill people in the name of 'safety' or 'justice', and they don't even get a trial like with the death penalty. Any kind of war is almost implicitly going to involve death and murder.

Let's not forget the history of many large civilizations - including those that make up North America - which involve the subjugation or outright destruction of other societies in the name of conquest and territory.

Murder may not be pretty, but unless you plan to outlaw killing anyone, ever, and to give up any rights or properties obtained through murder (either past or present), there's little point in making blanket statements condemning it. After all; society relies on, and has relied on, murder quite a bit throughout history.

Moraly, it should be wrong. Legaly...Wemon should have the right.

It's just that, some sources like to give an image of a woman getting an abortion as a woman who doesn't care about her child's life, who never feels guilt, who just waltzes out of the clinic and does it again. A real murderer. Not possibly a frightened woman who didn't plan a pregnancy, can't support a child, maybe the father doesn't care, or who has an illness, was raped etc. Depends on what the story is to what measure is taken.

Of course, not having planned the pregnancy is a poor excuse. And in some instances, getting raped (depending on the circumstances leading to the rape) is not that good of an excuse either. If the father does not care, there should be some laws passed to make the genetic father at least partially responsible for the up-bringing of the child (kind of like child care). I'm not for all out "happy-go-lucky" abortions, but I don't think they're evil either.

If you actually have this attitude, I feel very sorry for you and am saddened to know you have the right to vote (if you are American).

Yes, I'm an American. I live just north of you in Missouri as a matter of fact. Frankly, your comment is appalling. I would never dream of wishing to rescinding someone's right to vote simply because they disagree with me.

Of course, not having planned the pregnancy is a poor excuse. And in some instances, getting raped (depending on the circumstances leading to the rape) is not that good of an excuse either. If the father does not care, there should be some laws passed to make the genetic father at least partially responsible for the up-bringing of the child (kind of like child care).

Of course, if the 'parents' do not want to conceive, they should use birth control. Period. But there is no excuse for rape. If the rape was 'consented', then it wouldn't be rape. I don't think any child would want to grow up knowing they were the result of a crime, nor would any woman want to live with a constant reminder of how she is a victim.

I think that given reason, abortion is good.

It would be cruel to bring a child into a world when there was noone to lovbe it, or if the female had being raped, then imagin what it eould be like to be the child.

Sure everyone says it is wrong because it arms the child, but at least with abortion the child doesnnt have to suffer.

You're speaking as if it is doing the child a favor in this situation. Who are we to decide for the child whether he should live or die. How can you say that with abortion the child doesn't have to suffer? Abortion is one of the greatest sufferings you can put a child through.

i disagree. i don't think abortion is EVIL. im not saying that i would go out and get one, im just saying that it should be the girls decision. where i might not exactly agree with the women- it is ultimately her choice. of course if its too late and the embro has already started to form a human then that is a little on the sketchy side where it gets into murder. but if its done correctly in the first trimester while its just a cell, i don't think it can be characterized as "human" because it has none of the hum an qualities. i just think its the women's decision and not anyone elses.

Here's my opinion:

You screw you lose. If you didn't want the baby you shoulda told him to use a condom or not have sex at all. Now if it was rape or for medical reasons, quiet different. It should be used for that, and that alone. Now, now. You might find me ignorant, but eh, so many liberals running around.... eh, this is why I can't choose any political standing.

Yes, I'm an American. I live just north of you in Missouri as a matter of fact. Frankly, your comment is appalling. I would never dream of wishing to rescinding someone's right to vote simply because they disagree with me.

It is a good thing it is because I simply disagree with you. In fact, if you had the exact same attitude but agreed with me, I'd still be edgy about letting you vote. It isn't the "Abortion is Evil" attitude is dislike. The attitude I dislike is "How is this even debatable?" That's why we vote, that's why congressmen debate, and that's why we live in a Republic and not a Despotism (although it's moving toward the latter).

Murder is hardly uncommon in society. The death penalty is murder. Police officers kill people in the name of 'safety' or 'justice', and they don't even get a trial like with the death penalty. Any kind of war is almost implicitly going to involve death and murder.

Let's not forget the history of many large civilizations - including those that make up North America - which involve the subjugation or outright destruction of other societies in the name of conquest and territory.

Murder may not be pretty, but unless you plan to outlaw killing anyone, ever, and to give up any rights or properties obtained through murder (either past or present), there's little point in making blanket statements condemning it. After all; society relies on, and has relied on, murder quite a bit throughout history.

You can not attempt to make an argument of moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. A person up for the death penalty receives a trial and rights. In an abortion, there is no trial, the child has no rights. While some innocents are put to death under the death penalty, not one child who is aborted is guilty of anything.

But there is no excuse for rape.
I agree, but read the rest of this post.

If the rape was 'consented', then it wouldn't be rape. I don't think any child would want to grow up knowing they were the result of a crime, nor would any woman want to live with a constant reminder of how she is a victim.
If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.

Here's my opinion:

You screw you lose. If you didn't want the baby you shoulda told him to use a condom or not have sex at all. Now if it was rape or for medical reasons, quiet different. It should be used for that, and that alone. Now, now. You might find me ignorant, but eh, so many liberals running around.... eh, this is why I can't choose any political standing.

Exactly. If you were dumb enough to not use birth control, it's yours. (Men have just as much responsibility here as women to use birth control. Gots to work together.)

You can not attempt to make an argument of moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. A person up for the death penalty receives a trial and rights. In an abortion, there is no trial, the child has no rights. While some innocents are put to death under the death penalty, not one child who is aborted is guilty of anything.

The people who are against abortion are mostly Christian and believe in Original Sin. This is why they have Baptisms, so...you're wrong.

You're speaking as if it is doing the child a favor in this situation. Who are we to decide for the child whether he should live or die. How can you say that with abortion the child doesn't have to suffer? Abortion is one of the greatest sufferings you can put a child through.
Aside from living the learning years knowing nothing but hate that is...

I agree, but read the rest of this post.


If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.


So, a woman who gets drunk is asking to be raped?























I'm so f'ing gald I was rasied as a liberal.

If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.

Well, wandering down a dark alley at night while drunk is damned stupid. Raping someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol is still rape. I have yet to hear a woman say: "Hey! I'm going to the pub to get drunk tonight, then walk down a dark alley by myself. Who cares if someone rapes me."

i disagree. i don't think abortion is EVIL. im not saying that i would go out and get one, im just saying that it should be the girls decision. where i might not exactly agree with the women- it is ultimately her choice. of course if its too late and the embro has already started to form a human then that is a little on the sketchy side where it gets into murder. but if its done correctly in the first trimester while its just a cell, i don't think it can be characterized as "human" because it has none of the hum an qualities. i just think its the women's decision and not anyone elses.

Actually it starts becoming humanoid about 2 weeks before the end of the first trimester, but you make a good point. When exactly does the sperm/egg combo become a human? Is it murder to have an abortion in the first month of the pregnancy? Heck, these anti-aborters might go as far to say female birth control is murder, I mean, you are killing eggs, which are potential humans. Who are we to say that that egg didn't deserve to live?

You can not attempt to make an argument of moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. A person up for the death penalty receives a trial and rights. In an abortion, there is no trial, the child has no rights. While some innocents are put to death under the death penalty, not one child who is aborted is guilty of anything.

There are two problems with that statement. First, you make the assumption that a fetus is alive. You also make the assumption that that which is not born can have rights. Both are entirely relative to the individual's beliefs, and cannot be stated (within general reason) as a fact.

What remains as fact, aside from any opinion, is that murder is murder. We justify some forms of murder. In as such, we are inherently doing one of two things: either admitting that murder is sometimes acceptable, or admitting we can commit evil if a greater good comes of it.

I tend to believe the former, that in some cases murder simply is acceptable, and in some cases it isn't. Hence, murder isn't evil, though it can be.

If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.

Please disregard my previous comments directed towards you. Given your above statement, it is clear you are not capable of rational thought and I shouldn't have bothered responding to your comments about my post. A "She was asking for it when they raped her" argument?!?! Welcome to Arkansas, ladies!

i disagree. i don't think abortion is EVIL. im not saying that i would go out and get one, im just saying that it should be the girls decision. where i might not exactly agree with the women- it is ultimately her choice. of course if its too late and the embro has already started to form a human then that is a little on the sketchy side where it gets into murder. but if its done correctly in the first trimester while its just a cell, i don't think it can be characterized as "human" because it has none of the hum an qualities. i just think its the women's decision and not anyone elses.

I need to correct the statement that in the first trimester it is just a cell. In fact, a heartbeat is detectable during the 4th week of pregnancy by ultrasound and blood is being circulated.

Well, wandering down a dark alley at night while drunk is damned stupid. Raping someone under the influence of drugs/alcohol is still rape. I have yet to hear a woman say: "Hey! I'm going to the pub to get drunk tonight, then walk down a dark alley by myself. Who cares if someone rapes me."


Didn't say that the situation happens often, but hopefully you get the point.

Didn't say that the situation happens often, but hopefully you get the point.

Of course, rape is different. Let's remember that we're talking about abortion. I should have added at the end of my quote: "Who cares if someone rapes me? I can just get an abortion anyway." One party might not THINK they are raping someone, but the other might not want it, but just not say... etc... real confusing business.

So, a woman who gets drunk is asking to be raped?


I'm so f'ing gald I was rasied as a liberal.


The massive white space was unnecessary.

If you leave $20 on the ground while you tie your shoe while in a crime-ridden part of the city, are you asking to have that money stolen? I'd say yes.

If you leave your Ebay account open on a public computer after leaving, are you asking to get screwed out of tons of money? I'd say yes again.

By the way, being drunk was not the only stipulation. It also included walking down a dark alley (and let's say in a crime-ridden section of the city) where anyone would know to avoid.

(EDIT: By the way, I'm glad you do us all a favor and label yourself as a close-minded quacker of the party line. Try independent thinking. I wasn't raised as anything. I was raised to think for myself. And if you look at my views on tons of other issues, you'd probably be labeling me as mostly liberal as well. You only make this comment about your liberalness because you don't agree with my thoughts on stupid people not understand the very real consequences of their really stupid actions.)

Of course, rape is different. Let's remember that we're talking about abortion. I should have added at the end of my quote: "Who cares if someone rapes me? I can just get an abortion anyway." One party might not THINK they are raping someone, but the other might not want it, but just not say... etc... real confusing business.

And yes, this is a good point, let's not forget we're talking about abortion, not rape.

It would be cruel to bring a child into a world when there was noone to lovbe it, or if the female had being raped, then imagin what it eould be like to be the child.

Sure everyone says it is wrong because it arms the child, but at least with abortion the child doesnnt have to suffer.

dude, so should we kill anyone if they're going to suffer? "man that guy's gonna be sick/sad his whole life, lets just kill him so he doesn't have to suffer"

its not our choice to take a life because we think that life might be a "bad" one... the question is whether abortion is taking a life or not.

and it's pretty hard to say it isn't, since theres no fundamental difference between a child inside the mom and the child outside the mom.. brainwaves, their own dna, heartbeat, etc. how is it NOT a human being?

The people who are against abortion are mostly Christian and believe in Original Sin. This is why they have Baptisms, so...you're wrong.

As a studied Christian I likely agree with you on the issue and you fail to see it. Surely you're not saying that Original Sin thus makes murder by abortion equivalent to killing someone for committing a capital crime. Also, you are implying thus if they are aborted, the child thus has no chance to be saved and so they are being put through suffering.

dude, so should we kill anyone if they're going to suffer? "man that guy's gonna be sick/sad his whole life, lets just kill him so he doesn't have to suffer"

its not our choice to take a life because we think that life might be a "bad" one... the question is whether abortion is taking a life or not.

and it's pretty hard to say it isn't, since theres no fundamental difference between a child inside the mom and the child outside the mom.. brainwaves, their own dna, heartbeat, etc. how is it NOT a human being?

Let's remember we're talking about abortion and not euthanasia. Also, if you want to talk about fundamental differences (there is a fundamental difference between a month old "child" in a mom and a child outside the mom), then look at my post.

I am taking it as a compliment that no one is arguing against my posts, only the other posts...

on the issue of rape I still believe it is wrong even if it is a rape child. automatically assuming that the child will hate his life because of how he was conceived is wrong. everyone should have the right to live, we are who we choose to be. when life throws a swing at you, hit it back

dude, so should we kill anyone if they're going to suffer? "man that guy's gonna be sick/sad his whole life, lets just kill him so he doesn't have to suffer"

its not our choice to take a life because we think that life might be a "bad" one... the question is whether abortion is taking a life or not.

and it's pretty hard to say it isn't, since theres no fundamental difference between a child inside the mom and the child outside the mom.. brainwaves, their own dna, heartbeat, etc. how is it NOT a human being?

right on

I disagree also. It's up to the woman to have control over her body.

As a studied Christian I likely agree with you on the issue and you fail to see it. Surely you're not saying that Original Sin thus makes murder by abortion equivalent to killing someone for committing a capital crime. Also, you are implying thus if they are aborted, the child thus has no chance to be saved and so they are being put through suffering.

Finally, someone responds to my post. I was just commenting on the fact that to the anti-abortion Christians, unborn children aren't completely innocent. I did not say it was an equivelant, so don't take it out of context. And I'm not implying that I believe anything, although, Christians already think that aborted children have no chance of being saved, so what's the point of bringing that up?

There are two problems with that statement. First, you make the assumption that a fetus is alive. You also make the assumption that that which is not born can have rights. Both are entirely relative to the individual's beliefs, and cannot be stated (within general reason) as a fact.

What remains as fact, aside from any opinion, is that murder is murder. We justify some forms of murder. In as such, we are inherently doing one of two things: either admitting that murder is sometimes acceptable, or admitting we can commit evil if a greater good comes of it.

I tend to believe the former, that in some cases murder simply is acceptable, and in some cases it isn't. Hence, murder isn't evil, though it can be.

I am not attempting to justify capital punishment, I am saying that you cannot make it equivalent to abortion, whether you agree or disagree.

Also, if you say that a fetus is not alive, at what point is a child alive? There isn't some magical moment when a child is born that makes it all of a sudden alive.

Hell, I'm already debating this in ANOTHER thread, I don't wanna get dragged in here :P

On rape:

It is NEVER ok. Ever. I don't care if you think she "had it comming" due to circumstance. In doing that, you're telling me that taking advantage of an individual is alright.

By your logic, if a man walks up to me and drops a 20, I am in no way morally wrong to take it and walk away. If you walk into a dark alleyway, and I stab you in the chest, tough shit-you apparently deserved it.



Sickening.

Good or evil?
I say neither since I believe in the existence of neither. Morality is a relative concept....

on the issue of rape I still believe it is wrong even if it is a rape child. automatically assuming that the child will hate his life because of how he was conceived is wrong. everyone should have the right to live, we are who we choose to be. when life throws a swing at you, hit it back

Are people this retarded? The child won't hate his life because of how he was conceived. The mom will. Get with the program...

And a child that recieves little or no love while growing up will become a problem to society (possibly even a rapist).

I'm not saying that all moms will hate their child conceived by rape, but some most certainly will and if they don't want to bring a child into this world and were raped then why should we bring another menace to society?

dude, so should we kill anyone if they're going to suffer? "man that guy's gonna be sick/sad his whole life, lets just kill him so he doesn't have to suffer"

its not our choice to take a life because we think that life might be a "bad" one... the question is whether abortion is taking a life or not.

and it's pretty hard to say it isn't, since theres no fundamental difference between a child inside the mom and the child outside the mom.. brainwaves, their own dna, heartbeat, etc. how is it NOT a human being?

The difference between killing someone who is suffering, and aborting a fetus, is that the former is capable of deciding for themselves if they want to live. A fetus can't make such a decision. It can't begin to conceive all the variables, to weigh the pros against the cons, to make an accurate guess (heck, any guess) as to what the odds of a normal or happy life would be.

There are times when someone is in a horrible accident, and is left in a coma or braindead. They cannot speak or think for themselves. Yet, decisions about whether they should remain hooked up to a machine (and for how long) have to be made regardless.

The burden falls to the family. Because the person themselves cannot make a decision in their current state, those close to them must make the decision for them, which ideally will be what is felt to be best for them.

The same can be applied to an unborn child. It can't make any decisions for itself. So the burden falls to the parent to make the tough decisions: if I have this child, what will become of it? Will it lead a happy, normal life; or will it suffer for it's entire existence only to wait for death?

In an ideal world, every child would grow up healthy and happy, with a parent (or two) who love it, and live happily ever after. But reality doesn't work that way. Sometimes the odds are just stacked against the child even having a passable life, and that's where the parent needs to decide if the child should be put through that suffering.

Just to address one more thing:

"and it's pretty hard to say it isn't, since theres no fundamental difference between a child inside the mom and the child outside the mom.. brainwaves, their own dna, heartbeat, etc. how is it NOT a human being?"

Consciousness. Soul. Awareness. There are many names for it, but I imagine you know what I mean. That spark which leaves us when we die, and which without we are nothing more than a fleshy shell. We don't know when exactly that soul/consciousness forms. Without it, a fetus is just a blob of flesh.

I am not attempting to justify capital punishment, I am saying that you cannot make it equivalent to abortion, whether you agree or disagree.

I can indeed make it equal to abortion. Murder is murder. Society chooses to overlook some murder, while not overlooking others. There is no actual difference between killing one life or killing another. We just draw that invisible line to enact order.

The massive white space was unnecessary.

If you leave $20 on the ground while you tie your shoe while in a crime-ridden part of the city, are you asking to have that money stolen? I'd say yes.

If you leave your Ebay account open on a public computer after leaving, are you asking to get screwed out of tons of money? I'd say yes again.

By the way, being drunk was not the only stipulation. It also included walking down a dark alley (and let's say in a crime-ridden section of the city) where anyone would know to avoid.

(EDIT: By the way, I'm glad you do us all a favor and label yourself as a close-minded quacker of the party line. Try independent thinking. I wasn't raised as anything. I was raised to think for myself. And if you look at my views on tons of other issues, you'd probably be labeling me as mostly liberal as well. You only make this comment about your liberalness because you don't agree with my thoughts on stupid people not understand the very real consequences of their really stupid actions.)

I don't know about you, But I see quite alot of difference between $20, Identidy theft, and raping a drunk woman.

This is the best debate I've seen on all of these forums yet. Keep up the good work guys. Short, sweet, simple. Besides, pages and pages of non-sense accomplish nothing really. I mean, when was the last time anyone changed their mind in a debate on NS forums? Especially on a question of morallity...

Yep, especially in short, one word answrs...good...evil.....good here, evil there. But let's look at it this way:

In many societies throughout the world there is great excitement when a woman becomes pregnant. People ask about the baby, plans are made about the abby, appointments to the doctor, etc. etc. Even in the first trimester there is incredible excitement and anticipation. Is that baby alive, even though the child has not been born? Yes.

Now, what is the difference between a child in this scenario and a child aborted? Biologically, none. It is a question of which child is wanted and which is not, and that, my friends, is a terrible shame.

How can our societies profess excitement for one pregnancy, yet argue a child is not alive in another?

**snorts** If you're saying "abortion is wrong even if the child would grow up unloved, because he/she will still want to live!" then you're wrong. Sorry, but that isn't always the case. Speaking out of personal experience with myself and many others, going up unloved is a horrible, horrible thing. Most of the time, you start wishing you weren't born, and start finding something to remedy that.

Hell, I'm already debating this in ANOTHER thread, I don't wanna get dragged in here :P

On rape:

It is NEVER ok. Ever. I don't care if you think she "had it comming" due to circumstance. In doing that, you're telling me that taking advantage of an individual is alright.

By your logic, if a man walks up to me and drops a 20, I am in no way morally wrong to take it and walk away. If you walk into a dark alleyway, and I stab you in the chest, tough shit-you apparently deserved it.



Sickening.

First, let's not get off topic. Second, I either misspoke or you are a moron and misread. I did not say that the rape was justified nor did I say it was morally right nor should it be legal for the rapist to commit the act of rape. Also, people always say that "if in a dark alley" or "if drunk" when I argue this. When will people start making counterpoints like "if stoned and drunk in a dark alley" when they argue back? If I were stoned and drunk in a dark alley and you stabbed me in the chest, I probably deserved it. I shouldn't've been stoned or drunk or in that alley. However, it does not make what you did any more right or wrong and legal action should be taken against you as legal action should be taken against any rapist.

Finally, someone responds to my post. I was just commenting on the fact that to the anti-abortion Christians, unborn children aren't completely innocent. I did not say it was an equivelant, so don't take it out of context. And I'm not implying that I believe anything, although, Christians already think that aborted children have no chance of being saved, so what's the point of bringing that up?

That is a generalized statement, and I take offense to it as a Catholic, when you say that Christians already think that aborted children have no chance of being saved. Some Protestant churches hold that view, but in my faith and my Church, many believe, although it is not dogma, that babies who die before they are baptized are left in "limbo." They are not condemned to hell, but they are not in heaven. It is understood that God will take care of these innocents. However, this is simply my belief. As 1 Corinthians 2:91 says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." The God I believe in will save these children.

A woman who aborts her child cause she was raped.
That is truely a great evil.

First of all this is not even remotely close to an argument on the baseline majority of abortion. Its like on the topic of "Is the possesion of nuclear weapons immoral.' youd be saying if aliens attacked it wouldn't be immoral. The chances of a woman becoming pregnant after a rape and then having her life threatened by that pregnancy are very very remote. Murder hardly solves the pain of rape any clear minded person can take a look at the charts and see how unhealthy it is.
Rape is equal to a much greater chance of suicide and guess what so is abortion. The two combined are pretty volatile I know people who have had abortions and they are never the same.
Abortion is dehumanizing pain and simple. Until the 1800's when abortion was created everyone believed that a "fetus" was a human life and liable to be protected. Now very few people do hell senators want to call it a "member of the homosapian species," because they are so afraid of someone making the connection to a human being. It stinks of other dehumanizing eras in the history of modern man like "Species of man" where men are catalogued as animals and not worth protecting/respecting. Even Peter Singer who is pro-abortion and a very widely known bioethicist says there is no doubt that a fetus is distinctly human at the moment of sperm/egg fusion.

Good or evil?
I say neither since I believe in the existence of neither. Morality is a relative concept....

Really? Maybe we should let out Charles Manson in your house and see if you can be enlightened.

First, let's not get off topic. Second, I either misspoke or you are a moron and misread. I did not say that the rape was justified nor did I say it was morally right nor should it be legal for the rapist to commit the act of rape. Also, people always say that "if in a dark alley" or "if drunk" when I argue this. When will people start making counterpoints like "if stoned and drunk in a dark alley" when they argue back? If I were stoned and drunk in a dark alley and you stabbed me in the chest, I probably deserved it. I shouldn't've been stoned or drunk or in that alley. However, it does not make what you did any more right or wrong and legal action should be taken against you as legal action should be taken against any rapist.

You're saying that people who do certain things deserve to be raped. THat's what I find so disgusting, that you would ever consider rape to be a deservable offense. And, in doing so, you justify it under specific conditions.


You and I obviously have some differences of opinion concerning the worth of people.


In saying "you deserved it," you're taking all blame off of me. Why are people given the death sentance? Because their acts are heinous enough to deserve it.

I dont care if she's drunk or stoned, any guy that tries to take advantage of a woman if I'm around will see my fist hitting his face. Because he "deserves it."

. However, this is simply my belief. As 1 Corinthians 2:91 says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." The God I believe in will save these children.

Yes, well nobody listens to the Bible anymore. It's quiet sad really...

You're saying that people who do certain things deserve to be raped. THat's what I find so disgusting, that you would ever consider rape to be a deservable offense. And, in doing so, you justify it under specific conditions.


You and I obviously have some differences of opinion concerning the worth of people.


In saying "you deserved it," you're taking all blame off of me. Why are people given the death sentance? Because their acts are heinous enough to deserve it.

I dont care if she's drunk or stoned, any guy that tries to take advantage of a woman if I'm around will see my fist hitting his face. Because he "deserves it."

I don't take all the blame off of the rapist. You are retarded. The rape would not have happened if she had not put herself in that situation. The rape would not have happened if the rapist was not sick and twisted. For being sick and twisted, he is punished by legal action, for being a fucking moron and thinking the world is the safest place ever, the woman gets raped. I still don't see how this is on topic with the abortion thread, so either tie it in or stop bringing it back up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheverus
. However, this is simply my belief. As 1 Corinthians 2:91 says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." The God I believe in will save these children.

Yes, well nobody listens to the Bible anymore. It's quiet sad really...

Unfortunately, we all don't believe in the same God. Some don't believe in a God. Etcetera, etcetera. Any how, if you are saying we should not allow abortions because your God will protect these children then you are saying that this is an issue of religion and the government should have no say in it.

Ah, I see. "If someone is stupid, innocent, nieve(sp?), or trusting, they deserve whatever happens to them"

Gotcha. Heartless bastard like I thought ;)

As for this tying into abortion...well hell, this off topic thing was wide open when I got here. But, for the sake of the thread, I won't bring it up again, and neither will you, apparently ;)

Ah, I see. "If someone is stupid, innocent, nieve(sp?), or trusting, they deserve whatever happens to them"

Gotcha. Heartless bastard like I thought ;)

As for this tying into abortion...well hell, this off topic thing was wide open when I got here. But, for the sake of the thread, I won't bring it up again, and neither will you, apparently ;)

As long as the rest of this forum understands that you don't understand fully what I'm saying, I'm fine on not commenting on what you just said. By the way, it is spelled naive.

(EDIT: This was post 411 if you down with that! Haha. Goed, this has nothing to do with my post, except for the fact that it is my 411st. Please don't comment on it or you will suffer the consequences of your idiocy.)

On rape:

It is NEVER ok. Ever. I don't care if you think she "had it comming" due to circumstance. In doing that, you're telling me that taking advantage of an individual is alright.

.
.
.
.
Sickening.

I agree.

I oppose abortion unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, the pregnancy places the woman's life in jeopardy or the child is diagnosed with a condition meaning it will die either befiore birth or shortly afterwards.

Good or evil? I don't think it is that cut and dried.

Rape is a terrible thing and it is wrong no matter what even if the woman is really stupid. on it beng the womans right to choose, thats bull, they're are things more important than I, me, and myself. so quit feeling sorry for yourself and save a life no matter how small it might be.

It irks me when people only have those choices, abortion is good or evil. Same with the term pro-life. What's the opposite of pro-life? Pro-death? Anti-life? I don't know, using that term just bugs me, as if disagreeing means that you're for killing people.

Anyway, abortion is neither good nor evil. It's not good to end the potential of a human just like that, but it's not evil because, in my personal opinion, life doesn't begin until birth. That's my personal opinion. (just as a side note, if you want to be picky, a fetus can be considered a parasite. Parasite as defined by www.dictionary.com is: 1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.)

So I am pro-choice, but because I don't want the government getting into private matters such as this. One of my liberal opinions. I have liberal tendencies, conservative tendencies, but they all combine to anti-bush tendencies. ^_^

And there's my two cents.

It is possible that abortion can be good in the right circumstances as can most things (except of course eating gerbils, picking dasies and the like). For example: if a young girl uses contraception but still conceives then surely she has done everything she can to prevent having a baby, but, she is still pregnant then would abortion be humane? As the baby would not have been loved, the girl would have been 'lumbered' (please dont kill me because of my poor choice of words) with a baby for the rest of her life which has the capacity to ruin it.

Moreover, if the woman/girl is young enough to be living at home this could raise many more problems such as: parental abuse, disruption (which could be devestating id she shares a bedroom with another relation going through a time of stress) and others.

However, it is also important to raise the question of the male who impregnated her, would he be willing to have to pay child support for the rest of his life? For an accident that he tried hard to avoid.

These arent my views per-se but I believe that they offer an insight into the argument.

I agree, but read the rest of this post.


If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.

I've heard some pretty weak arguments in my time, but that almost takes the cake LMAO!!!

So, the same poor girl gets drunk and wonders down the same alley - she gets MURDERED for her watch and $20. By your SAME ARGUMENT - she consented to dying and giving him $20, as it would not have happened if she didn't put herself in that situation...

Not to mention, there IS a law against RAPE - there is no law against having bad judgement...

And morally, there is nothing wrong with HAVING bad judgement, but there IS something wrong with forcing yourself upon someone who says no - whether it is to giving you sex, or their watch and life.

I'd love to comment of the entire 'abortion' issue here, but I am afraid I am unqualified. You see, I would find it utterly against my morals to force a decision of this magitude upon any person. It is especially dangerous to form an opinion when I am incapable of ever experiencing the issue first-hand. You see, I happen to be a man, and am thus incapable of becoming pregnant. Just because I can't carry life doesn't mean I have the right to control a women's ability or choice to do so in any fashion.

As for the subject of rape and abortion, I find no reason for a women to not abort a rape-induced pregnancy immediately. Why? Well, lets consider rape first. Rape is perhaps the most degrading and psychologically damaging crime that exists. This person rendered you powerless(a sensation torturous in and of itself) and then proceeded to violate your most precious and secret places. No wonder rape victims are often paranoid and require extensive counseling. And here comes the icing on the cake. You didn't escape your rapist that night, oh no. His evil seed took root in your womb, and warped one of your precious eggs. Tainting your purity in a fashion you could never imagine. Now, the abuser lives on inside you. You feed a peice of the monster that hurt you. You can't escape him for nine months in which your rape continues. I can't imagine the extent of that pyschological torment. How could any woman recover from a rape with such an obvious reminder of her pain and suffering right there?

Surely, all but the most mentally stalwart would descend into madness if forced to carry such a burden. The only option for escape from their tormenter is death. This awful fate I would never wish upon anyone, even my most despised enemy.

So my question is, how could you?

abortion is a wonderful thing, provided it is carried out in accordance with the desires of the woman. of course, removing the need for abortion would be even better, such as finding fool-proof ways to stop unwanted conceptions of any kind and eliminating many of the circumstances that lead to such pregnancies. but of itself abortion is great because it prevents unwanted humans from being added to an already over-populated world, and it saves the futures of millions of women every year.

What is this “evil” you speak of?

Really? Maybe we should let out Charles Manson in your house and see if you can be enlightened.
I say let him in. If he tries anything on me I’d just nail him with my prototype model FADBA’GS A’12 DB BS.

Abortion should be aborted!

i'm not sure that any woman would look upon abortion as 'good'...even if their life was in danger from the pregnancy continuing and therefore needed an abortion!

There are times when abortion is advisable...for reasons which vary with each case...when not to do so would be bad. Whether this makes abortion 'good' i'm not sure.

I think it a great evil that women should be forced to have children if they don't want them!

That other people have a greater say about what i do with my body seems evil. But how you feel about that depends on whether you consider morality as stemming from religion or not i guess...

On the abortion topic, one point that has not really been tackled is the question of when human life begins. It's been hinted at, but not properly addressed.
I believe human life starts at conception, meaning the point at which the DNA from the sperm meets the DNA from the egg. I know cloning technology muddies this definition (one of the reasons I'm opposed to human cloning), but I'll use it for now.
The reason I think this point is the most likely time for human life to begin is genetic. A sperm cell is not a human being, nor is an ovum (egg cell); they are haploid, with only 23 chromosomes each rather than the 46 found in the diploid cells of the rest of the body (again, I'll leave Down's syndrome and other chromosomal disorders for now).
When DNA from sperm meets DNA from egg, a new combination of DNA is created, and a new diploid cell is formed. This is referred to as a zygote, and assuming it embeds in the wall of the uterus and develops normally, the zygote becomes an embryo, which becomes a fetus, which is born as a newborn baby.
I believe the question of the parents' rights disappears when this new human life starts. From that point onwards until the child reaches adulthood, the parents have a reponsibility to raise that child, or if they feel they are unable to do so, to find someone else who will. This could be a relative, a friend, a stranger, or the government, but once the life exists, SOMEONE is responsible for providing for it's needs until it can provide for itself; by default, it's the mother (it should be both parents, but that's one of the problems of a society that devalues life-long sexual relationships).

This means the only situation in which I am in favour of abortion is when, due to medical or other problems with the pregnancy, the mother AND the unborn baby will definitely die unless the mother has an abortion; in that case, I would approve. In the case when they might both die, or might both live, or something in between, it's not clear-cut. In the case of a woman pregnant as a result of rape, she cannot know what the quality of that child's life will be, nor can any other person but God. She has a responsibility that has been forced upon her; one of the things that society is responsible for is helping her bear that responsibility, or taking it from her if she cannot bear it. Same with failed contraception, same with carelessness, same with abandonment by partner part-way through the pregnancy.
BTW, this also means I'm against the morning-after pill and the I.U.D. (as both technically perform early abortions), but I'm fine with condoms, spermicidal jellies, anything that prevents the conception rather than dstroying the zygote. I'm also against most forms of fertility treatment, as these typically involve the destruction of more than one zygote.

But all this is based on my opinion that life begins at conception, which is certainly a debatable point. If life begins at birth, then all abortion/birth control/fertility treatments are fine, as the kicking thing with a heartbeat and it's own DNA is just human tissue.

There is a difference between the start of life and the start of consciousness.

There are those who argue that it is the existence of consciousness which matters most.

Depends what you consider as being the important factor as far as being human is concerned.

How can life begin at conception? The zygote cannot survive on its own, it is (as mentioned before) a parasite. In my opinion, life begins at the point where the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb and not in an incubator or anything.
Abortion isn't either good or evil. There is no clear-cut definition for good and evil. Different people have different morals, and good and evil mean different things. I believe in the woman's right to choose, simply because it is her body and she can do what she wants with it. I am not saying I would get an abortion if I became pregnant, just that I should be allowed the choice to get rid of it if i don't want it.

Abortion is-
Evil: If the mother got pregnant and just wanted an abortion because she didn't want to deal with a baby.

Good: If the mother's life is in danger should she give birth*, if she became pregnant when she was raped, or if she has HIV/AIDS and the baby will probably die soon anyway.

Abortion is also good because every unwanted baby that is born, is another baby put in the already over-crowded orphanages.

*Which would you choose? A woman who has been around for many years and has a personality and a life, or a baby who hasn't been born yet and doesn't even have a name yet.

Neither. IT'S NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE. There is no concrete proof for either side of the debate. Instead of jumping at the opportunity to condemn some poor woman or girl who is in an awful position not necessarily arising through their own actions, how about letting them make their own decisions about THEIR body and keeping your nose out of their affairs? Now there's a thought...

That said, I don't condemn pro-lifers who don't insist on enforcing their views on others; indeed, I have the greatest respect for you. It's an ugly, unclear issue. I wish people would realise that.

"good or evil"...

You sure made it difficult for a moral relativist to answer this one. How about a working definition of "good" and "evil" before you ask something like this?

I feel that Abortion should be legal, becuase there are soo many circumsatnces where it is necerry or advisable. Pro-life campainers seem to see it as black and white, which really it isn't!

Dezzan, you make a good point distinguishing between life and consciousness. Question, are newborns conscious?
Astarial, no child under the age of one can survive on its own, and very few children under the age of five could have any chance. Are they still parasites by your definition? Also to you and all other moral relativists, I think you're opening a bigger can of worms than this already complicated thread can handle by denying the existence of absolute good and evil, thereby invalidating the original question. Still, why stay on-topic all the time?
Suicidal Librarians, would you advocate killing children in orphanages after a certain amount of time to free up space?
Ecopoeia, if a human life exists inside a woman's body, the decision to end that life is NOT just a decision about her body, but also about the living body of another human. However, I agree the issue of when life starts is unclear.

Astarial, no child under the age of one can survive on its own, and very few children under the age of five could have any chance. Are they still parasites by your definition?
Hell, they’re still parasites until the day they move far far away.

**Initiate Logical Fallacy Spotter**

Dezzan, you make a good point distinguishing between life and consciousness. Question, are newborns conscious?

Actual question intended to obtain fact. Ignored.

Astarial, no child under the age of one can survive on its own, and very few children under the age of five could have any chance. Are they still parasites by your definition?

Audiatur et altera pars
Dicto simpliciter

Also to you and all other moral relativists, I think you're opening a bigger can of worms than this already complicated thread can handle by denying the existence of absolute good and evil, thereby invalidating the original question. Still, why stay on-topic all the time?

Argumentum ad hominem
Audiatur et altera pars


Suicidal Librarians, would you advocate killing children in orphanages after a certain amount of time to free up space?

Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad misericordiam
Slippery Slope
Straw Man

Ecopoeia, if a human life exists inside a woman's body, the decision to end that life is NOT just a decision about her body, but also about the living body of another human. However, I agree the issue of when life starts is unclear.

Bifurcation

Perhaps a better question might be "is abortion the lesser of two evils"?

It's a complicated issue with no easy answers. However I think people tend to overlook that there are alternatives to abortion if the person is unable to look after the baby. Adoption for example - what about all those childless couples who are ever searching for children? They could love the baby

How can murder ever be anything but evil. Even in the case of rape, why should the child be murdered because the father is a rapist? Abortion is just the first step; first the unborn, then the elderly, then the mentally and physically handicapped. The great nation of Mans Soul will never allow abortion (murder). We will take care of those who are born unplanned. Adoption will be rewarded. Whatever happened to the day when mothers protected the unborn?

As it was pointed out before, this is not a black and white issue. It's a grey issue with a whole of shading. It can't be classified as just "good" or "evil". It can't be assumed that because the woman aborted the child, she's an inhumane uncompassionate selfish being. Nor can it be assumed that it was beneficial for her.

Life... It's just a abstract concept invented by humans. Physically we exist, there is no question there, but, life and death are just two concepts that humans invented to explain why we exist and why we suddenly don't exist. From this came "murder", the termination of "life".

In the "wild animal kingdom", maternal animals KILL, yes, they kill their own babies, and why? Because it cannot survive, so, why do we comden it, if it's already a natural part of nature? Because, thousands of years ago, some people decided that it was wrong and that all "human" life is sacred. That is fine and dandy, but then some lawmakers come along and decided that if a child is murdered because it cannot survive, that the person who did it must be punished.

From this, we get "abortion", the termination of a pregnancy, which can happen for any number of reasons. Once again, an issue with shades of grey, which I will not go into. Anyway, so, they decided "abortion" was illegal because it killed the "life"...

This brings me back to my original statements. Since "life" is a concept, who are we to say that "life" begins and ends at a certain point. For that matter, when does "life" actually begin? Here's a simple answer, there has always been life, it just didn't always exist in the form that we are in right now. "Life" is the cycle of existance.

So, to say that "abortion" is ending a life would be wrong in the face of this theory. It could be simplified to, "life" only ends when all "life" ceases to exist and our planet becomes a sterile barren land on which no being can exist.

Our existance is nothing but shades of grey. Religious scholars and lawmakers made many aspects "black and white", "good and evil" because it suited their position. It made it easier for them to control the beings that existed under them.

So, is abortion "good" or "evil"? "Right", or "wrong"? Is it a form of murder or is it merely a way to control population? After all, if no one was prompted to end a pregnancy, we'd have overpopulation and a shortage of critical resources. Take China for example; they have a population so swollen that they have had to take to drastic measures to prevent the overcrowding to get worse.

So, I believe that it's fair to say, that "life" didn't begin at contraception, it began when all "life" forms began. It will end when all forms of life cease to exist.

The dead are still alive because their remains are recycled by the planet.

After all, plants are merely a form of "life", even if they don't bleed when they are cut, of attack when being attacked or make any noise. You know that a plant screams when it's hurt and that's because it's like all existing beings; it lives.

Now that I've given you a long answer, I'll say this: I'm pro-choice, as long as the abortion only occurs in the first trimester. It's better that the child is aborted than brought into a cruel and unforgiving world; or brought in only to "die" another way, or brought in to be abandoned; or the carrier of "life", the woman dies...

Abortion is wrong under any circumstance. If you live your whole life think about yourself I see how you could justify abortion by the trouble a child might cost you. I read something along the lines of "no one will love it" I'm sorry, but that is the most unthought through response to a serious issue. have we forgotten about adoption, or am I the only one who is thankful that my mother chose life?

Ocarinas, it's been a while since I did Latin, and I suspect many of the users of this forum have never taken Latin as a subject, or studied the use of Latin terminology in formal debate, so could you please explain what your challenges to my replies are?
I accept the "straw man" challenge as valid; I was ticked off by the orphanage argument, and didn't put my case well. Also, what is the relevance of the term "bifurcation"?

Abortion is wrong under any circumstance. If you live your whole life think about yourself I see how you could justify abortion by the trouble a child might cost you. I read something along the lines of "no one will love it" I'm sorry, but that is the most unthought through response to a serious issue. have we forgotten about adoption, or am I the only one who is thankful that my mother chose life?
No, I too am thankful my mother chose life. However I still stand by my beliefs. I do however, agree that after a certain point (after the first trimester), the child SHOULD NOT be aborted.

I think it's evil. Anyone disagree?

Umm...Why are we so anxious to label something as "good" or "evil."? First of all: Abortion is not an issue on which that stance of any man should mean anything. This is a WOMAN'S issue. Second, I don't see this as murder. My feelings on abortion are closely tied to my religious beliefs. I'm a Jew - and under Jewish law, abortion is permitted in most cases. The basic Jewish sentiment is that: If the baby can't survive completely on it's own outside the womb, then it is not considered a "life" yet. Thus I see it as niether good nor evil. It just is. People need to stop coloring everything black and white and boxing them.

And in some instances, getting raped (depending on the circumstances leading to the rape) is not that good of an excuse either.

The old, "she probably deserved it, so let her suffer" attitude.

Brilliant.

Mans Soul: It is your opinion that abortion is murder. It is not as matters currently stand fact.

Reactivists: You've highlighted my point - we have no definitve grounds as yet to determine when life 'begins', when an embryo/foetus ceases to be a part of a female's body and becomes a viable entity as of itself. Whatever 'viable' means in this case...

Lirye: You make it sound like abortion is an unthinking, easy option. Let me tell you this - it really isn't. It's a horrific experience.

Parsha: Fair points, though I do believe that the man involved in conception deserves a say in the matter, if not a decisive one.

Kryozerkia: Good posts. I don't fully agree with you; however, that's kind of what I'm trying to emphasise. There aren't 'right' and 'wrong' answers.

Umm...Why are we so anxious to label something as "good" or "evil."? First of all: Abortion is not an issue on which that stance of any man should mean anything. This is a WOMAN'S issue.
It’s not just a woman’s issue. It’s a family issue. That is unless he never finds out about it, or there is no family to talk with. But if the father knows, than he should get some kind of a say in it. What I think you’re saying though is that ultimately it is her choice. In which case I can agree with you there. It is up to her to make the final decision and bear whatever consequences that may follow. It is likely that she would also take the brunt of whatever emotional trauma that may follow. But to just cut the father out of the loop when he already knows would show a lack of trust in the individual. After all, there is a part of him in there as well. Unless she was raped, or sleeping around. But because the woman has to do most of the work, she should get superiority in the decision making process.

But that’s me.

I'm gonna get a load of leftists having a go at me for this but. . .
I think that abortion is fine in any cricumstance as it is better the foetus is dead than grows up in an unloving family
You say that being aborted is a traumatic experience for the foetus - yeah right- they haven't even developed a proper brain yet, let alone gained the ability to recognise pain and process the 'oh no, i'm being aborted'.
Yes it should be the woman's choice, but a system should be set up whereby if the man signs an official document saying that he wanted the foetus aborted, he will then on have no legal responsibilities towards the child (child support etc). If the woman can choose whether or not to keep the child why should the man not have a say.

I agree, but read the rest of this post.


If a women got herself drunk, stoned, high, or whatever and then proceeded to wander down a dark alley in the middle of the night, in my opinion, she has consented to have sex with whatever potential rapist might be out there because it was she who made the decisions to put herself in that situation and would not have been raped if she had not put herself in that situation.

Do I even need to address this? The woman in these hypothetical situations made poor choices, yes, I'll gladly admit that. But where in the moral code is it written that two wrongs make a right? (Answer: No where.) Simply because a woman has made poor choices, incapacitating herself, does not mean that it gives anyone more of a right to take advantage of her. If you want to discuss this matter further with me, I'd be more than happy to, simply telegram or thread.

As for abortion being good or evil, I'm going to agree with most of the accused 'liberals' and support its existence in our society. I'd like to preface my argument for it stating that I am personally against it as it applies to my own life... BUT, it is a woman's right to decide. And, when you get into cases such as rape, or the endangerment of the mother's health, it is clearly a reasonable choice: in the first situation, the woman did not consent and thus did not intend for a pregnancy to occur and in the second, a life is at risk, and terminating one life in exchange for the salvation of another is a balanced equation.

In looking at the possibility of implementing abortion for only these two cases, it's clear that one cannot simply accept abortion only for these reasons, there's too much gray area and room for its abuse. As I am (proudly) a liberal, I would say just accept abortion entirely so that the law can protect the women in these aforementioned instances, let alone for the fact that women should have the right to choose.

Personally, if I consented to having sex and became pregnant as a result, I fall in line with what some would call a conservative, I simply call, responsible, way of thinking: if a person takes an action, they should be responsible enough to accept the consequences. I can’t expect the rest of the world to adhere to such consequences, however, as I do not see a firm argument for the immorality of abortion, and there are many instances where the woman is simply unable to provide for the child. In this latter case, I’d prefer adoption be the route taken, but again… (refer to previous). :cool:

I'm gonna get a load of leftists having a go at me for this but. . .

Uh, don't anti-abortionists tend to be rightist? Though it's not really an issue of right and left. Love the name by the way (and I'm a lefty).

I don't take all the blame off of the rapist. You are retarded. The rape would not have happened if she had not put herself in that situation. The rape would not have happened if the rapist was not sick and twisted. For being sick and twisted, he is punished by legal action, for being a fucking moron and thinking the world is the safest place ever, the woman gets raped. I still don't see how this is on topic with the abortion thread, so either tie it in or stop bringing it back up.

She still doesn't deserve that.

Abortion should be on the basis of danger to the mother's health or that of the fetus. And what about the male? I have yet to see a woman get pregnant by herself, so why can't the male who made her pregnant have some say in it? Thoughts?

I think that abortion is evil.
Not only is it murder and should be banned everywhere it is alsojust plain stupid.
If you think about how many people are out there in the world that are married but cannot have children because of a problem or disease.
Some of these people want to have kids and put thier name on adoption lists
But 64% of the people on these lists never get a child.
Instead of killing the child they should bring in the world and let someone adopt him/her

I think abortion is neither inherently good or evil.

Its all relative, it cannot be a case of absoloute morality.

Each case must be taken as it comes. Personally I think feotus's (spelling?) have the same rights to life as you or me, but if it is a case of the child will ruin the mothers life, say by the childbirth killing her it should be up to the mother to decide.

What about rape victims then?

Every case must be taken as a seperate issue.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So how does abortion not violate our Constitution? Some people say, and I agree with them, that life (thus 'personhood') begins at conception, where the zygote has a full set of chromosomes and is in the process of growing into an adult human. For those parasite people, exactly when does this transition of parasite to non-parasite occur? Trimester definitions don't cut it, because fetus's don't always follow our labels.

They're just a bunch of cells, not a person.

They don't have a hearbeat, they're not breathing, last time I checked those were requirements to be considered a living human.

Some statistics on reasons women have abortions. This is from the Allen Guttmacher website, and was compiled from a survey of 1900 women nationwide who have had abortions.

Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman's life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%

Given the statistics, I'd say abortion is almost never right.

If you think about how many people are out there in the world

Let's just stop there for a moment. Yes, let's consider how many people there are in the world. In fact, let's consider overpopulation. Then consider that there are sundry children who were born and abandoned, now orphans, who the governments of the nations they reside in must find ways to provide for, penalizing those who do make good decisions, or if they do not provide for the orphans, the children have a (presumably shorter) lifetime of hardship and suffering...

I'm a strong proponent of adoption. One of my best friends was adopted, had a wonderful upbringing and is a great man.

But there are just as many cases for the existence of abortion as there are against it, hence this drawn-out argument, hence the even divide in our country. I say support adoption all that you can, but don't ban abortion.

And as for the question about male rights? LOL I got into this with my boyfriend a week or so ago. I took the stance that I wouldn't tell him if I became pregnant (of course, he's now in Oregon, which is why that would be feasible). I'd handle the situation on my own (going the adoption route) without consulting him. LOL Man, was that a fight. He's sold me on his side, too - at least, for the most part. If the guy wants to stay and wants to help, I think the woman should involve him in the conversation. It does take two to create the baby, and though the woman is ultimately the one who faces the largest consequences, if the man is willing to assist her in facing those, he should have speaking rights. As for the final decision - still the woman. ;) But personally, if a guy wanted to be fully involved, I consider each of us to have equal weight.

They're just a bunch of cells, not a person.

They don't have a hearbeat, they're not breathing, last time I checked those were requirements to be considered a living human.

Bunch of cells my eye. Check out this link

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

to see what the victims of first trimester abortions look like. Or you can just ignore it and keep telling yourself whatever you want to ease your conscience.

Is abortion evil?

Well, that depends on what you consider to be evil.... what do you consider to be evil?

Would you consider it evil if a life was taken without a socially accepted justification for doing so, for personal benefit, both?

Or, do you feel that killing is inherently wrong? Regadless of whether it is a human being, person, or animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheverus
. However, this is simply my belief. As 1 Corinthians 2:91 says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him." The God I believe in will save these children.



Unfortunately, we all don't believe in the same God. Some don't believe in a God. Etcetera, etcetera. Any how, if you are saying we should not allow abortions because your God will protect these children then you are saying that this is an issue of religion and the government should have no say in it.

What I'm saying is don't make a blanket, offensive statement on what all Christians believe when you really don't know what you're talking about. That was the point.

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So how does abortion not violate our Constitution? Some people say, and I agree with them, that life (thus 'personhood') begins at conception, where the zygote has a full set of chromosomes and is in the process of growing into an adult human. For those parasite people, exactly when does this transition of parasite to non-parasite occur? Trimester definitions don't cut it, because fetus's don't always follow our labels.

If someone could clearly define what constitutes "personhood" or "life" itself then this argument likely wouldn't be necessary.

But the most convincing case I've heard from a pro-lifer (and a VERY liberal one at that), was the "future of value" theory by Don Marquis. He's written an essay on it, and he's a professor at KU. I'm sure you can find an online copy if not a textual reference in some basic ethic books.

He dodges the argument of "personhood" completely, essentially finding that as a populace, we would all consider it "immoral" to deprive an individual of a future of value; in terminating the life of a fetus, we are depriving it of a future of value. Consequently, abortion is immoral. Now this still allocates for cases in which the fetus would be deformed, or mentally retarded, because this begs the question - would it really have a future of value? But this eliminates the permitting of abortion in instances of rape and endangerment to the mother. I do not recall if he explored the latter instance. I'm guessing you could make a case for the deprivation of the mother's future of value.

Insane Troll:

[1] "They're just a bunch of cells, not a person."

[2] "They don't have a hearbeat, they're not breathing, last time I checked those were requirements to be considered a living human."

Almost a good point, however, ignorance prevails in this NS discrediting Itself.

[1] You are correct, a person implies sentience. It is arguable that fetuses and small children are not mentally developed enough to be considered sentient, and thus not a person.

It would be nice if Iinsane Troll explained itself rather than just spouting out such statements. However, Insane Troll seems incapable of doing so, ergo AP has decided to do it for the NS.

[2] This lead AP to beleive Insane Troll is incapable of explaining itself.

To be alive:

Life is having Order (Complex organization), the ability to grow & develop, the ability to utilize energy, be responsive to the environment, and maintain homeostasis. A growing responding organism is alive.*

A human being is a living organism containing a complete Homo sapien genetic code. Containing, transcribing,and translating the genetic sequence of a homo sapien.

Human fetuses contain an entire human genetic code. Containing, transcribing,and translating the genetic sequence of a homo sapien.

Thus, human fetuses are living human beings.

*Note of clarification: A fetus does not function as a fully capable, fully independant, human person (sentient). But, these are not qualifications for life. A fetus is a living organism, as are bacteria, protozoa, and parasites.

How can killing a human being ever be considered a good thing? Now before I get a horde of "pro-choicers" attacking me....know that I only support abortion (read: murder of unborn humans) in cases of rape or in order to save the mother....

EDIT: I'm an agnostic, by the way....

Now, let the flames begin... :)

Neither... good and evil are matters of perception

We can go into real or hypothetical stories all day, but it wont make a lick of difference as each real or hypothetical point is really just ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. If you think you are so morally superior as to think that you have the only right way of looking at things then I feel sorry for you because you are too closed minded to think critically.

As a Jew, I will not be ruled by some B.S. spewing holier-then-thou Christian. You scripture means nothing if it's not backed up with a fundamental rule that doesn't apply to being Christian. In other words, it doesn't matter what such and such a book says if the people you're preaching to are not Christian. Now I knew this debate was going to come up sooner or later. The religious argument is not valid. at all. If you're deciding for a nation, you're religion should not play a role in the decision. Bottom line: If the fetus cannot survive on it's own outside the womb, it's not really a life. I simply can't, and won't, see this as murder. everyday I'm bombarded with the rediculous "Abortion is murder," argument while homeless people die on the friggin' streets. People argue evolution is not true, despite years of good, solid, scientific research - while people are getting disenfranchised every day for something as inane as a "moral objection" to a person's sexual orientation. I'm sorry if this sounds angry, but do NOT quote scripture to me and treat it as a fact unto itself. It's not only offensive, it's repugnant.

Deist Nymphomaniacs:

Would like to read that paper, please telegram AP a link to the paper or journal containing the article.
Or where it could be purchased.

Thank you,

AP

Understand, I'm not meaning to generalize on Christians. My in-laws are Christian ministers in the United Church of Christ. Apparently, mainstream Christianity tends to not be extreme - I direct this only at the extreme conservatives who may feel the need to impart their wisdom.

As a Jew, I will not be ruled by some B.S. spewing holier-then-thou Christian. You scripture means nothing if it's not backed up with a fundamental rule that doesn't apply to being Christian. In other words, it doesn't matter what such and such a book says if the people you're preaching to are not Christian. Now I knew this debate was going to come up sooner or later. The religious argument is not valid. at all. If you're deciding for a nation, you're religion should not play a role in the decision. Bottom line: If the fetus cannot survive on it's own outside the womb, it's not really a life. I simply can't, and won't, see this as murder. everyday I'm bombarded with the rediculous "Abortion is murder," argument while homeless people die on the friggin' streets. People argue evolution is not true, despite years of good, solid, scientific research - while people are getting disenfranchised every day for something as inane as a "moral objection" to a person's sexual orientation. I'm sorry if this sounds angry, but do NOT quote scripture to me and treat it as a fact unto itself. It's not only offensive, it's repugnant.

If you read the context of my post, you would see that I am not preaching my doctrine to you. What I was doing was clarifying a Christian position which had been flagrantly misquoted by Opal Isle. It was a matter of what my personal belief of what happens to an aborted baby is. I also said that I could be wrong and that no one really knows. In that case I was obviously not preaching. Why don't you make sure you understand what you're reading.

The religios Right need to let this issue go. I mean, which is worse, and unborn child being killed or that child being born into a family that doesnt want it? :headbang:

The religios Right need to let this issue go. I mean, which is worse, and unborn child being killed or that child being born into a family that doesnt want it? :headbang:

What's worse -- being murdered or being depressed?

And on, and on, and on, and on...

Don't keep chasing your tails, doggies. This isn't a resolvable issue. Just accept it.

As an aside, the US constitution is irrelevant in this debate given that the participants are not all from the US.

God, I'm grouchy today...

if you find out your own family doesnt want u to exsist, that can push you to suicide. so its really death either way.

The religios Right need to let this issue go. I mean, which is worse, and unborn child being killed or that child being born into a family that doesnt want it? :headbang:

What you fail to see is that it's not the child's fault. It would be better to give the child some kind of chance, of which good might come out of, than to give no chance at all.

As a Jew, I will not be ruled by some B.S. spewing holier-then-thou Christian. You scripture means nothing if it's not backed up with a fundamental rule that doesn't apply to being Christian. In other words, it doesn't matter what such and such a book says if the people you're preaching to are not Christian. Now I knew this debate was going to come up sooner or later. The religious argument is not valid. at all. If you're deciding for a nation, you're religion should not play a role in the decision. Bottom line: If the fetus cannot survive on it's own outside the womb, it's not really a life. I simply can't, and won't, see this as murder. everyday I'm bombarded with the rediculous "Abortion is murder," argument while homeless people die on the friggin' streets. People argue evolution is not true, despite years of good, solid, scientific research - while people are getting disenfranchised every day for something as inane as a "moral objection" to a person's sexual orientation. I'm sorry if this sounds angry, but do NOT quote scripture to me and treat it as a fact unto itself. It's not only offensive, it's repugnant.

I wish to congradulate you, you have just gone a long way towards justifying murder of anyone. If the murder doesn't happen to believe it's wrong then it isn't. The same situation applies. The point is here, and I am not talking about extreme situations like rape, that when you get pregnant it was something you did, and from that moment, senscient or not, there is something that has a life ahead of it. Taking it away is murder, I don't say that from a Christian perspective (although I am one), I say it from a perspective of common sense, you are removing a life.

The best thing I heard on this was a precher who prayed, forgive us for we have sinned, we murder innocent children and call it choice, we murder abortion doctors and call it justice. Whatever cute name you give it it is the same thing, with the same result.

Understand I am not generalizing to all Jewish nations, but does zioninism not run contrary to the following statement made by a jewish person ranting against christians:

"If you're deciding for a nation, you're religion should not play a role in the decision."

Just found this to be funny, not trying to start a holy war or anything of that nature.

What you fail to see is that it's not the child's fault. It would be better to give the child some kind of chance, of which good might come out of, than to give no chance at all.

It's not a child, it's an embryo or foetus. Biologically speaking.

I would rather have never been born than have had to be born into a world of strife and constant depression.

It's not a child, it's an embryo or foetus. Bilologically speaking.

It's still a human.....

[QUOTE=Anti Pharisaism]
"If you're deciding for a nation, you're religion should not play a role in the decision."QUOTE]

im with u there. if religion controls our politics, we'll end up with a country from the middle east where religion rules everything.

"The point is here, and I am not talking about extreme situations like rape, that when you get pregnant it was something you did, and from that moment, senscient or not, there is something that has a life ahead of it. Taking it away is murder, I don't say that from a Christian perspective (although I am one), I say it from a perspective of common sense, you are removing a life."

No, it is not murder. Murder is a legal term, similar to that of insanity.
Murder, the unlawful killing of a person, involving intent and malice (to be short). Abortion is currently legal, ergo it is not murder.

All murder is killing, not all killing is murder.

It's still a human.....
well, technically its not.

well, technically its not.
It still has a life before it after it has formed.

It's still a human.....

I wasn't using the terminology to support abortion, merely commenting on the fact that 'child' carries with it an extra emotional dimension that isn't conducive to good debate.

Using 'human' as a reason not to abort is OK, but for consistency you'd have to use it to oppose capital punishment and I know many would not do that.

having the capacity to have life doesnt make u human.

It's not a child, it's an embryo or foetus. Biologically speaking.
Biologically speaking it is a child! A heartbeat is detected during the 4th week. I don't know what magic event would make it a child suddenly in your mind.

The joys of semantics...

Using 'human' as a reason not to abort is OK, but for consistency you'd have to use it to oppose capital punishment and I know many would not do that.
yeah, i guess we cant execute serial killers, cause they're human too.

Ok has anyone thought about when abortions are performed? In Britain its up to 24 weeks, its not a foetus its a baby. I agree with abortion up to a point and yes it is better not to be born into a family that doesn't want you or can't cope.

well, technically its not.


Yes, it is a human. An unborn dog is still a dog. An unborn cat is still a cat. An unborn hippo is still a hippo. An unborn human is still a human. An unborn human cannot develope into anything but a homo sapien....

The joys of semantics...

Ah, but semantics define issues ;)

having the capacity to have life doesnt make u human.

Please explain how technically it is not.
Also, then what makes you human?

FATE: Please read Anti Pharisaism's post on whether a human fetus is a living human being or not. Same goes for Cheverus. Both NS will find it interesting.

being human (in my opinion) means having a certain level of mental capacity. mearly having human form does not make u human.

Read it again: Emphasis on genetics.

FATE: Please read Anti Pharisaism's post on whether a human fetus is a living human being or not. Same goes for Cheverus. Both NS will find it interesting.

So I think we agree

Ok has anyone thought about when abortions are performed? In Britain its up to 24 weeks, its not a foetus its a baby. I agree with abortion up to a point and yes it is better not to be born into a family that doesn't want you or can't cope.

I Britain it's 24 weeks precisely because the commission of enquiry into foetal sentience made up of experts in the field were able to conclusively say that at this point of development there was no cerebral cortex activity, the foetus was running entirely off the brain stem and as a result was substantially less aware than your average mouse. If you have any new evidence that suggests that there is higher brain activity at this stage of development then I suggest you publish your research and reap the extensive rewards available in the field of foetal physiology!

Read critically: it states to be a living human being.

You may be relating human to person to human being. If so, explain why there should be no distinction between the terms.

being human (in my opinion) means having a certain level of mental capacity. mearly having human form does not make u human.

So following your logic, it is ok to kill children up to a certain point after they are born. Also, mentally handicapped people likely do not have your required level of mental capacity. And how about the elderly?

I wasn't using the terminology to support abortion, merely commenting on the fact that 'child' carries with it an extra emotional dimension that isn't conducive to good debate.

I wasn't trying to insuate that you were supporting abortion.....I was merely stating that an unborn human is still a human....


Using 'human' as a reason not to abort is OK, but for consistency you'd have to use it to oppose capital punishment and I know many would not do that.

For the record, even though this off-topic for this thread, I'm for the death penalty. Now before I get jumped on as having a double-standard, here me out. To me, once a person has committed a crime so henious(sp?) as murder, rape, or child molestation, they no longer deserve their rights as humans. If you intentionally take the life of a person (excluding self-defense and warfare) you're a murder...plain and simple....if it were up to me, America would be executing murderers, rapists, and molestors every chance we got....

An unborn child has not done anything to deserve that same fate. An unborn does not deserve to be killed....

Ah, but semantics define issues ;)

Heh. Y'know, I promised myself I wouldn't go back to General and debate the same thing over and over and look where I am. Darn it.

by metal capacity im mean have a concious and sub-concious. fetuses have neither while children, elderly, and 'special' people do.

being human (in my opinion) means having a certain level of mental capacity. mearly having human form does not make u human.

For the love of God, Montressor! They're still a human being....

Heh. Y'know, I promised myself I wouldn't go back to General and debate the same thing over and over and look where I am. Darn it.

Yeah, the wonderful circle of general begins anew with every different abortion thread :D

For everyone who opposes abortion, let me ask this.

If some kid was aborted somewhere in south dakota, how does it affect YOU?

by metal capacity im mean have a concious and sub-concious. fetuses have neither while children, elderly, and 'special' people do.

Yet unborn humans will have a concious and a sub-concious...they will have a certain mental capacity....that is, unless they're murdered through abortion....then they can't have that...

FATE:

Again, read critically, your digging yourself into a hole.

For everyone who opposes abortion, let me ask this.

If some kid was aborted somewhere in south dakota, how does it affect YOU?

If someone is murdered in Houghton, Michigan -- does it affect you?

I wasn't trying to insuate that you were supporting abortion.....I was merely stating that an unborn human is still a human....



For the record, even though this off-topic for this thread, I'm for the death penalty. Now before I get jumped on as having a double-standard, here me out. To me, once a person has committed a crime so henious(sp?) as murder, rape, or child molestation, they no longer deserve their rights as humans. If you intentionally take the life of a person (excluding self-defense and warfare) you're a murder...plain and simple....if it were up to me, America would be executing murderers, rapists, and molestors every chance we got....

An unborn child has not done anything to deserve that same fate. An unborn does not deserve to be killed....
I knew I shouldn't have brought this up... killing is killing. Just because you wish to deny someone their rights as a human doesn't mean to say you should be allowed waive your own obligation not to take a life. No offence, but I'm glad it's not up to you.

As for double standards, I get the same criticism: anti death penalty while accepting abortion.

Oh, well. Pip pip for now, me dears.

killing is killing.

Killing is broken into different degrees. If someone kills someone out of self-defense, does that equate to murder? No. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier in combat, does that equate to murder? No.

Just because you wish to deny someone their rights as a human doesn't mean to say you should be allowed waive your own obligation not to take a life.

Hypothetical situation: (I of course don't know you at all, but run with me here....assume you have a sister, whether you actually do or not...) I brutally murder your sister with an axe. (no real threat implied, of course). I get arrested and convicted. Would you rather see me, the same person who viciously killed your own sibling, get the ultimate punishment of death or be locked in prison -- where I may even have the chance of getting out and committing that same crime to someone else?


No offence, but I'm glad it's not up to you.

I wish it was. Granted, I also wish a Constitutionalist was President. I also wish that there will be an Star Wars television series after the release of Episode III. I also wish that they'd make new episodes of The Golden Girls and The Nanny. I also wish -- now I'm just getting carried away...

Me!

I'm opposed to abortion, euthanasia, suicide, murder, war, and capital punishment.
Is that unusual?

of course abortion is a good thing if you dont agree then your a dumb ass

for example if not for abortion all of my 23 wives have had at least 2 abortions imagine if they didnt then id be truly f*****

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, but I'm not about to go through all those pages looking for it. Just ignore it if it has.

Since you're bringing murder ethics into the equation, I just want to point out that when Hitler's mother was pregnant with him, her doctor recommended that she get an abortion. She refused and birthed the man the murdered millions.

Though I do believe abortion is wrong because it's killing a living thing, I think it's just plain cruel and twisted to try and raise that child in a situation in which the child couldn't receive the love and support it needs.

Suicidal Librarians, would you advocate killing children in orphanages after a certain amount of time to free up space?


No, when did I say anything about that? I was just trying to say that if an unwanted baby is born, the baby's mother could dump him/her at an orphanages doorstep. I was trying to point out that by banning abortion, already over-crowded orphanages would get even more crowded. Where are you coming from? :confused:

I was trying to point out that by banning abortion, already over-crowded orphanages would get even more crowded. Where are you coming from? :confused:

and what of the 2 MILLION couples that are looking to adopt?

and what of the 2 MILLION couples that are looking to adopt?

There are already plenty of kids to go around without thousands more abandoned kids joining them.

and what of the 2 MILLION couples that are looking to adopt?
there are 2 million children in America alone who are waiting to be adopted, including half a million who bounce through the foster care system because many of the families who are so eager to adopt turn out to be unwilling or unable to shoulder the full responsibility of it.

yes, there are 2 million couples waiting to adopt...and more than half of them are specifically looking for healthy white babies. asian babies are okay too, but other ethnic groups and children with special conditions are pretty much out of luck. interesting trivia fact: a minority child born HIV possitive has a greater chance of being attacked by a household pet than it has of EVER being adopted. in 2000, only 8% of American adoptions were inter-racial, yet almost a third of American children waiting to be adopted are non-white.

EDIT: let me clarify something that many people might not know about, to make this issue a little easier. when you see statistics on how many children are waiting to be adopted, this only includes children who are legally registered as eligible for adoption. this doesn't include roughly 80% of the kids in non-permanent foster care who ARE going to be applying for adoption in the future, nor does it include wards of the state or children in group homes for a variety of reasons.

there are a great many legal fascets that make it appear that there are far fewer children seeking adoption, and this is often exploited by pro-life groups to make it appear that there aren't enough adoptees to go around. however, when you factor in the number of international adoption cases waiting in the wings, you find there will never be a shortage of babies needing families.

Abortion is also good because every unwanted baby that is born, is another baby put in the already over-crowded orphanages.



I accept that my point was badly made (Ocarinas brought me up on this already), but what are you implying by this statement? If unwanted zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human beings (my central conjecture), then there is no real difference between killing them before they are born, and killing them after they get to the orphanage, if the reason you are killing them is that orphanages are too crowded.
Sorry if I offend unfairly, I get emotional about this stuff.

Bunch of cells my eye. Check out this link

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

to see what the victims of first trimester abortions look like. Or you can just ignore it and keep telling yourself whatever you want to ease your conscience.

Ok... Now, explain to me how an embryo in the first trimester is to survive outside of the mother's womb? Hell, it's so bloody tiny, it looks like something I'd throw up if I ate something bad.

Yes, I did look at the pictures.

BTW, did you post a warning for those who can't take graphic images? I had no problem.

I'm opposed to abortion, euthanasia, suicide, murder, war, and capital punishment.
Is that unusual?
Now I can see why you wouldn't favour it. You are truly pro-life. :)

For everyone who opposes abortion, let me ask this.

If some kid was aborted somewhere in south dakota, how does it affect YOU?
Doesn't affect me at all! ^_^

"of course abortion is a good thing if you dont agree then your a dumb ass

for example if not for abortion all of my 23 wives have had at least 2 abortions imagine if they didnt then id be truly f***** "

Ah, well then, nobody wants to be a dumbass.
Lazy and insulting, glad you could take time away from flipping burgers to share your thoughts. How's that McDonalds 401k program holding up...can you form a union yet.

Ok... Now, explain to me how an embryo in the first trimester is to survive outside of the mother's womb? Hell, it's so bloody tiny, it looks like something I'd throw up if I ate something bad.

Yes, I did look at the pictures.

BTW, did you post a warning for those who can't take graphic images? I had no problem.

the crappiest argument against abortion is the "LOOK HOW GROSS IT IS!!!" argument. i can say from experience that the aftermath of an abortion is less disgusting than the aftermath of liposuction (having seen both firsthand), and the aftermath of an emergency appendectomy is worse than both. just because something is gross doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. in fact, in the case of the appendectomy the grosser the removed product is the BETTER the procedure was, in the sense that it removed that much more deformed a tissue. grossness and morality cannot be equated by anybody who has left the 2nd grade, so i wish the pro-lifers would get on with their lives already.

Originally Posted by FATE Engine
For everyone who opposes abortion, let me ask this.

If some kid was aborted somewhere in south dakota, how does it affect YOU?

Empathy, one of the qualities that makes a human a person. Glad to see you lack that.

If you were aborted how would that effect us, for starters it would save us the time of explaining concepts to those incapable of thinking for themselves

Doesn't affect me at all! ^_^

then let me ask you this, if a Jew dies in Germany how does it affect you?

Empathy, one of the qualities that makes a human a person. Glad to see you lack that.


i also fail to empathize with the stomach cells you, at this very moment, are shedding. does that make me an awful person?

then let me ask you this, if a Jew dies in Germany how does it affect you?false parallel; a Jew is a human person, a fetus is not. what happens to other human persons sets precident that will touch my life, what happens to non-human persons does not.

I just wanna add what I see as most abortion arguments.

"A fetus is a human at _____ years old"
"No, a fetus is a human at _____(slightly higher/lower) years old"
"You're wrong."
"No, you're wrong."
"No, you're wrong you (insert insult here)"
"Oh yeah, we'll you're just a (bad thing to say about someone)


Then wash your hands and do it all over again ;)

false parallel; a Jew is a human person, a fetus is not. what happens to other human persons sets precident that will touch my life, what happens to non-human persons does not.

a false parallel on what grounds? you belive that a fetus is sub human, they belived that Jews were sub human

a false parallel on what grounds? you belive that a fetus is sub human, they belived that Jews were sub human

happily, biology (not to mention logic) was never on their side and it is on mine. :)

happily, biology (not to mention logic) was never on their side and it is on mine. :)

sure it was, Jews are an entirly different race of people than Germans are

you might say the Jews played they unwanted baby to Germany's desperate teenager

sure it was, Jews are an entirly different race of people than Germans are

you might say the Jews played they unwanted baby to Germany's desperate teenager

Race has no impact on whether you're alive or not. The stage of your biological development does.

--Edit--

Not *just* biological, to be completely accurate. The development of the mind and consciousness as well, but in any event.

Race has no impact on whether you're alive or not. The stage of your biological development does.

--Edit--

Not *just* biological, to be completely accurate. The development of the mind and consciousness as well, but in any event.

and to an extent (3rd. term) your biological development dosn't ether

and if we're talking about the development of the mind and consciousness then tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to kill retarted people?

Ask Texas that ;)

and to an extent (3rd. term) your biological development dosn't ether

and if we're talking about the development of the mind and consciousness then tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to kill retarted people?

More than one reason. Number one is the same reason I can't abort a random woman's child. I don't have any authority over their child's life. The parent has absolute responsibility for the unborn child. Likewise, you have no authority to determine whether a mentally retarded person should live.

Secondly, a retarded person is alive. They can think, feel, form opinions, etc. You're mistaking intelligence with life. You can be dumb as a rock and still alive. We're talking a basic level of sentience and awareness. Science has failed to prove this level of consciousness exists in a fetus.

Therefore, a retarded person is alive, a child may (or may not) be. You apparently have a very poor grasp of what a retarded person is actually like. They're not really any different than you or I, in terms of what defines a human.

More than one reason. Number one is the same reason I can't abort a random woman's child. I don't have any authority over their child's life. The parent has absolute responsibility for the unborn child. Likewise, you have no authority to determine whether a mentally retarded person should live.

Secondly, a retarded person is alive. They can think, feel, form opinions, etc. You're mistaking intelligence with life. You can be dumb as a rock and still alive. We're talking a basic level of sentience and awareness. Science has failed to prove this level of consciousness exists in a fetus.

Therefore, a retarded person is alive, a child may (or may not) be. You apparently have a very poor grasp of what a retarded person is actually like. They're not really any different than you or I, in terms of what defines a human.

ok, lets say I was the director of mental health and the person before me had the same intelegence/awarness as a fetus, then can I kill them?

and by they way, I think the fact that 3rd. term fetuses stuggle and cry durning partial birth abortion argues for their mental awareness

Ask Texas that ;)

retarted people that arn't cerial killers

ok, lets say I was the director of mental health and the person before me had the same intelegence/awarness as a fetus, then can I kill them?

and by they way, I think the fact that 3rd. term fetuses stuggle and cry durning partial birth abortion argues for their mental awareness

No, you can't. The same way I cannot kill a womans fetus. Let me break this down for you really simply - it is not your child. Or my child. Or the government's child. The responsibility to make that choice belongs to the parent alone, nobody else. You could suggest the euthansia of the child, but not mandate it.

As for 3rd term fetuses, it's my understanding abortion is illegal at the 6 month mark in most of North America. If you wish to debate abortion after the 6 month mark, you should contact your local representative.

No, you can't. The same way I cannot kill a womans fetus. Let me break this down for you really simply - it is not your child. Or my child. Or the government's child. The responsibility to make that choice belongs to the parent alone, nobody else. You could suggest the euthansia of the child, but not mandate it.

As for 3rd term fetuses, it's my understanding abortion is illegal at the 6 month mark in most of North America. If you wish to debate abortion after the 6 month mark, you should contact your local representative.

ok. lets say I'm the legal gurdian/parent of the afor mentioned retard

and actually you can kill a woman's fetus, it's happened before and theirs nothing the women can do because ot punish the murderer would be to acknowledge something was wrong with abortion

and no, that was repealed by an activist judge in SF (the same, non-elected people who gave us gay marrige) where have you been

ok. lets say I'm the legal gurdian/parent of the afor mentioned retard

and actually you can kill a woman's fetus, it's happened before and theirs nothing the women can do because ot punish the murderer would be to acknowledge something was wrong with abortion

and no, that was repealed by an activist judge in SF (the same, non-elected people who gave us gay marrige) where have you been

North America doesn't just consist of the USA. Where have you been? Secondly, there have been trials of double homocide in which a pregnant woman has been killed. It's murder because the choice to abort the fetus does not lie in the hands of the murderer, but in the hands of the parent.

I can't choose to sell your car, because it isn't mine. I can choose to sell my car. I can't choose to abort a woman's fetus, because it isn't mine. A woman can choose to abort her fetus. It's not complex to understand.

Yes, if you are the legal guardian or parent of a child who has no consciousness or awareness as we would normally apply to a human being, then they are not (in my opinion) alive, and you would have the right to terminate their existence.

ok. lets say I'm the legal gurdian/parent of the afor mentioned retard

and actually you can kill a woman's fetus, it's happened before and theirs nothing the women can do because ot punish the murderer would be to acknowledge something was wrong with abortion

and no, that was repealed by an activist judge in SF (the same, non-elected people who gave us gay marrige) where have you been

1) If the child's been born and is retarded, then it is murder to kill it. Idiot.

2) You're really dumb. What was meant was "you shouldn't decide for the person."

3) You're dumb AND you don't pay attention. It is illegal in most of America, one city judge can't change that for the whole country. You're thinking on a state or city level, bucko.

1) If the child's been born and is retarded, then it is murder to kill it. Idiot.

2) You're really dumb. What was meant was "you shouldn't decide for the person."

3) You're dumb AND you don't pay attention. It is illegal in most of America, one city judge can't change that for the whole country. You're thinking on a state or city level, bucko.

why can't I? it's only as smart, as aware and as productive as a fetus?

no, but seriously, you can walk up to a pregnant woman with a baseball bat and there is nothing she can do

and actually that was a federal mandate she overruled on federal constitutional grounds, bucko.

1) but it's living. SOmeone hasn't been paying attention to past threads.

2) That is, by far, one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. It's also one of the most sadistic and cruel. You disgust me.

3) Really? That, I was actually not aware of. I'll look it up.

North America doesn't just consist of the USA. Where have you been? Secondly, there have been trials of double homocide in which a pregnant woman has been killed. It's murder because the choice to abort the fetus does not lie in the hands of the murderer, but in the hands of the parent.

I can't choose to sell your car, because it isn't mine. I can choose to sell my car. I can't choose to abort a woman's fetus, because it isn't mine. A woman can choose to abort her fetus. It's not complex to understand.

Yes, if you are the legal guardian or parent of a child who has no consciousness or awareness as we would normally apply to a human being, then they are not (in my opinion) alive, and you would have the right to terminate their existence.

on a world scale, it does. besides, Mexico got it right and it anti-abortion

yeah, I can't make a woman abort her fetus, but I can walk up to her with a baseball bat and there is nothing she can do because we all know a fetus isn't a human being ;)

define no consciousness, what about just little consciousness

1) but it's living. SOmeone hasn't been paying attention to past threads.

2) That is, by far, one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. It's also one of the most sadistic and cruel. You disgust me.

3) Really? That, I was actually not aware of. I'll look it up.

but only as living as a fetus

yet abortion dosn't disgust you?

1) no comment, you're dumb

2) Assult and Battery maybe?

Pulling the plug isn't considered murder. It is the woman's choice. And I'd like to add once more that you sicken me.

3) I posted on this earlier. This is was most abortion arguments are. Two people have different definitions on when life begins.

on a world scale, it does. besides, Mexico got it right and it anti-abortion

yeah, I can't make a woman abort her fetus, but I can walk up to her with a baseball bat and there is nothing she can do because we all know a fetus isn't a human being ;)

define no consciousness, what about just little consciousness

If you injure her in a way that results in the involuntary abortion of the fetus, yes, it's double homicide. You don't have to shoot the fetus for example, if you shoot the woman and the fetus dies, you're responsible.

Think of it like this. If a woman was driving a car with two kids in the back seat, and I use a sniper rifle to kill her, sending the car careening in to a wall and killing everyone inside; I'm legally responsible for the death of her children as well. I may not have shot them, but my actions were the cause of their deaths.

"No consciousness" is something I'm ill-equipped to define. It varies from person to person on exactly what it encompasses. The ability to think, feel, be self-aware, and to form ideas (either concrete or abstract) are all elements of it. It would be something difficult to define in writing.

1) no comment, you're dumb

2) Assult and Battery maybe?

Pulling the plug isn't considered murder. It is the woman's choice. And I'd like to add once more that you sicken me.

3) I posted on this earlier. This is was most abortion arguments are. Two people have different definitions on when life begins.

1 - how is that dumb, you gave me reasons why a fetus is abortable, those same resons apply to a retarted person. but I'm not allowed to kill them?

2 - yes, but not murder

If you injure her in a way that results in the involuntary abortion of the fetus, yes, it's double homicide. You don't have to shoot the fetus for example, if you shoot the woman and the fetus dies, you're responsible.

Think of it like this. If a woman was driving a car with two kids in the back seat, and I use a sniper rifle to kill her, sending the car careening in to a wall and killing everyone inside; I'm legally responsible for the death of her children as well. I may not have shot them, but my actions were the cause of their deaths.

"No consciousness" is something I'm ill-equipped to define. It varies from person to person on exactly what it encompasses. The ability to think, feel, be self-aware, and to form ideas (either concrete or abstract) are all elements of it. It would be something difficult to define in writing.

since your ill-equiped to determine consiousness and self awareness then why do you feel equiped to use it as an argument for the abortion of a fetus?

Schrand, you're out of logic here.

Lets review facts.

1) you have one opinion on when conciousness begins.

2) Everyone else in the world has their own opinion on it, each of them different.

3) Why should you force your opinion on everyone else?

Schrand, you're out of logic here.

Lets review facts.

1) you have one opinion on when conciousness begins.

2) Everyone else in the world has their own opinion on it, each of them different.

3) Why should you force your opinion on everyone else?

1 - yes I do, I'm just making you question yours

2 - no, most of them are the same, conception or birth

3 - because human life is at risk

since your ill-equiped to determine consiousness and self awareness then why do you feel equiped to use it as an argument for the abortion of a fetus?

You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm saying that my opinion alone can not be held as a standard. Different people have different views on what consciousness encompasses. First we would have to have a standard set (likely by some form of vote) defining exactly what consciousness is.

Once we have that, we merely need to prove a fetus meets the criteria to be alive. Until a set criteria exists, we cannot claim a fetus to hold consciousness in absolution. By my personal criteria, a fetus does not hold consciousness. Hence I have no qualms with backing abortion.

However, a legal standard requires more than just my opinion. It should be the conjunction of the majority opinion and the scientific standards.

no, but seriously, you can walk up to a pregnant woman with a baseball bat and there is nothing she can do

I have never heard quite such a ridiculous amount of rubbish in my life. Under state law in most of the US this is treated as murder, At the very least it is assault but the whole thing is irrelevant to abortion in exactly the same way that euthenasia of dissabled children is irrelevant.

The mother has some interests, she has some rights.

The foetus has some interests. It has some rights. It is much less aware that the mother. It's interests and rights are correspondingly less.

Where the interests of the foetus interfere with the interests of the mother then, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, the rather greater interests of the mother override the rights of the foetus. This is not a license for people to go around aborting foetuses without consent. This in no way compromises the right to life of anyone born with a dissability. If the foetus could survive outside the womb then abortion need never be an issue, however you cannot assign rights to a foetus over and above those of the mother when it cannot be said to have any sort of awareness.

You're misunderstanding my comment. I'm saying that my opinion alone can not be held as a standard. Different people have different views on what consciousness encompasses. First we would have to have a standard set (likely by some form of vote) defining exactly what consciousness is.

Once we have that, we merely need to prove a fetus meets the criteria to be alive. Until a set criteria exists, we cannot claim a fetus to hold consciousness in absolution. By my personal criteria, a fetus does not hold consciousness. Hence I have no qualms with backing abortion.

However, a legal standard requires more than just my opinion. It should be the conjunction of the majority opinion and the scientific standards.

I'm not talking about national policy, I'm talking about you

tell me what, in terms of conciouness, a serverly retarted person has that a fetus lacks

I have never heard quite such a ridiculous amount of rubbish in my life. Under state law in most of the US this is treated as murder, At the very least it is assault but the whole thing is irrelevant to abortion in exactly the same way that euthenasia of dissabled children is irrelevant.

The mother has some interests, she has some rights.

The foetus has some interests. It has some rights. It is much less aware that the mother. It's interests and rights are correspondingly less.

Where the interests of the foetus interfere with the interests of the mother then, at least in the early stages of pregnancy, the rather greater interests of the mother override the rights of the foetus. This is not a license for people to go around aborting foetuses without consent. This in no way compromises the right to life of anyone born with a dissability. If the foetus could survive outside the womb then abortion need never be an issue, however you cannot assign rights to a foetus over and above those of the mother when it cannot be said to have any sort of awareness.

your trying to tell me that American law prohibits the murder of a fetus

then it would seem we have 43 million unsolved murder cases

tell me what, in terms of conciouness, a serverly retarted person has that a fetus lacks

An existance independant of the womb of their mother?

I'm not talking about national policy, I'm talking about you

tell me what, in terms of conciouness, a serverly retarted person has that a fetus lacks

I already gave you the basic elements. But if you like, I'll expand upon it in more detail.

The ability to think, to rationalize. To form new ideas and concepts (abstract or concrete), and to understand existing ideas and concepts (basic or complex).

To be aware (both self-aware, and aware of it's surroundings).

The ability to feel (emotions). Anger, love, happiness, sadness, hate, etc.

Those are the most important elements. I may be missing minor ones, but it should be enough to give you the gist. Whether or not a fetus has any of the above, nevermind all, and when it gains some or all of those elements remains to be proven.

An existance independant of the womb of their mother?

many retarted people lack such an existance off of machines

but thats not the point

what, in terms of conciousness and self awareness does a fetus lack that a retart has

I already gave you the basic elements. But if you like, I'll expand upon it in more detail.

The ability to think, to rationalize. To form new ideas and concepts (abstract or concrete), and to understand existing ideas and concepts (basic or complex).

To be aware (both self-aware, and aware of it's surroundings).

The ability to feel (emotions). Anger, love, happiness, sadness, hate, etc.

Those are the most important elements. I may be missing minor ones, but it should be enough to give you the gist. Whether or not a fetus has any of the above, nevermind all, and when it gains some or all of those elements remains to be proven.

a third term fetus has those abilities, and you know a good deal of retarted people don't

your trying to tell me that American law prohibits the murder of a fetus

then it would seem we have 43 million unsolved murder cases

Don't be a fool. We are talking about the termination of the foetus without the consent of the mother. Your suggestion that you could batter a pregnant woman with a baseball bat until she miscarried and face no charges is pure lunacy.

California prosecuted a case in May last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2940372.stm

I'm surprised that you don't remember since it was capitalised on by pro life groups...

Don't be a fool. We are talking about the termination of the foetus without the consent of the mother. Your suggestion that you could batter a pregnant woman with a baseball bat until she miscarried and face no charges is pure lunacy.

California prosecuted a case in May last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2940372.stm

I'm surprised that you don't remember since it was capitalised on by pro life groups...

and we would have, but that's only Calafornia, I live in Delaware

a third term fetus has those abilities, and you know a good deal of retarted people don't

You've obviously never met a retarded person. Try dropping your stereotypes and actually spending time with them. They may not function on the same level as we do, but they function on a level above anything a fetus has been proven to be able of - pretty much just biological functioning, which is even then reliant on the mother.

And I'm not going to address any further 3rd term arguments. You have a problem with those, go to the courts and change the laws. They have been (and still are in many places) illegal. If they're legal where you are, then petition to have the laws changed.

many retarted people lack such an existance off of machines

but thats not the point

what, in terms of conciousness and self awareness does a fetus lack that a retart has

OK, for a start.

1) Retard? How old are you? What f*cking decade do you live in? Do you really think that this is an appropriate way to speak?

2) How can the rights of a machine be interfered with? It is in no way the same thing.

3) It is the point.

4) I defy you to find an independantly existant person without any cerebral cortex activity. Prior to 28 weeks the foetus is less aware than your average mouse. If an adult loss brain function to this extent they would be called "brain dead".

and we would have, but that's only Calafornia, I live in Delaware

You would have what?
You do understand that this is a prosecution of a man who stabbed a mother and killed both her and her unborn foetus rather than an abortion doctor don't you?

You've obviously never met a retarded person. Try dropping your stereotypes and actually spending time with them. They may not function on the same level as we do, but they function on a level above anything a fetus has been proven to be able of - pretty much just biological functioning, which is even then reliant on the mother.

And I'm not going to address any further 3rd term arguments. You have a problem with those, go to the courts and change the laws. They have been (and still are in many places) illegal. If they're legal where you are, then petition to have the laws changed.

I know plenty, my mom is doctor and I spent a signifigant part of my childhood with her in hospitals. many of them can't even function biologicaly on their own

fine then, have your cake and eat it too, killing a child will be legal and illegal at the same time

You would have what?
You do understand that this is a prosecution of a man who stabbed a mother and killed both her and her unborn foetus rather than an abortion doctor don't you?

would have celebrated, the BBC artical read prolife movment [in Calafornia] celebrates

OK, for a start.

1) Retard? How old are you? What f*cking decade do you live in? Do you really think that this is an appropriate way to speak?

2) How can the rights of a machine be interfered with? It is in no way the same thing.

3) It is the point.

4) I defy you to find an independantly existant person without any cerebral cortex activity. Prior to 28 weeks the foetus is less aware than your average mouse. If an adult loss brain function to this extent they would be called "brain dead".

#1 - please find my a creadible source for that mouse thought

there are plenty of people that depent of breathing machines like fetuses depend of their mothers

would have celebrated, the BBC artical read prolife movment [in Calafornia] celebrates

Erm, no.

I have :

Pro-life campaigners in America are using a murder case to try to force the federal government to recognise the foetus as an individual in cases of violent crime.

It mentions an "Unborn Victims of Violence Act".

This would not cover abortion.

I know plenty, my mom is doctor and I spent a signifigant part of my childhood with her in hospitals. many of them can't even function biologicaly on their own

fine then, have your cake and eat it too, killing a child will be legal and illegal at the same time

Being mentally handicapped no more guarantees the inability to function biologically than having diarrhea guarantees cancer. The two can of course coexist in both cases, but they are separate issues and cannot be generalized as one.

#1 - please find my a creadible source for that mouse thought

there are plenty of people that depent of breathing machines like fetuses depend of their mothers

Sure.

Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience February 1996 conducted by the
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists vs. basic mouse physiology.


But the breathing machines, and I'd like to stress this point, do not have rights whereas the mothers do. If you see women simply as life support machines then your point is valid however I'm sure you will agree that they are real actual people themselves!

Erm, no.

I have :

Pro-life campaigners in America are using a murder case to try to force the federal government to recognise the foetus as an individual in cases of violent crime.

It mentions an "Unborn Victims of Violence Act".

This would not cover abortion.

yes, I'm saying that if it were a federal law we (the NATIONAL movment) would have celebrated

Being mentally handicapped no more guarantees the inability to function biologically than having diarrhea guarantees cancer. The two can of course coexist in both cases, but they are separate issues and cannot be generalized as one.

ok, then how about a guy on a breathing machine

yes, I'm saying that if it were a federal law we (the NATIONAL movment) would have celebrated

I think we can agree on that. Please be aware that the absense of such a law does not give you the right to lay about pregnant women with a baseball bat.

Sure.

Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience February 1996 conducted by the
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists vs. basic mouse physiology.


But the breathing machines, and I'd like to stress this point, do not have rights whereas the mothers do. If you see women simply as life support machines then your point is valid however I'm sure you will agree that they are real actual people themselves!

link it!

and while breathing machines have no rights do the people who pay for them?

ok, then how about a guy on a breathing machine

What of him? If he has consciousness, he's alive. If he does not, he isn't. He is no different than a 'normal' person, nor a fetus, nor a mentally handicapped person. The same standard applies to everyone. I don't get what point you are trying to make in inferring life support somehow diminishes his state of being alive.

Why not question people with pacemakers? Or who need dialysis? Since when does that have anything to do with life?

I think we can agree on that. Please be aware that the absense of such a law does not give you the right to lay about pregnant women with a baseball bat.

well, actually it does, for I do not belive such a law exists in Delaware, and if it does I'll just go to Pennsylvania

What of him? If he has consciousness, he's alive. If he does not, he isn't. He is no different than a 'normal' person, nor a fetus, nor a mentally handicapped person. The same standard applies to everyone. I don't get what point you are trying to make in inferring life support somehow diminishes his state of being alive.

Why not question people with pacemakers? Or who need dialysis? Since when does that have anything to do with life?

it doesn't

people have given me their list as to why a fetus is abortable (ie - diminished mental capacity, dependance on the mother) but low and behold those same reasons apply to droves of people. if those people can't be "aborted" why can fetuses be?

link it!

and while breathing machines have no rights do the people who pay for them?

I would love to link it however it is a paid for paper. You may be able to find extracts here http://www.rcog.org.uk

Hmm, monetary rights versus rights over one's own body?
You'll forgive me if I consider the rights of the people who pay for the machines irrelevant in the extreme...

well, actually it does, for I do not belive such a law exists in Delaware, and if it does I'll just go to Pennsylvania

At the very least you have assault laws! These apply to pregnant women as much as anyone. For God's sake man!

it doesn't

people have given me their list as to why a fetus is abortable (ie - diminished mental capacity, dependance on the mother) but low and behold those same reasons apply to droves of people. if those people can't be "aborted" why can fetuses be?

A person on life support doesn't have diminished mental capacity, not beyond the level which constitutes life by any means.

As regards dependency on the mother, it's an example of the fact that he hasn't formed higher brain functions, or even lower ones. If he can't even control the basic requirements of his own body yet, he certainly hasn't developed sentience.

On the other hand, someone on life support has already met those standards, and has been shown to be alive. Even if his body fails, it can not be used as a standard by which to judge if he ever reached awareness.

I would love to link it however it is a paid for paper. You may be able to find extracts here http://www.rcog.org.uk

Hmm, monetary rights versus rights over one's own body?
You'll forgive me if I consider the rights of the people who pay for the machines irrelevant in the extreme...

I'm not finding anything

and you know what I mean, the legal gurdian, does no one appreciate figures of speech anymore?

At the very least you have assault laws! These apply to pregnant women as much as anyone. For God's sake man!

so, I still get away with what? 3 months? for murder

A person on life support doesn't have diminished mental capacity, not beyond the level which constitutes life by any means.

As regards dependency on the mother, it's an example of the fact that he hasn't formed higher brain functions, or even lower ones. If he can't even control the basic requirements of his own body yet, he certainly hasn't developed sentience.

On the other hand, someone on life support has already met those standards, and has been shown to be alive. Even if his body fails, it can not be used as a standard by which to judge if he ever reached awareness.

those were just some examples, give me your reasons and I'm sure I can find another group that they match

and you know what I mean, the legal gurdian, does no one appreciate figures of speech anymore?

"people who pay for them" is a figure of speach?
do you really not see a difference between the relationship of a guardian and that of a pregnant woman to their charges?
I fear for you all.

G'night.

*goes to bed in dispair*

sure it was, Jews are an entirly different race of people than Germans are

you might say the Jews played they unwanted baby to Germany's desperate teenager

um, no, biology NEVER supported the idea that different ethnic groups are actually other species than human. but hey, nice try at re-writing history, you certainly seem to understand the warped logic the Nazi used.

those were just some examples, give me your reasons and I'm sure I can find another group that they match

My reasons for not believing the the fetus are alive have been listed before, twice. I have seen no proof that the fetus has reached consciousness on a level to be worthy of being deemed 'alive' at the legal cut-off point (by which I mean 6 months) for abortion.

In the later stages (still before 6 months), they do have some biological functions, but even those are being largely controlled by the mother. I do not believe a fetus can develop consciousness before it develops the ability to control it's own breathing, heartbeat, etc.

so, I still get away with what? 3 months? for murder

I understand that in Delaware the maximum is seven years...

"people who pay for them" is a figure of speach?
do you really not see a difference between the relationship of a guardian and that of a pregnant woman to their charges?
I fear for you all.

G'night.

*goes to bed in dispair*

parent to child

parent to unborn child

not a big difference

um, no, biology NEVER supported the idea that different ethnic groups are actually other species than human. but hey, nice try at re-writing history, you certainly seem to understand the warped logic the Nazi used.

different sub-species

My reasons for not believing the the fetus are alive have been listed before, twice. I have seen no proof that the fetus has reached consciousness on a level to be worthy of being deemed 'alive' at the legal cut-off point (by which I mean 6 months) for abortion.

In the later stages (still before 6 months), they do have some biological functions, but even those are being largely controlled by the mother. I do not believe a fetus can develop consciousness before it develops the ability to control it's own breathing, heartbeat, etc.

um, honey, that 6 month cut off point was cut off by a SF judge (the same, non-elected people that gave us gay marriage)

a person in a coma has no consiousness and most of his biological funcions are controled by machines

different sub-species

not according to the system of classification that has existed since the advent of genetics. but hey, there are always quacks who will warp science for their political or "moral" purposes, just like there are religious nutters who do the same for holy texts. the fact that one extremist twisted reality to fit their psychosis doesn't mean it actually worked that way.

I understand that in Delaware the maximum is seven years...

for the unprovoked murder of an innocent human being in the US that isn't to bad

if I kill it before it's toe is out of its mothers womb the most I'm looking at is 7 years

if I kill it after the toe is out I'm probobly looking at the death penalty

isn't it strange how important a toe can be to some people

not according to the system of classification that has existed since the advent of genetics. but hey, there are always quacks who will warp science for their political or "moral" purposes, just like there are religious nutters who do the same for holy texts. the fact that one extremist twisted reality to fit their psychosis doesn't mean it actually worked that way.

a black cat is a different sub-species than a white cat

a black man is a different sub-species that a white man

not at all an important difference

but certianly a difference

a person in a coma has no consiousness and most of his biological funcions are controled by machines

a person in a coma is being kept alive by machines, not by another human. you cannot legally force a human to donate a kidney to a dying patient, just like you cannot legally force a human female to donate her body for the incubation of a fetus. if you want to take the fetus out of her and grow it with machines that is fine, but you can't force her to have her body subverted for your purposes. the status of the fetus is as irrelevant as the status of the dying patient waiting for a kidney, since you cannot force one person to harnass their body to another's against their will.

a black cat is a different sub-species than a white cat

a black man is a different sub-species that a white man

not at all an important difference

but certianly a difference

again, not according to biology. what you are describing is culture rather than scientific, and the "sub-species" classification for different ethnicities is not accepted by the medical or scientific community. this is mainly because of studies of mitochondrial DNA, which confirms that "races" are actually not genetically different in any significant way. i can give more details if you really want, but it gets kind of technical and i don't want to bore people or derail the thread.

um, honey, that 6 month cut off point was cut off by a SF judge (the same, non-elected people that gave us gay marriage)

a person in a coma has no consiousness and most of his biological funcions are controled by machines

First of all, learn that America isn't the world. I live in Canada. Secondly, I have told you if you have a problem with third term abortions, contact your representative. The matter of third term abortions, and their legality in some places, is irrelevant to my beliefs.

And I'm sorry to inform you that a person in a coma does have consciousness. My father's first wife was in a coma for over 6 months before she died. My father himself was in a coma for 7 days before he died. I spoke to him during that time, and you could see him react to what was being said.

He couldn't tell you what he was feeling, but you could tell he understood what was being said. He would smile or cry, he would turn his head from side to side as if fighting to be able to speak, he would squeeze my hand when I held it.

His mind was there. His body had just let go.