NationStates Jolt Archive

These are just my personal observations and are by no means scientific. It seems to me that in North America and perhaps elsewhere, one encounters two types of person.

One call themselves "Pro-Life" (meaning anti-abortion). Strangely, these people are also frequently in favour of the death penalty for convicted murderers. They also seem to side more with the "Pro-War" camp when the U.S. is involved in military actions. Sort of "Pro-Life"/"Pro-Death" in the same person. To me this contradiction has always seemed a bit schizo.

The other type of person calls themselves "Pro-Choice" on early fetal abortion, yet is strongly against the death penalty for convicted murderers. These folks seem also to be hold more Pacifist views and regularly object to U.S. involvement in military actions. Some people might consider this schizo too, although of course I don't because I'm this type of person!

It goes without saying of course that being against the death penalty does not make one "pro-crime", and that being anti-war does not make one unpatriotic.

Do either of these two general viewpoints make any consistent sense and can they be explained?

Sure:
Pro-death, yet pro-life.
Babies are innocent, rapists are not.

Pro-choice, yet anti-death.
Fetusses, up to a certain point, are not yet 'alive', people on death-row are. (note that I use 'alive', but please fill in whatever it was that pro-choice people used to describe these fetusses. I forgot)

Viewpoints are rarely explained and usually barely even rationalized. I think you're falling into the trap of generalization, here. While many of these apparent contradictions may indeed exist, I suspect that it comes down to a matter of emphasis. Outspoke Pro-life advocates feel that this is the paramount concern in their lives and, while they may or may not support the death penalty (I've never seen any conclusive evidence either way on this one), it takes a back seat in comparison to their desire to end abortion. The same is true, I suspect, for pro-choice advocates.

I suppose there is rationalization for it. On the pro-life side, a person scentenced to the death penality has apparently chosen to commit an action so very horrible and threatening to society, that the only way to protect it is to remove that person from society. However, they had the option to commit this act and, therefore, have the capacity to understand the ramifications of their actions and potential consequences. A baby, however, (and I'm not advocating a viewpoint here, just trying to empathize with one) has made no choice other than successful gestation (if that is even a choice) and therefore has not given up a "right to life" through their own informed action.

The pro-choice side sees the rights of the individual as paramount, be it a person's right to live or a person's right to chose their own defintion of life and act accordingly.

I think it is a mistake to assume that these are contradictions with the standard negative connotation of that word. Human beings are in general a morass of contradictions and it doesn't make sense to assume that one view is invalidated simply because the person holds a contradictory viewpoint in another area. If we're going to demand complete concordance with all personal viewpoints before we grant validity to any, then I think we have effectively removed the validity of any viewpoint whatsoever. People must judge what level of contradiction they are comfortable with for themselves and for anyone to look at someone else's level of contradiction and cry foul is, well, impolite at best and hypocritical at worst.

I really can't explain the Phemomenon Pro-life, pro death penalty in everyone, Though in some people it's mostly just a matter of being Naive. My wife for example is against abortion and pro death penalty largely because of the conservative christian way she was raised and lack of knowledge or interest in politics. Her family however is more knowledgable about politics and holds the same views, They are intelligent people so all I can think of is it is plain Pig-headedness and too much propaganda about "Filthy Liberals" and so forth.
As for the opposite Pro-choice, anti death penalty, that does'nt make much sense to me either. as for myself, I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty Centrist.

By killing the offender, you have allowed for them to be "pardoned" because they are done serving their sentence. If you really wanted to punish them, send them to a country that has a sucky human rights record.

As for pro-choice - this just means that I belief that women have the right to whatever options are out there. I'm not pro-life and I'm not pro-abortion.

one one hand you have a cerial rapist/murderer who needs to be punished and if put in prison will murder and rape other inmates

on the other hand you have an innocent baby

its not a contradiction at all


and if that doesn't work for you I'll just put it this way; I'm not pro-death penalty, I'm just pro-choice ;)

one one hand you have a cerial rapist/murderer who needs to be punished and if put in prison will murder and rape other inmates

on the other hand you have an innocent baby

its not a contradiction at all

Of course it's a contradiction. Life is life and death is death. By putting someone to death, regardless of the rationale behind it, you are committing the same crime that they most likely committed to get there in the first place, except you're doing it at a societal level so the responsibility must be shared throughout that society. Not to mention the fact that simply because one is convicted and scentenced does not mean that one is, in actuallity, guilty.

Life is either worth something or it isn't. If it's worth something, it's worth something to everyone equally. A baby has as much right to life as a convict or neither of them have any to begin with.

Of course it's a contradiction. Life is life and death is death. By putting someone to death, regardless of the rationale behind it, you are committing the same crime that they most likely committed to get there in the first place, except you're doing it at a societal level so the responsibility must be shared throughout that society. Not to mention the fact that simply because one is convicted and scentenced does not mean that one is, in actuallity, guilty.

Life is either worth something or it isn't. If it's worth something, it's worth something to everyone equally. A baby has as much right to life as a convict or neither of them have any to begin with.

no they don't, that's like saying shooting a man who has a gun and is comming to kill you and you family is the same as killing a innocent man

and that if you can't kill the innocent man then you can't shoot the one thats comming to get you ether

a convict in many cases, even in prison, can represent a threat to human lives

on the other hand most babies I know don't (most)

I'm sorry to double post, and this is just a footnote, but when you talk about pro-life orginizations, they are all around pro-life - anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthenasia

I'm part of Delaware Right to Life, and while they are anti-death penalty they tend to focus on aboriton because since the 1970's Deleware has had one execution and near a million abortions (gotta know your priorities)

One call themselves "Pro-Life" (meaning anti-abortion). Strangely, these people are also frequently in favour of the death penalty for convicted murderers.

Baseless assumption.

They also seem to side more with the "Pro-War" camp when the U.S. is involved in military actions. Sort of "Pro-Life"/"Pro-Death" in the same person. To me this contradiction has always seemed a bit schizo.

Another assumption deemed fact with no obvious link or background data supplied.

The other type of person calls themselves "Pro-Choice" on early fetal abortion, yet is strongly against the death penalty for convicted murderers. These folks seem also to be hold more Pacifist views and regularly object to U.S. involvement in military actions. Some people might consider this schizo too, although of course I don't because I'm this type of person!

Seriously, I would like to see where you got the information that proves these ties exist. Of course, it sounds pretty logical, and I would agree with you that most people on one side for one of these issues would tend to sidle over towards that same position on other issues, but you can't claim that this is fact.

It goes without saying of course that being against the death penalty does not make one "pro-crime", and that being anti-war does not make one unpatriotic.

Do either of these two general viewpoints make any consistent sense and can they be explained?

Effective conclusion. The ties, while seeming somewhat logical and even plausible, can't currently be proven true on an absolute scale, so I'm going to leave them alone. However, the final conclusion is very true, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. For many reasons, opposing war can be deemed patriotic, and moreso than supporting war, which is something that we may forget.

Oh, by the way, I placed myself in pro-choice, anti-death penalty. And Garaj Mahal is a good band.

Pro-Life (abortion if rape and other low percentage situations), anti-death penalty unless Italia is going to open up the coliseum, heh.

no they don't, that's like saying shooting a man who has a gun and is comming to kill you and you family is the same as killing a innocent man

and that if you can't kill the innocent man then you can't shoot the one thats comming to get you ether

a convict in many cases, even in prison, can represent a threat to human lives

on the other hand most babies I know don't (most)

In a very fundamental way, killing a man who may be perpetrating a crime and killing an innocent man is the same thing. It's death. That's an absolute. You can add whatever other rationalizations and value judgements on to it you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental basic in the equation: life is being taken.

If we're going to base this on potentialities, then while yes, a convict may represent a threat to human lives, so may a baby, either immediately or several years down the road when it becomes a convict.

Life is life and death is death and that is axiomatic. Everything after that represents a degree of personal rationalization.

I'm Pro-death penalty and Pro-choice. I feel it is the womans right to have an abortion if she wants. I also am for euthanasia and I am not a pacifist.

In a very fundamental way, killing a man who may be perpetrating a crime and killing an innocent man is the same thing. It's death. That's an absolute. You can add whatever other rationalizations and value judgements on to it you want, but it doesn't change the fundamental basic in the equation: life is being taken.

If we're going to base this on potentialities, then while yes, a convict may represent a threat to human lives, so may a baby, either immediately or several years down the road when it becomes a convict.

Life is life and death is death and that is axiomatic. Everything after that represents a degree of personal rationalization.

a degree of personal rationalization that may save countless human lives

you don't know what the baby will grow up to be and it has done nothing wrong to deserve its fate, you cant say the same about the murderer

I'm Pro-death penalty and Pro-choice. I feel it is the womans right to have an abortion if she wants. I also am for euthanasia and I am not a pacifist.

what a looser

what a looser

Why is that.

Sure:
Pro-death, yet pro-life.
Babies are innocent, rapists are not.

Pro-choice, yet anti-death.
Fetusses, up to a certain point, are not yet 'alive', people on death-row are. (note that I use 'alive', but please fill in whatever it was that pro-choice people used to describe these fetusses. I forgot)

Rapists can not go on death row. Also how is it that you think anyone knows without a shadow of a doubt that death row inmates are guilty? Many have died on death row and have been proven innocent later. I would look at the facts on the death penalty if I were you. It isn't a deterrent, it is racist, it kills innocent people and it is more expensive. 74% of Americans according to a gallup poll of last year approve of this barbarism. I am pretty sure 74% do not approve of banning abortion otherwise the pro-life movement could have dominated both houses in congress/state legislatures/ and the presidency (like it has for death penalty advocates.)

I do believe however that abortion the taking of lives on a massive scale should not be defended. Abortion has killed far more innocents than the death penalty ever will. It is the dehumanizing evil of our time when human life is degraded to something that can be thrown away or used for scientific gain.

I believe Lakarian hit the nail on the head. Both parties are stuck in their ways though I believe Democrats are also pro-death penalty to some degree.
They do not fight against it. The democrats were also pro-war before it went south in Iraq.

If being pro-life and being pro-death penalty are considered contradictions by people here, would being 'pro-choice' (anti-life) and anti-death penalty not be considered a contradiction, as well?

a degree of personal rationalization that may save countless human lives

you don't know what the baby will grow up to be and it has done nothing wrong to deserve its fate, you cant say the same about the murderer

Actually, yes you can. You can say that it's perhaps more likely that a convicted murderer will murder again, but you can't say it's a fact that they will unless you are also willing to employ the sweeping logic that, since all killers were originally babies, the best way to prevent killers is to prevent babies.

I'm also not necessarily condemning that degree of personal rationalization. We all have to make it and base our principles off of it. We also must understand the root of the decision, that we are putting a value not only on life, but on the potentiallity of life. This may be fine, the life of a baby may be more inherantly valuable than the life of a murderer on a basic level, but this then opens up the floor to a question of metrics and is someone who is more successful financial, per se, more "worthy" of life than someone who doesn't make as much money? Or is someone who has lied 10 times in their life more worthy of life than someone who has lied 9 times?

Why is that.

because of your pro-abortion/ euthinatia stance

your ssoooooo not getting my vote congressman

Actually, yes you can. You can say that it's perhaps more likely that a convicted murderer will murder again, but you can't say it's a fact that they will unless you are also willing to employ the sweeping logic that, since all killers were originally babies, the best way to prevent killers is to prevent babies.

I'm also not necessarily condemning that degree of personal rationalization. We all have to make it and base our principles off of it. We also must understand the root of the decision, that we are putting a value not only on life, but on the potentiallity of life. This may be fine, the life of a baby may be more inherantly valuable than the life of a murderer on a basic level, but this then opens up the floor to a question of metrics and is someone who is more successful financial, per se, more "worthy" of life than someone who doesn't make as much money? Or is someone who has lied 10 times in their life more worthy of life than someone who has lied 9 times?


no, because none of those people have killed or pose a fair threat to other human life

because of your pro-abortion/ euthinatia stance

your ssoooooo not getting my vote congressman

What is wrong with euthnasis, I would rather die with dignity than to die of any diease that I have no clue where I am at or any diease where I will go through alot of pain.

What is it about abortion that people hate? They value Human life, but what is it about human life that we value? If this defense of life was based on human biology, then death penalty doesn't make any sense. A Rapist doesn't cease

It is not what biologically makes us human what we want to respect. We want to respect that sense of "personhood." Early abortion is not killing a person. The process of becoming a person involves interaction with other people, or at least some kind of contact with the latter.

I don't think Pro-lifer's have any solid non-religious arguments to back up their position. In fact, I think many of them use the Pro-life campaign as a disguise to impose their values.

Why do many pro-lifer's support abortion only in the case of rape?
Well, when a woman is raped the sex was not desired by te woman. Since the woman didn't want to have sex, then pro-lifer's are willing to liberate her from the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

How about consentual sex? When a woman ends up being pregnant from a consentual relations, pro-lifer's will stone her if she even considers the possibility of abortion. What would pro-lifer's say? "She made the choice to have sex, therefore she should deal with the consequences!"

The point is, these women chose to have sex, not to get pregnant. Pregnancy was an accidental, unwanted consequence.

To sum it up:

A raped woman is allowed to abort because she was raped, or in other words, she didn't choose to have sex.

Why shouldn't we allow other women to abort? Because they had the choice of having sex? Then we are using pregnancy as a punishment, which is pretty sad in its own right. But more importantly, it is no place of ours to punish the personal choices of others who don't share our own values.

Mind your business as long as you don't hurt others.

Yes, it is the duty of a society to protect its citizens, but it is the sense of personhood of a human what we want to protect, not its biological frame. The fruit of an early stage pregnancy can hardly be considered a person.

I'm pro-choice when speaking of early term pregnancies. Only benefits can be derived from those.

End of Rant.

Actually, yes you can. You can say that it's perhaps more likely that a convicted murderer will murder again, but you can't say it's a fact that they will unless you are also willing to employ the sweeping logic that, since all killers were originally babies, the best way to prevent killers is to prevent babies.

I'm also not necessarily condemning that degree of personal rationalization. We all have to make it and base our principles off of it. We also must understand the root of the decision, that we are putting a value not only on life, but on the potentiallity of life. This may be fine, the life of a baby may be more inherantly valuable than the life of a murderer on a basic level, but this then opens up the floor to a question of metrics and is someone who is more successful financial, per se, more "worthy" of life than someone who doesn't make as much money? Or is someone who has lied 10 times in their life more worthy of life than someone who has lied 9 times?

The life potentiality is a worthless argument. Even the most liberal bio-ethicists argue that "yes" a fetus is living and it is human. Why it takes a bio ethicist to make such ridiculously easy claims is beyond me. If it only has the potential for life is it dead before exiting the womb? Lets not be idiots here the fetus is obviously alive. To even have any ground on this argument find one bio-ethicist that even comes close to your claim. Ill use the most liberal one for mine, Peter Singer.

What is wrong with euthnasis, I would rather die with dignity than to die of any diease that I have no clue where I am at or any diease where I will go through alot of pain.

two words

slippery slope

look at the netherlands

two words

slippery slope

look at the netherlands

As long as the person getting it wants it I don't see how anyone else could be against it.

Why do many pro-lifer's support abortion only in the case of rape?
Well, when a woman is raped the sex was not desired by te woman. Since the woman didn't want to have sex, then pro-lifer's are willing to liberate her from the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

ahhhh......no

Mind your business as long as you don't hurt others.

the holocaust didn't hurt me

pro-choice when speaking of early term pregnancies. Only benefits can be derived from those.


why just early term, the "personhood" you spoke of doesn't develope till well after the child is born?

As long as the person getting it wants it I don't see how anyone else could be against it.

first off, you called a person it

seccond off, thats where the slippery slope comes in

What is it about abortion that people hate? They value Human life, but what is it about human life that we value? If this defense of life was based on human biology, then death penalty doesn't make any sense. A Rapist doesn't cease

It is not what biologically makes us human what we want to respect. We want to respect that sense of "personhood." Early abortion is not killing a person. The process of becoming a person involves interaction with other people, or at least some kind of contact with the latter.

I don't think Pro-lifer's have any solid non-religious arguments to back up their position. In fact, I think many of them use the Pro-life campaign as a disguise to impose their values.

Why do many pro-lifer's support abortion only in the case of rape?
Well, when a woman is raped the sex was not desired by te woman. Since the woman didn't want to have sex, then pro-lifer's are willing to liberate her from the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

How about consentual sex? When a woman ends up being pregnant from a consentual relations, pro-lifer's will stone her if she even considers the possibility of abortion. What would pro-lifer's say? "She made the choice to have sex, therefore she should deal with the consequences!"

The point is, these women chose to have sex, not to get pregnant. Pregnancy was an accidental, unwanted consequence.

To sum it up:

A raped woman is allowed to abort because she was raped, or in other words, she didn't choose to have sex.

Why shouldn't we allow other women to abort? Because they had the choice of having sex? Then we are using pregnancy as a punishment, which is pretty sad in its own right. But more importantly, it is no place of ours to punish the personal choices of others who don't share our own values.

Mind your business as long as you don't hurt others.

Yes, it is the duty of a society to protect its citizens, but it is the sense of personhood of a human what we want to protect, not its biological frame. The fruit of an early stage pregnancy can hardly be considered a person.

I'm pro-choice when speaking of early term pregnancies. Only benefits can be derived from those.

End of Rant.

You obviously failed biology given that you dont know the natural outcome of sex IS a child. Lets look at the root name here... Sexual Reproduction as it will be described in any biology book. Reproduction is the process of making a baby.
Show me any backup of this personhood argument in a biology book or in bioethics at all? If biology doesent support the pro-life movement why is nearly every bioethicist behind it?
If it takes the development of "personhood" which isn't scientific in the least by any means to be human lets kill all the mentally retarded, and children under the age of 3 for good measure because they can not establish this value.

first off, you called a person it

seccond off, thats where the slippery slope comes in

I didn't call a person it all the its in that mean euthnasis. And what is happening in the Netherlands with euthnasis.

I didn't call a person it all the its in that mean euthnasis. And what is happening in the Netherlands with euthnasis.

instead of taking care of their parents when they get older (becasue of the time and money) children are insisting that their parents be killed, often agianst their own will. and the children get the inheritence money

instead of taking care of their parents when they get older (becasue of the time and money) children are insisting that their parents be killed, often agianst their own will. and the children get the inheritence money

I don't support that but that is why I think the recipent of it must sign some form of document saying that it is what they want.

I believe the pro-choice movement is a way for the dehumanizing horde of "progressives" to force their beliefs not only on us in America. But worldwide through UNICEF and other organizations causing anti-american behaviour and violent backlash.

I believe the pro-choice movement is a way for the dehumanizing horde of "progressives" to force their beliefs not only on us in America. But worldwide through UNICEF and other organizations causing anti-american behaviour and violent backlash.

hell yeah, thank God we cut UNICEF funding

I don't support that but that is why I think the recipent of it must sign some form of document saying that it is what they want.

sign the paper or we'll kick you out of the house

I'm pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I don't see what's wrong with destroying a mass of cells, but when you kill someone, you are inessence as bad as the killer. The fetus (which is not even alive yet) doesn't know that it is alive, and doesn't really care just yet. The killer does. And I think it makes more sense to let them live a miserable life in prison as payment for what they did, than to simply let them off easy with the death penalty.

I am definately pro-choice. I think it's the woman's choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy, obviously only up to a certain time. I'm mostly pacifist-sorta. The U.S. has rarely gotten themselves involved in a military situation with which I'd agree. (Except WWI and WWII). What weapons of mass destruction??? We're the ones who have like 2.6 billion more nuclear weapons than anyone else. Whatever.
It's very hard to make my decision about the Death Penalty, but as of now, I guess I'm mostly against it. I don't know.

sign the paper or we'll kick you out of the house

Well don't they have to have some kind of bad illness before it can be peformed I didn't think they could just kill someone because they wanted to die, but I still think its better than getting alzheimers and dieing for 5 or 10 years or terminal cancer.

I'm pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I don't see what's wrong with destroying a mass of cells, but when you kill someone, you are inessence as bad as the killer. The fetus (which is not even alive yet) doesn't know that it is alive, and doesn't really care just yet. The killer does. And I think it makes more sense to let them live a miserable life in prison as payment for what they did, than to simply let them off easy with the death penalty.

honey, your a mass of cells

I'm pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I don't see what's wrong with destroying a mass of cells, but when you kill someone, you are inessence as bad as the killer. The fetus (which is not even alive yet) doesn't know that it is alive, and doesn't really care just yet. The killer does. And I think it makes more sense to let them live a miserable life in prison as payment for what they did, than to simply let them off easy with the death penalty.

There's where you're automatically discredited....an unborn human (fetus) is alive....and execution brings both closure and ultimate justice...instead of locking a vicious murderer in prison (where he has the chance of being released or even escaping), kill him.....brings closure to the victim's family...ends the life of one of the world's unwanted scum....

I'm pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I don't see what's wrong with destroying a mass of cells, but when you kill someone, you are inessence as bad as the killer. The fetus (which is not even alive yet) doesn't know that it is alive, and doesn't really care just yet. The killer does. And I think it makes more sense to let them live a miserable life in prison as payment for what they did, than to simply let them off easy with the death penalty.

Is it dead then? How is it this mass of cells can open its eyes far before any abortion line at 6 weeks? If it is dead how can it move around in the womb. I believe your position on Abortion is a reflection of ignorance given no one in the scientific community can back it up.

I am definately pro-choice. I think it's the woman's choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy, obviously only up to a certain time. I'm mostly pacifist-sorta. The U.S. has rarely gotten themselves involved in a military situation with which I'd agree. (Except WWI and WWII). What weapons of mass destruction??? We're the ones who have like 2.6 billion more nuclear weapons than anyone else. Whatever.
It's very hard to make my decision about the Death Penalty, but as of now, I guess I'm mostly against it. I don't know.

why is it her right?

why do you think the US should have gotten into WWI but not Iraq

sign the paper or we'll kick you out of the house

Yep, it's *exactly* like that here. Except not.

Well don't they have to have some kind of bad illness before it can be peformed I didn't think they could just kill someone because they wanted to die, but I still think its better than getting alzheimers and dieing for 5 or 10 years or terminal cancer.

right now, as far as I know its like abortion over here

on demand

there is once instance where a son died and his mother (late 40's) felt so bad she was "euthinised"

I am definately pro-choice. I think it's the woman's choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy, obviously only up to a certain time. I'm mostly pacifist-sorta. The U.S. has rarely gotten themselves involved in a military situation with which I'd agree. (Except WWI and WWII). What weapons of mass destruction??? We're the ones who have like 2.6 billion more nuclear weapons than anyone else. Whatever.
It's very hard to make my decision about the Death Penalty, but as of now, I guess I'm mostly against it. I don't know.

Why, per se, do you agree with the US entering World War I?

Rapists can not go on death row. Also how is it that you think anyone knows without a shadow of a doubt that death row inmates are guilty? Many have died on death row and have been proven innocent later. I would look at the facts on the death penalty if I were you. It isn't a deterrent, it is racist, it kills innocent people and it is more expensive. 74% of Americans according to a gallup poll of last year approve of this barbarism. I am pretty sure 74% do not approve of banning abortion otherwise the pro-life movement could have dominated both houses in congress/state legislatures/ and the presidency (like it has for death penalty advocates.)

I do believe however that abortion the taking of lives on a massive scale should not be defended. Abortion has killed far more innocents than the death penalty ever will. It is the dehumanizing evil of our time when human life is degraded to something that can be thrown away or used for scientific gain.

*slaps Capitallo around with a large trout*
I haven't even posted my opinions yet.

Yep, it's *exactly* like that here. Except not.


then tell me, how is it

tell me you know that the system has never been corupted

tell me that the netherlands is a liberal paradise

Is calling this person a looser really necessary? they have an opinion and opinions are like assholes everyone has one. As for us we are pro-choice and pro death penalty. We feel that woman has a right to choose what happens with her own body even if it is careless. People make foolish decisions all the time. We do not feel that it is the responsibility of any goverment or person to tell them how to live thier lives. Leave that up to the individual no matter how idiotic it seems to you. On the death penalty, Only with absolutley no doubt, none at all ie DNA testing, red handed, video/audio eveidence etc People who commit rape, molestation, murder need to be quickly and effeciantly put to death. I do want to rehabilitate them I do not care. It is a waste of money and time. Just because bad things happen to a person does not give them the psycological right to kill or terrorize others. Prisons are too many and over crowded. Even if these prisoners get out of prison witha felony charge what can they possibly hope to achieve? It is almost impossible for them to get jobs that are something to be proud of. We do beleive in rehabilitation of prisoners w/o a murder/ rape charge as far as allowing them to truly re-enter society with a chance to suceed. That is where our present system fails.

Is it dead then? How is it this mass of cells can open its eyes far before any abortion line at 6 weeks? If it is dead how can it move around in the womb. I believe your position on Abortion is a reflection of ignorance given no one in the scientific community can back it up.

It doesn't take a true human life to move and to open your eye, animals can move and open there eyes but that doesn't there not food. A fetus being able to move doesnt mean anything other than its heart is beating it doesn't mean its brain has told it it is a person yet.

I am definately pro-choice. I think it's the woman's choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy, obviously only up to a certain time. I'm mostly pacifist-sorta. The U.S. has rarely gotten themselves involved in a military situation with which I'd agree. (Except WWI and WWII). What weapons of mass destruction??? We're the ones who have like 2.6 billion more nuclear weapons than anyone else. Whatever.
It's very hard to make my decision about the Death Penalty, but as of now, I guess I'm mostly against it. I don't know.

I agree that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons but our weapon amounts are less than 3,000 right now. If you are concerned about this issue please sign the petition to revamp CTBT (Comprehensive test ban Treaty) tell Bush to stop building and testing nuclear weapons... Today.

right now, as far as I know its like abortion over here

on demand

there is once instance where a son died and his mother (late 40's) felt so bad she was "euthinised"

Well thats no good.

It doesn't take a true human life to move and to open your eye, animals can move and open there eyes but that doesn't there not food. A fetus being able to move doesnt mean anything other than its heart is beating it doesn't mean its brain has told it it is a person yet.

What is it then? It certainly isn't an animal. It is clearly human life every bioethicist with any credentials believes that it is. The argument is whether or not to protect it.

It doesn't take a true human life to move and to open your eye, animals can move and open there eyes but that doesn't there not food. A fetus being able to move doesnt mean anything other than its heart is beating it doesn't mean its brain has told it it is a person yet.

so tell me, when does this mavelous biological precees take place, when is it not a human and then in a second, a human

I agree that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons but our weapon amounts are less than 3,000 right now. If you are concerned about this issue please sign the petition to revamp CTBT (Comprehensive test ban Treaty) tell Bush to stop building and testing nuclear weapons... Today.

can we say "deturent"

What is it then? It certainly isn't an animal. It is clearly human life every bioethicist with any credentials believes that it is. The argument is whether or not to protect it.

It may not be an animal but its certainly not a human.

Baseless assumption.

Another assumption deemed fact with no obvious link or background data supplied.

Seriously, I would like to see where you got the information that proves these ties exist. Of course, it sounds pretty logical, and I would agree with you that most people on one side for one of these issues would tend to sidle over towards that same position on other issues, but you can't claim that this is fact.

Have a look again at the *very first sentence* of my opening post. It says, "These are just my personal observations and are by no means scientific."

That means what I've said are just my personal observations, opinions and assumptions. They aren't backed by anything, but when I've expressed them other people I know have tended to agree. I don't claim my statements hold any value other than to get a debate started.

then tell me, how is it

tell me you know that the system has never been corupted

tell me that the netherlands is a liberal paradise

Why? You seem to know better.

Well thats no good.

indeed

That may be your own beliefs but mine has scientific backing saying that it is human life it is a scientific consensus. Look to AMA documentation or even the most liberal bioethicists like Peter Singer they will tell you it is human life end of story.

Why? You seem to know better.

I know only what I read, and it isn't good

do you have information that could contradict it?

That may be your own beliefs but mine has scientific backing saying that it is human life it is a scientific consensus. Look to AMA documentation or even the most liberal bioethicists like Peter Singer they will tell you it is human life end of story.

even john kerry knows its a human life

I'm pro-choice because 1) I don't believe that early fetuses are truly 'alive' and 2) I think that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

I am also anti-death penalty. Firstly, I disagree that it is an effective way of deterring crime. Many years in jail sounds like a lot worse punishment to me. I also believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated back into society. Another reason the death penalty sucks is because of its cost. What up with that? Finally, we are not yet at a stage where we don't convict any innocent people. Therefore, the death penalty will still kill innocent people as well as the guilty, which is one of the reasons some people here said they were pro-life, due to the babies' innocence.

So, even if you don't believe in abortion, the death penalty is clearly unsuitable for this day and age.

Schrandtopia . . . I'll gladly respond your questions if you post your argument(s) in full sentences.

In other words, what is your point? What do you have against mine in specific, leaving empty rhetoric aside?

It's all a matter of individual choice and the fact that it is wrong to kill humans but not non-humans.

Except in the case of rape (which I will deal with in a second), the woman made a conscious choice to have sex knowing full well the possible consequences. By making the choice, she accepted the consequences--including having a child.

If she was raped, then she is free to abort as she was denied the choice of whether or not to have sex.

A murderer, by choosing to take the life of a human, has relinquished his own humanity (there is more to being human than raw biology). Because of his conscious act, he DESERVES to die (as a matter of justice), and because he is no longer a human but a barbarian, it is OK to kill him.

I know only what I read, and it isn't good

do you have information that could contradict it?

Sure. People in the Netherlands do not suffer from rampant euthenesia. Happy now?

even john kerry knows its a human life
John Kerry is stupid.

That may be your own beliefs but mine has scientific backing saying that it is human life it is a scientific consensus. Look to AMA documentation or even the most liberal bioethicists like Peter Singer they will tell you it is human life end of story.

Why would I care what liberals think I'm not at all a liberal even though abortion is a liberal idea.

John Kerry is stupid.

So are you.

I'm pro-choice because 1) I don't believe that early fetuses are truly 'alive' and 2) I think that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

I am also anti-death penalty. Firstly, I disagree that it is an effective way of deterring crime. Many years in jail sounds like a lot worse punishment to me. I also believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated back into society. Another reason the death penalty sucks is because of its cost. What up with that? Finally, we are not yet at a stage where we don't convict any innocent people. Therefore, the death penalty will still kill innocent people as well as the guilty, which is one of the reasons some people here said they were pro-life, due to the babies' innocence.

So, even if you don't believe in abortion, the death penalty is clearly unsuitable for this day and age.

Number one has no scientific backing whatsoever. They are not dead. They are clearly human. This is just the chosen naivety of those who would protect this barbaric practise. To believe in a fairy tale world where human life begins at the moment of leaving the womb.
Your death penalty arguments are fine though I do not refute those.

Sure. People in the Netherlands do not suffer from rampant euthenesia. Happy now?

I would be, but how do you know that

Why would I care what liberals think I'm not at all a liberal even though abortion is a liberal idea.

Exactly so if its a liberal idea... liberal scientists should be biased towards that side. You will find even they accept the truth that life begins at the moment of the human zygote fusion not leaving the womb.

Schrandtopia . . . I'll gladly respond your questions if you post your argument(s) in full sentences.

In other words, what is your point? What do you have against mine in specific, leaving empty rhetoric aside?

you've failed to prove to me that a fetus is not a human being.

I'm pro-choice because 1) I don't believe that early fetuses are truly 'alive' and 2) I think that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

I am also anti-death penalty. Firstly, I disagree that it is an effective way of deterring crime. Many years in jail sounds like a lot worse punishment to me. I also believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated back into society. Another reason the death penalty sucks is because of its cost. What up with that? Finally, we are not yet at a stage where we don't convict any innocent people. Therefore, the death penalty will still kill innocent people as well as the guilty, which is one of the reasons some people here said they were pro-life, due to the babies' innocence.

So, even if you don't believe in abortion, the death penalty is clearly unsuitable for this day and age.

1 - why would a early fetus be "not alive" and a later one be alive

2 - why should she have that choice?

John Kerry is stupid.

yeah, but atleast he got one thing right

Except in the case of rape (which I will deal with in a second), the woman made a conscious choice to have sex knowing full well the possible consequences. By making the choice, she accepted the consequences--including having a child.

The woman makes the decision of having sex, not of having a baby. The only difference betweem this woman and a raped one is that the rape victim didn't make a choice of having sex.

Since pregnaqncy is obviously not an intended consequence when speaking of abortion, why would we have to punish a woman with an unwanted pregnancy just because she made the choice of having sex?

That is ultimately what is being judged.

I would be, but how do you know that

Well, I live there for starters. But who knows? Maybe my monitor emits evil mind-rays into my spleen that prevents me from seeing The Truth(tm)?

It's all a matter of individual choice and the fact that it is wrong to kill humans but not non-humans.

Except in the case of rape (which I will deal with in a second), the woman made a conscious choice to have sex knowing full well the possible consequences. By making the choice, she accepted the consequences--including having a child.

If she was raped, then she is free to abort as she was denied the choice of whether or not to have sex.

A murderer, by choosing to take the life of a human, has relinquished his own humanity (there is more to being human than raw biology). Because of his conscious act, he DESERVES to die (as a matter of justice), and because he is no longer a human but a barbarian, it is OK to kill him.

Prove this barbarian is actually guilty with no degree of failure over the course of hundreds of death penalty trials and I will support it.

Why would I care what liberals think I'm not at all a liberal even though abortion is a liberal idea.

then listen to the man's medical cradentials

The life potentiality is a worthless argument. Even the most liberal bio-ethicists argue that "yes" a fetus is living and it is human. Why it takes a bio ethicist to make such ridiculously easy claims is beyond me. If it only has the potential for life is it dead before exiting the womb? Lets not be idiots here the fetus is obviously alive. To even have any ground on this argument find one bio-ethicist that even comes close to your claim. Ill use the most liberal one for mine, Peter Singer.

I agree, but I wasn't arguing about potentiality of life, I was arguing about abosolute value of life and that, in a fundamental way, life is life, regardless of if it is a baby or a murderer.

Except in the case of rape (which I will deal with in a second), the woman made a conscious choice to have sex knowing full well the possible consequences. By making the choice, she accepted the consequences--including having a child.

The woman makes the decision of having sex, not of having a baby. The only difference betweem this woman and a raped one is that the rape victim didn't make a choice of having sex.

Since pregnaqncy is obviously not an intended consequence when speaking of abortion, why would we have to punish a woman with an unwanted pregnancy just because she made the choice of having sex?

That is ultimately what is being judged.

officer I just decided to pull the trigger, not to kill someone

if you take chances be prepared for the concequences

Wow this had devolved into name calling?! What makes a person a person, Well, that would be thier personality! the way in which they interact with you and others. Is a fetus alive in a womb? Of course it is! it has a heart beat so there cannot be any argument in that but the true question is is it a person/human being. We say no. A fetus is a biological mass of DNA and living tissue nothing more. A person is defined by thier actions, beliefs, views, etc this makes them a person that you may or may not like. Hell, the fetus is not even aware that is alive!

Why is it wrong to kill humans anyway? Why not kill them all, damn useless things.

can we say "deturent"

Name a country that has 3,000 nuclear missiles or even the landmass to take that kind of beating and ill get back to you. China is probably the closest and the only one that can even hit the US with nukes and it has a few dozen at most.

Well, I live there for starters. But who knows? Maybe my monitor emits evil mind-rays into my spleen that prevents me from seeing The Truth(tm)?

can I get anthing besides you word?

officer I just decided to pull the trigger, not to kill someone

if you take chances be prepared for the concequences

Cute, and it almost works too.

I agree, but I wasn't arguing about potentiality of life, I was arguing about abosolute value of life and that, in a fundamental way, life is life, regardless of if it is a baby or a murderer.

My bad I agree all life should be protected as well.

you've failed to prove to me that a fetus is not a human being.

Do you consider a human being something that has the same genetical components you do? Then why not consider tumours human? Should we outlaw their extirpation?

Why have the death penalty? Criminals are still biologically human.

What do you consider Human?

Wow this had devolved into name calling?! What makes a person a person, Well, that would be thier personality! the way in which they interact with you and others. Is a fetus alive in a womb? Of course it is! it has a heart beat so there cannot be any argument in that but the true question is is it a person/human being. We say no. A fetus is a biological mass of DNA and living tissue nothing more. A person is defined by thier actions, beliefs, views, etc this makes them a person that you may or may not like. Hell, the fetus is not even aware that is alive!

babies don't develope personanlities till well after their born

can I get anthing besides you word?

No, I'm the only living person in Holland. I euthanised everyone else! Mhahaha! Hakar strikes again!

Name a country that has 3,000 nuclear missiles or even the landmass to take that kind of beating and ill get back to you. China is probably the closest and the only one that can even hit the US with nukes and it has a few dozen at most.

no, russia has the closest, and they could go toe to toe with us in the nuke department if they wanted to

but never will

because our nukes serve as a deturent

Cute, and it almost works too.

how is it any different than the I-ment-to-have-sex-and-not-get-pregnent-and-therefor-can't-be-held-responsable-for-the-pregnancy argument

I'm pro-choice because 1) I don't believe that early fetuses are truly 'alive' and 2) I think that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.

I am also anti-death penalty. Firstly, I disagree that it is an effective way of deterring crime. Many years in jail sounds like a lot worse punishment to me. I also believe that some criminals can be rehabilitated back into society. Another reason the death penalty sucks is because of its cost. What up with that? Finally, we are not yet at a stage where we don't convict any innocent people. Therefore, the death penalty will still kill innocent people as well as the guilty, which is one of the reasons some people here said they were pro-life, due to the babies' innocence.

So, even if you don't believe in abortion, the death penalty is clearly unsuitable for this day and age.
look it is her body yes but it is the babys life the babys life it's life not it's body, Years in jail damn their is no life with no possiblity for parrol, so if someone murders my father or my brother or my sister they can get out and about 15 years later and come and kill me i don't see that happening when they are dead their is no returning from the grave none, although it does kill innocent people every government is extremely reluctent to adminastor the death penalty, so the chances are .00001 in 100

You obviously failed biology given that you dont know the natural outcome of sex IS a child. Lets look at the root name here... Sexual Reproduction as it will be described in any biology book. Reproduction is the process of making a baby.
Show me any backup of this personhood argument in a biology book or in bioethics at all? If biology doesent support the pro-life movement why is nearly every bioethicist behind it?
If it takes the development of "personhood" which isn't scientific in the least by any means to be human lets kill all the mentally retarded, and children under the age of 3 for good measure because they can not establish this value.

Well, the natural outcome of sex MAY BE a child, but it is most certainly not the only outcome or even always the most possible. There are many pitfalls, both natural and imposed, on successful conception.

And sexual reproduction simply means an exchange of genetic material in the next generation, a "cross-over" event must happen between chromosomes, as opposed to asexual reproduction where there is no cross-over or exchange of genetic material between generations.

Biology doesn't support either side because biology doesn't make value judgements any more than physicists make value judgements about a bullet killing someone. Individual biologists may have personal feelings about particular issues, but there is no support for either side mandated across the entire spectrum of biologists.

Yes, all right, fine then, you kill the mentally retarded and those under 3 and I'll kill all mothers who have ever had a period or all the men who have ever masturbated. What a stunningly stupid argument.

can I get anthing besides you word?

I live in Holland too. Euthanasia has to be approved by two doctors, who both must agree that the person is suffering with no chance of a cure. And the person has to agree to it himself, while conscious and sane.

Furthermore, they can't be kicked out of the house because by the time euthanasia is even a possibility they are in the hospital anyway just a few months away from death.

And please use proper grammar, I really had to read some of your (and other people's) post several times before I understood what they were saying.

babies don't develope personanlities till well after their born

Thanks for posting that Schrand im getting sick of reposting it over and over for the blissfully ignorant.

Do you consider a human being something that has the same genetical components you do? Then why not consider tumours human? Should we outlaw their extirpation?

Why have the death penalty? Criminals are still biologically human.

What do you consider Human?

something with its own human DNA from conception on

crimianals are human, but some criminals pose threats to other humans and deserve to die

I live in Holland too. Euthanasia has to be approved by two doctors, who both must agree that the person is suffering with no chance of a cure. And the person has to agree to it himself, while conscious and sane.

Furthermore, they can't be kicked out of the house because by the time euthanasia is even a possibility they are in the hospital anyway just a few months away from death.

And please use proper grammar, I really had to read some of your (and other people's) post several times before I understood what they were saying.

so those two doctors are God?

Thanks for posting that Schrand im getting sick of reposting it over and over for the blissfully ignorant.

fo sho

Well, the natural outcome of sex MAY BE a child, but it is most certainly not the only outcome or even always the most possible. There are many pitfalls, both natural and imposed, on successful conception.

And sexual reproduction simply means an exchange of genetic material in the next generation, a "cross-over" event must happen between chromosomes, as opposed to asexual reproduction where there is no cross-over or exchange of genetic material between generations.

Biology doesn't support either side because biology doesn't make value judgements any more than physicists make value judgements about a bullet killing someone. Individual biologists may have personal feelings about particular issues, but there is no support for either side mandated across the entire spectrum of biologists.

Yes, all right, fine then, you kill the mentally retarded and those under 3 and I'll kill all mothers who have ever had a period or all the men who have ever masturbated. What a stunningly stupid argument.

Sperm and egg alone are components. So it is not loss these things do not have enclosed organ systems.. brain waves, blood types, fingers and toes. Your earlier refutation of sexual outcomes does not clash at all with my statement a cross-over of genetic material is on its way to creating a new life hence a baby.
Biological ethicists do make value statements and there is a remarkable consensus towards a fetus being alive and human. If you choose to be willfully ignorant I believe that is your choice. However killing someone based on something that can not be supported by any philosophy or degree of science is not something that should be tolerated.

Prove this barbarian is actually guilty with no degree of failure over the course of hundreds of death penalty trials and I will support it.

Actually, pragmatically I agree with you. But I was arguing principle, not pragmatics.

I don't know if anyone else has explored this aspect of being pro-choice--I haven't read the six pages worth and I'm not going to--so forgive me if someone else has alrady talked about this.

I'm pro-choice simply because I don't believe in making personal, moral choices for others, epsecially when, as a male, I will never be forced to make the choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, while I don't like abortion, I wouldn't want to impose that viewpoint on others who disagree, because there are legitimate arguments to be made for differing viewpoints on the question of when life begins. Because of that, abortions ought to be safe, available, and rare.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for multiple reasons. The largest is the potential for executing an innocent, but there's also the haphazard way that it's applied to cases, and the fact that if you're poor, you're far more likely to charged with and convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death than if you're wealthy. There's too much of a disparity there based on nothing but money.

officer I just decided to pull the trigger, not to kill someone

if you take chances be prepared for the concequences

You are still applying a moral value to the situation that is absolutely personal. In other words, you are imposing your values.

If I decide to sleep around and then men treat me like garbage, that's a consequence I have to deal with. But wheather I deal with the consequences by crying about or becoming the ultimate whore, that's bobody's business but my own.

Why? Because it does not imposingly affect anyone's life but my own.

Abortion is one of the ways women deal with the consequence of sex (pregnancy.) The Abortion debate should not be treated in the grounds of deontological duties (i.e. "you have to put up with your pregnancy because you were asking for it.") That is imposing your own personal values on others.

We should treat this as to whether who the woman is hurting when aborting. Is a fertilized egg something to be guarded? That's the issue, not how you think people should deal with their personal matters.

Except in the case of rape (which I will deal with in a second), the woman made a conscious choice to have sex knowing full well the possible consequences. By making the choice, she accepted the consequences--including having a child.

The woman makes the decision of having sex, not of having a baby. The only difference betweem this woman and a raped one is that the rape victim didn't make a choice of having sex.

Since pregnaqncy is obviously not an intended consequence when speaking of abortion, why would we have to punish a woman with an unwanted pregnancy just because she made the choice of having sex?

Because whether or not she specifically intended to become pregnant, she knew it was a possibility. If she didn't want to take the risk, she was free to choose to abstain.

If I play baseball in the house and wind up breaking the television, even though I didn't intend to, am I not responsible for breaking the television?

Well, the natural outcome of sex MAY BE a child, but it is most certainly not the only outcome or even always the most possible. There are many pitfalls, both natural and imposed, on successful conception.

And sexual reproduction simply means an exchange of genetic material in the next generation, a "cross-over" event must happen between chromosomes, as opposed to asexual reproduction where there is no cross-over or exchange of genetic material between generations.

Biology doesn't support either side because biology doesn't make value judgements any more than physicists make value judgements about a bullet killing someone. Individual biologists may have personal feelings about particular issues, but there is no support for either side mandated across the entire spectrum of biologists.

Yes, all right, fine then, you kill the mentally retarded and those under 3 and I'll kill all mothers who have ever had a period or all the men who have ever masturbated. What a stunningly stupid argument.

You say biology doesn't support either side... but weren't you the one that brought up biology in the arguement? I do believe that's why he replied to you in your terms.

You agree that killing everyone that can't comunicate on a human level is barbaric and simply unthinkable? So you agree that your argument that a fetus isn't a baby because it can't comunicate at an adult level is completely invalid and has absolutely zero logic? Glad to hear it.

As for your definention of sexual reproduction, great. I didn't see anyone arguing reproductions definetion with you.

something with its own human DNA from conception on

crimianals are human, but some criminals pose threats to other humans and deserve to die

You are saying nothing here.

The same way, I can say that a pregnancy cann affect the mothers health, career plans, emotional state, etc.

I'm asking you, what do you consider human?

You are simply saying, "the fruit of fertilization." Or in other words, "anything that can be aborted." That equates to an answer like "just cuz!"

You are still applying a moral value to the situation that is absolutely personal. In other words, you are imposing your values.

If I decide to sleep around and then men treat me like garbage, that's a consequence I have to deal with. But wheather I deal with the consequences by crying about or becoming the ultimate whore, that's bobody's business but my own.

Why? Because it does not imposingly affect anyone's life but my own.

Abortion is one of the ways women deal with the consequence of sex (pregnancy.) The Abortion debate should not be treated in the grounds of deontological duties (i.e. "you have to put up with your pregnancy because you were asking for it.") That is imposing your own personal values on others.

We should treat this as to whether who the woman is hurting when aborting. Is a fertilized egg something to be guarded? That's the issue, not how you think people should deal with their personal matters.

this is the cuxs of the argument

but people keep trying to sneek around it saying that getting pregnant wasn't their fault because they didn't start out with the intention of doing it

I'm just trying to bring people back on track

Because whether or not she specifically intended to become pregnant, she knew it was a possibility. If she didn't want to take the risk, she was free to choose to abstain.

If I play baseball in the house and wind up breaking the television, even though I didn't intend to, am I not responsible for breaking the television?

Sex is a basic necessity. Your argument is like saying to me that if I get food poisonning I've got to put up with it and not take Peptobismol because I had the choice of not eating.

I don't know if anyone else has explored this aspect of being pro-choice--I haven't read the six pages worth and I'm not going to--so forgive me if someone else has alrady talked about this.

I'm pro-choice simply because I don't believe in making personal, moral choices for others, epsecially when, as a male, I will never be forced to make the choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, while I don't like abortion, I wouldn't want to impose that viewpoint on others who disagree, because there are legitimate arguments to be made for differing viewpoints on the question of when life begins. Because of that, abortions ought to be safe, available, and rare.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for multiple reasons. The largest is the potential for executing an innocent, but there's also the haphazard way that it's applied to cases, and the fact that if you're poor, you're far more likely to charged with and convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death than if you're wealthy. There's too much of a disparity there based on nothing but money.

You're not for making choices for others? Like the innocent child they're killing?

Are you for defending those that can't defend themselves? Or just a dishonorable pig? You're the problem with society today... "let's not impose, we're not god, we don't know whats right and wrong." If this stance were true to itself, you would never vote, never make statement in an argument and never take a side on anything. So by arguing for this ideal, you already invalidate it.

I don't know if anyone else has explored this aspect of being pro-choice--I haven't read the six pages worth and I'm not going to--so forgive me if someone else has alrady talked about this.

I'm pro-choice simply because I don't believe in making personal, moral choices for others, epsecially when, as a male, I will never be forced to make the choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In other words, while I don't like abortion, I wouldn't want to impose that viewpoint on others who disagree, because there are legitimate arguments to be made for differing viewpoints on the question of when life begins. Because of that, abortions ought to be safe, available, and rare.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for multiple reasons. The largest is the potential for executing an innocent, but there's also the haphazard way that it's applied to cases, and the fact that if you're poor, you're far more likely to charged with and convicted of a capital crime and sentenced to death than if you're wealthy. There's too much of a disparity there based on nothing but money.

Exactly! To outlaw abortion does nothing to solve the underlying issues that make the woman believe her only option is to have one in the first place. Like the oh so successful war on drugs and now the war on terror and the ever popular example of Prohibition, outlawing something doesn't magically make it go away. If the point here is to really save lives and not just make ourselves feel better because we're punishing those who have made different choices from what we might make, then we have to attack the root of the problem and that is much harder than just passing a law and expecting it to somehow solve.

You are saying nothing here.

The same way, I can say that a pregnancy cann affect the mothers health, career plans, emotional state, etc.

I'm asking you, what do you consider human?

You are simply saying, "the fruit of fertilization." Or in other words, "anything that can be aborted." That equates to an answer like "just cuz!"

no, I'm not saying just cuz

I belive than the fruit of fertilization, from fertilization on is a human being

this is the cuxs of the argument

but people keep trying to sneek around it saying that getting pregnant wasn't their fault because they didn't start out with the intention of doing it

I'm just trying to bring people back on track

Thanks for clarifying, Schrandtopia.

Sex is a basic necessity. Your argument is like saying to me that if I get food poisonning I've got to put up with it and not take Peptobismol because I had the choice of not eating.

sex is not a basic necessity

Sex is a basic necessity. Your argument is like saying to me that if I get food poisonning I've got to put up with it and not take Peptobismol because I had the choice of not eating.

Sex is required to sustain life? No.
Sex is a basic human desire? Yes.

If you want proof, let me know.

Exactly! To outlaw abortion does nothing to solve the underlying issues that make the woman believe her only option is to have one in the first place. Like the oh so successful war on drugs and now the war on terror and the ever popular example of Prohibition, outlawing something doesn't magically make it go away. If the point here is to really save lives and not just make ourselves feel better because we're punishing those who have made different choices from what we might make, then we have to attack the root of the problem and that is much harder than just passing a law and expecting it to somehow solve.

maybe, but it would save human lives

You're not for making choices for others? Like the innocent child they're killing?

Are you for defending those that can't defend themselves? Or just a dishonorable pig? You're the problem with society today... "let's not impose, we're not god, we don't know whats right and wrong." If this stance were true to itself, you would never vote, never make statement in an argument and never take a side on anything. So by arguing for this ideal, you already invalidate it.

Whoa! I think you should just stick to the topic and quit pontificating. This is exactly why forum discussion never get anywhere. They always turn into a holier-than-thou spitting contest.

Exactly! To outlaw abortion does nothing to solve the underlying issues that make the woman believe her only option is to have one in the first place. Like the oh so successful war on drugs and now the war on terror and the ever popular example of Prohibition, outlawing something doesn't magically make it go away. If the point here is to really save lives and not just make ourselves feel better because we're punishing those who have made different choices from what we might make, then we have to attack the root of the problem and that is much harder than just passing a law and expecting it to somehow solve.

Well, in your opinion then, we shouldn't have laws... we should deal with the underlying reasons and logic for the decisions of those that would break them?

If you don't make a law, you can't say that the action is unlawful... therefore noone would try to deal with the underlying logic and morals behind those that are making the decision to do what we consider immoral.

The law dictates what is immoral and what isn't. It is our responsobility after that to teach or understand why that law is as it is.

You're not for making choices for others? Like the innocent child they're killing?

Are you for defending those that can't defend themselves? Or just a dishonorable pig? You're the problem with society today... "let's not impose, we're not god, we don't know whats right and wrong." If this stance were true to itself, you would never vote, never make statement in an argument and never take a side on anything. So by arguing for this ideal, you already invalidate it.

There is a sizable difference between saying you know what's right for you but can never know what's right for others. That difference is the fundamental pillar that the United States is built on, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every citizen so long as it doesn't interfer with the same rights of other citizens. Incertonia is hardly a "dishonorable pig" or the "problem with society today." Both of those titles are reserved for people who think they have some sort of divine mandate to push their noses into everyone's business because they know how to run everyone else's life better than the people themselves do and are much more willing to slap a band-aid on a serious social problem than do the real work that would be required to solve the problem outright. Lazy busybodies with no vision, only reaction, and a perverse fear of anyone who has a different opinion than them.

Whoa! I think you should just stick to the topic and quit pontificating. This is exactly why forum discussion never get anywhere. They always turn into a holier-than-thou spitting contest.

In response to the argument that we shouldn't impose our views on others, I point out that the argument in itself is invalid. Perfectly reasonable post. Your post however, is what makes these arguments get nowhere.

I never said I was better than the poster. I simply stated that if in fact, the poster believed that oposing anyones belief was wrong, that posting and oposition to someones belief here was in contradiction to itself.

Sex is required to sustain life? No.
Sex is a basic human desire? Yes.

If you want proof, let me know.

I must assume you're not aware of all the physical and psychological benefits of sex. Let's extract then our conclusion from the given premise:

Sex must be used only for reproductive purposes, therefore :
1) You're also against birth control
2) You tell little boys that Jesus died because they touch themselves at night.

no, I'm not saying just cuz

I belive than the fruit of fertilization, from fertilization on is a human being
And could you just tell me what that is? You agreed on the fact that we should discuss whether a fertilized egg is something to be guarded.

Don't tell me that you *just* consider it human after conception, that will invalidate the entire discussion.

Tell me *why* do you consider a fertilized egg human after conception.

I must assume you're not aware of all the physical and psychological benefits of sex. Let's extract then our conclusion from the given premise:

Sex must be used only for reproductive purposes, therefore :
1) You're also against birth control
2) You tell little boys that Jesus died because they touch themselves at night.

wtf

the point of the afformentioned post is that sex is not a nessecary human function, certianly not as nessecary as eating which you compared it to

people are indded responsible for the consequences of sex because they chose to do it and could easily chose not to do it

There is a sizable difference between saying you know what's right for you but can never know what's right for others. That difference is the fundamental pillar that the United States is built on, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every citizen so long as it doesn't interfer with the same rights of other citizens. Incertonia is hardly a "dishonorable pig" or the "problem with society today." Both of those titles are reserved for people who think they have some sort of divine mandate to push their noses into everyone's business because they know how to run everyone else's life better than the people themselves do and are much more willing to slap a band-aid on a serious social problem than do the real work that would be required to solve the problem outright. Lazy busybodies with no vision, only reaction, and a perverse fear of anyone who has a different opinion than them.

If we don't know what's right for others, how can we possibly make or uphold lawfull society?
Maybe someone murdering another person was right for them?
If we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, then what about that child's rights?
We want to slap a bandaid on a problem and have no vision or reaction? What about you? You haven't made one statement about what should be done instead.

And could you just tell me what that is? You agreed on the fact that we should discuss whether a fertilized egg is something to be guarded.

Don't tell me that you *just* consider it human after conception, that will invalidate the entire discussion.

Tell me *why* do you consider a fertilized egg human after conception.

I've seen scans and dead ones

and even in the littlest of them there is something unmistakable human

I must assume you're not aware of all the physical and psychological benefits of sex. Let's extract then our conclusion from the given premise:

Sex must be used only for reproductive purposes, therefore :
1) You're also against birth control
2) You tell little boys that Jesus died because they touch themselves at night.

Just point me to where I said "Sex must be used only for a reproductive purposes" and I'll give you the smallest of consequential thought. Until then, stop posting until you bother to read what I said.

In response to the argument that we shouldn't impose our views on others, I point out that the argument in itself is invalid. Perfectly reasonable post. Your post however, is what makes these arguments get nowhere.

I never said I was better than the poster. I simply stated that if in fact, the poster believed that oposing anyones belief was wrong, that posting and oposition to someones belief here was in contradiction to itself.

Sorry, telling the poster he or she "is the problem with society" itself would usually have a negative connotation in my dictionary. My bad!

Funny, I was thinking of setting up a thread questioning this contradiction.

I am strongly, absolutely anti-death penalty, and I make no exceptions. Nobody should be executed. It's an easy way out, hardly a punishment at all. Not to mention that it is immoral - a state can't decide to take away the right to life in an "official murder".

For a long time I was undecided about abortion, and I suppose I still am. But in light of my unchangeable view on the death penalty, I have decided to be anti-abortion. How can I say that murderers can't be killed, and yet allow unborn babies to be killed? It's a contradiction, a flaw.

As regards pacifism, I am usually pacifist and I oppose unjust and offensive wars. Wars fought for genuinely defensive reasons are justified. I oppose wars fought purely on the grounds of religion, ideology, greed (oil) and so on.

I think that the only major war of the 20th (and 21st) century that was just was WW2. I believe that WW1 was wrong - it was a squabble in which a few rich, imperialist aristocrats were willing to send off millions to die in the mud, with rats and shrapnel.

The Korean War and the first Gulf War (1991) were justified up to the point of defending the country that was getting invaded. But the subsequent revenge backlashes against the aggressor countries were totally unnecessary.

The Vietnam War was the least justifiable war that the west ever waged in the 20th century. As I have said I object to ideological and offensive wars. Over 1.5 million poor Vietnamese died defending their country in what they now call "the American war". 58,000 young American men, lied to, misled, and drafted by politicians were transported 10,000 miles to fight other poor people for no real reason at all. That war destroyed Vietnam and destroyed American families. That was unjustified.

Now "our" war against Iraq is no improvement. Once again the politicians lied, the young people died. Americans who love Bush must accept that Gulf War 2 was not a defensive war. It was not waged to defend America. Saddam had no weapons and no terrorist friends.

Well, in your opinion then, we shouldn't have laws... we should deal with the underlying reasons and logic for the decisions of those that would break them?

First of all, register.

Second of all, no, that's not my opinion at all. We should have the right laws and respect for them, not quick-fix solutions that accomplish nothing in the long term than demonization and an overcrowded and burdened prison system. Outlawing abortion is not going to make them go away and it's not going to solve the problem, just push it further underground where it can fester.


If you don't make a law, you can't say that the action is unlawful... therefore noone would try to deal with the underlying logic and morals behind those that are making the decision to do what we consider immoral.

Huh? Morality and law have very little to do with one another unless you live in a theocracy.

The government that governs best, governs least. The function of government is not to dictate and control the lives of it's citizens, but to protect their freedoms and rights. If there is a problem, and I think even those who support abortion rights will agree it's not the best solution, then the society must examine that problem and work towards solving it, otherwise all the laws in the world won't work because they never directly address the issue and only allow it to simmer. Laws that are passed need to address the root causes of the problem, not the superficial symptoms. Why are so many teenagers getting pregnant and then feeling like abortions are their only option? Why are so many adult women feeling like abortions are their only option? Until we answer these questions and work towards rectifying the situation, any law we pass is just cosmetic and gives us the temporary excuse to ignore the problem while it grows worse.


The law dictates what is immoral and what isn't. It is our responsobility after that to teach or understand why that law is as it is.

Um, no. The law may sometimes coincide with morality, but it most certainly doesn't speak to morality. It speaks to social order. Our responsibility to the law is to obey it so long as it is just by the terms of our society and, if it is not, then to work to get it abolished. That's why we must be certain when we enact laws that they are the right ones. Outlawing abortion is not a good law and even though I myself do not believe an abortion is ever justified, I would never support a law banning them because then the root of abortions would never be addressed by this society that likes to do a quick fix on situations and then forget about them.

Now "our" war against Iraq is no improvement. Once again the politicians lied, the young people died. Americans who love Bush must accept that Gulf War 2 was not a defensive war. It was not waged to defend America. Saddam had no weapons and no terrorist friends.

I agree with you than GW2 was not a defenceive war, there probobly are no WMDs and the terrorist connections were very small and unconcequential

but human lives were saved because of that invasion

and at the end of that day thats what matters

Pro-life, anti-death penalty, not pacifist. The only rationale for killing is direct self-defense.

You're not for making choices for others? Like the innocent child they're killing?

Are you for defending those that can't defend themselves? Or just a dishonorable pig? You're the problem with society today... "let's not impose, we're not god, we don't know whats right and wrong." If this stance were true to itself, you would never vote, never make statement in an argument and never take a side on anything. So by arguing for this ideal, you already invalidate it.Listen you pompous little shit--don't you dare jump down my back for a decision I've made about an issue that doesn't personally affect me.

I am a male. I cannot get pregnant. I cannot bear children and subsequently pop them out of my body. I will never be faced with the decision as to whether or not I should terminate a pregnancy, whether for personal or health reasons. What right do I have to tell a woman she cannot terminate a pregnancy when I will never be in a position to fully empathize with her? None.

There is no human right more inviolable than the right to be secure in one's own person, to do with one's body as one sees fit to do. Restrict what a person can do to him or herself, and you have a return to slavery. At the crux of this issue, that's what we're talking about--the right of a woman to make choices about her own body. Don't give me "rights of the unborn" and "life begins at conception" garbage.

Thousands of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted every freaking day--they're called miscarriages. There are thousands more that are aborted because there's literally no chance the fetus will ever become viable--they're called ectopic pregnancies. Life in the womb is a fragile thing that fails more often than it ever takes hold.

If we don't know what's right for others, how can we possibly make or uphold lawfull society?

Because laws should not seek to control the lives of people, simply establish a framework for a successful collaboration between individual viewpoints and opinions and actions that lead to a powerful, dynamic and successful society. Otherwise they are simply tools of tyranny and oppression.


Maybe someone murdering another person was right for them?

Well, this is a direct conflict and therefore would be a prime example of where a law could be used.


If we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, then what about that child's rights?

What about them? If you're going to grant rights to unborn children ad hoc, then you must grant them to all unborn children. Therefore whenever a mother miscarries, she's guilty of manslaughter.


We want to slap a bandaid on a problem and have no vision or reaction?

Yup.


What about you? You haven't made one statement about what should be done instead.

Education. People in this country still thing, "Oh, I can't get pregnant if it's my first time," or "You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up," or "Don't worry about the condom, just pull out in time." Inform teenagers exactly what leads to conception and make sure they understand the consequences of their actions.

Support. Make sure there are support networks for women who become pregnant unexpectedly so they don't see the child as an impossible burden. Stop demonizing single mothers and even women who have abortions and make sure they have a network they can rely on should they need help, be it with child care or health care or housing or whatever.

Options. Let women know they have options to abortion. Ranging from tubal ligation to adoption, there are many ways to avoid the problem of an unplanned pregnancy or the moral dilemma of an abortion should a pregnancy occur. Make sure women are familiar with these options and they are accessible. Don't force them or demonize them or "guilt" them into making a choice other than abortion, but make sure they understand those choices are out there and they can make them without having to worry about being unsupported if they do.

Listen you pompous little shit--don't you dare jump down my back for a decision I've made about an issue that doesn't personally affect me.

I am a male. I cannot get pregnant. I cannot bear children and subsequently pop them out of my body. I will never be faced with the decision as to whether or not I should terminate a pregnancy, whether for personal or health reasons. What right do I have to tell a woman she cannot terminate a pregnancy when I will never be in a position to fully empathize with her? None.

There is no human right more inviolable than the right to be secure in one's own person, to do with one's body as one sees fit to do. Restrict what a person can do to him or herself, and you have a return to slavery. At the crux of this issue, that's what we're talking about--the right of a woman to make choices about her own body. Don't give me "rights of the unborn" and "life begins at conception" garbage.

Thousands of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted every freaking day--they're called miscarriages. There are thousands more that are aborted because there's literally no chance the fetus will ever become viable--they're called ectopic pregnancies. Life in the womb is a fragile thing that fails more often than it ever takes hold.

#1 - the same way he can critasize a person for not helping a man dying next to him, or for not feeding a starving man

#2 - your not in guantanamo bay, why the hell should you care weather or not they're tourtured

#3 - disprove that "garbage" that the medical community calls science

#4 - bull shit

Listen you pompous little shit--don't you dare jump down my back for a decision I've made about an issue that doesn't personally affect me.

I am a male. I cannot get pregnant. I cannot bear children and subsequently pop them out of my body. I will never be faced with the decision as to whether or not I should terminate a pregnancy, whether for personal or health reasons. What right do I have to tell a woman she cannot terminate a pregnancy when I will never be in a position to fully empathize with her? None.

There is no human right more inviolable than the right to be secure in one's own person, to do with one's body as one sees fit to do. Restrict what a person can do to him or herself, and you have a return to slavery. At the crux of this issue, that's what we're talking about--the right of a woman to make choices about her own body. Don't give me "rights of the unborn" and "life begins at conception" garbage.

Thousands of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted every freaking day--they're called miscarriages. There are thousands more that are aborted because there's literally no chance the fetus will ever become viable--they're called ectopic pregnancies. Life in the womb is a fragile thing that fails more often than it ever takes hold.


By your argument then, only women should argue this topic. No, let's take this one step further, only women who've had an abortion and then a birth shall argue this.

"Don't give me the life at conception" and "rights of the unborn gargabe" Right, don't give me the rights to ones own body garbage. Should a siamese twin be allowed to murder their twin?

You want to know the physical and psychological damage done by abortion... it is neither safe nor benificial in most... note "MOST" situations. Mean a vast majority of them. And with nearly always a safer alternative.

Funny, I was thinking of setting up a thread questioning this contradiction.

I am strongly, absolutely anti-death penalty, and I make no exceptions. Nobody should be executed. It's an easy way out, hardly a punishment at all. Not to mention that it is immoral - a state can't decide to take away the right to life in an "official murder".

For a long time I was undecided about abortion, and I suppose I still am. But in light of my unchangeable view on the death penalty, I have decided to be anti-abortion. How can I say that murderers can't be killed, and yet allow unborn babies to be killed? It's a contradiction, a flaw.

As regards pacifism, I am usually pacifist and I oppose unjust and offensive wars. Wars fought for genuinely defensive reasons are justified. I oppose wars fought purely on the grounds of religion, ideology, greed (oil) and so on.

I think that the only major war of the 20th (and 21st) century that was just was WW2. I believe that WW1 was wrong - it was a squabble in which a few rich, imperialist aristocrats were willing to send off millions to die in the mud, with rats and shrapnel.

The Korean War and the first Gulf War (1991) were justified up to the point of defending the country that was getting invaded. But the subsequent revenge backlashes against the aggressor countries were totally unnecessary.

The Vietnam War was the least justifiable war that the west ever waged in the 20th century. As I have said I object to ideological and offensive wars. Over 1.5 million poor Vietnamese died defending their country in what they now call "the American war". 58,000 young American men, lied to, misled, and drafted by politicians were transported 10,000 miles to fight other poor people for no real reason at all. That war destroyed Vietnam and destroyed American families. That was unjustified.

Now "our" war against Iraq is no improvement. Once again the politicians lied, the young people died. Americans who love Bush must accept that Gulf War 2 was not a defensive war. It was not waged to defend America. Saddam had no weapons and no terrorist friends.

The first Gulf war was not defensive. Kuwait was always part of Iraq. Two British morons decided to draw it out of Iraqi territory and claimed they had the right to do so. They ignored the political and ethnic makeup of the region. The first Gulf War denied Iraqi's of territory that was recognized as theirs by everyone in the region.
It was also a exercise in futility given it killed numerous Iraqis. And failed to topple the tyrant who was killing his own people. The diff. between the two gulf wars is the reason of going. In the second one we went to take the chains off the Iraqi people. In the first one we went to save our oil interests in Kuwait.

Because laws should not seek to control the lives of people, simply establish a framework for a successful collaboration between individual viewpoints and opinions and actions that lead to a powerful, dynamic and successful society.



Well, this is a direct conflict and therefore would be a prime example of where a law could be used.



What about them? If you're going to grant rights to unborn children ad hoc, then you must grant them to all unborn children. Therefore whenever a mother miscarries, she's guilty of manslaughter.



Yup.



Education. People in this country still thing, "Oh, I can't get pregnant if it's my first time," or "You can't get pregnant if you do it standing up," or "Don't worry about the condom, just pull out in time." Inform teenagers exactly what leads to conception and make sure they understand the consequences of their actions.

Support. Make sure there are support networks for women who become pregnant unexpectedly so they don't see the child as an impossible burden. Stop demonizing single mothers and even women who have abortions and make sure they have a network they can rely on should they need help, be it with child care or health care or housing or whatever.

Options. Let women know they have options to abortion. Ranging from tubal ligation to adoption, there are many ways to avoid the problem of an unplanned pregnancy or the moral dilemma of an abortion should a pregnancy occur. Make sure women are familiar with these options and they are accessible. Don't force them or demonize them or "guilt" them into making a choice other than abortion, but make sure they understand those choices are out there and they can make them without having to worry about being unsupported if they do.

Tell me: What are laws for?

but human lives were saved because of that invasion

and at the end of that day thats what matters[/QUOTE]


I am sure that the 11,000 going on 12,000 civilians that died needlessly due to stupid battle tactics of the American forces in GWMKII feel very proud... Lives were saved but so were they lost. We have done about a decade of Saddam's killing in about 2 years.

Tell me: What are laws for?

I did.

Pro-choice, anti-death penalty, mostly pacifist.

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I did not want to check 9 pages to see:

This position could be explained from a strongly libertarian point of view. The goverment has no role in regulating abortion, nor in taking lives, and should limit its wars to ones in self defense.

Here are my thoughts on it with my opinions.

On abortion, it should be legal up to the point where the baby would have a reasnable chance of surviving if forced to come out without being brain dead and "living" of a resparator, or at any time if the mothers life is endanger if the pregnancy continues. Otherwise we are going into ground where it is a personal opinion, and the goverment should not be regulating except on a solid issue.

On the death penalty, I am undecided between it being much more heavily restricted, or banning it outright. For these restrictions, see my "Death Penalty Guidelines" proposal for the UN, on page 5 right now. Most of my objection to the death penalty is based off of the fact that it is permanant, you can't say "oops, he was innocent" and free someone after you have executed that person.

Listen you pompous little shit--don't you dare jump down my back for a decision I've made about an issue that doesn't personally affect me.

Explain to me again why you're posting at all?

I am sure that the 11,000 going on 12,000 civilians that died needlessly due to stupid battle tactics of the American forces in GWMKII feel very proud... Lives were saved but so were they lost. We have done about a decade of Saddam's killing in about 2 years.

a decade? there are a few mass graves that would like to argue with you

when you look at the number killed in the war vs. the number that saddam would have killed anyway up to this point the invasion comes up with a few more Iraqis that wouldn't be here if saddam was still in charge

I did.

You stray completely off to unneeded rhetoric during your arguments and jump from issue to issue as you lose footholds.
I'm asking for a simple post on your view of what laws are for, as simply as it is possible for you to put it.

Pro-choice, anti-death penalty, mostly pacifist.

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I did not want to check 9 pages to see:

This position could be explained from a strongly libertarian point of view. The goverment has no role in regulating abortion, nor in taking lives, and should limit its wars to ones in self defense.

Here are my thoughts on it with my opinions.

On abortion, it should be legal up to the point where the baby would have a reasnable chance of surviving if forced to come out without being brain dead and "living" of a resparator, or at any time if the mothers life is endanger if the pregnancy continues. Otherwise we are going into ground where it is a personal opinion, and the goverment should not be regulating except on a solid issue.

On the death penalty, I am undecided between it being much more heavily restricted, or banning it outright. For these restrictions, see my "Death Penalty Guidelines" proposal for the UN, on page 5 right now. Most of my objection to the death penalty is based off of the fact that it is permanant, you can't say "oops, he was innocent" and free someone after you have executed that person.

so the government shouldn't kill murderers, rather hold them in sprawling prison complexes for the rest of their lives eating up massive amounts of tax money

and all abortions should be subject to government regulations crating a huge beurocracy and eating up more tax money

you may have your motivations, but they're certianly not libritarian ones

Just point me to where I said "Sex must be used only for a reproductive purposes" and I'll give you the smallest of consequential thought. Until then, stop posting until you bother to read what I said.

It's very simple. It's called deductive reasoning.

You are against abortion at all costs, and even though the chances of a woman getting pregnant while on birthcontrol is what? 3%? Pro-lifers argue that women should abstain completely from sex in order to avoid the miniscule possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

How can one suggest complete abstinence to prevent a 3% possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Sex IS in fact a basic life necessity which apparently not even priests can't escape. Not life sustaining -- you were the one who squeezed that in -- but a life necessity nevertheless.

Would you live without electricity because there's a 3% possibility that you might be electrecuted? I didn't think so.

Why do you think young boys have wet dreams before they have even started masturbating? Or completely chaste girls not even interested in boys having erotic dreams? Sexuality is a major drive of human behaviour.

I'm really surprised you've come to the point of denying that.

Shrand a ban on abortion would save lives. My mother wouldve been aborted had it been legal at the time. She was instead given to two loving parents through adoption.

so the government shouldn't kill murderers, rather hold them in sprawling prison complexes for the rest of their lives eating up massive amounts of tax money

Wrong. It costs more tax money to kill a murderer than to incarcerate him for life.

It's very simple. It's called deductive reasoning.

You are against abortion at all costs, and even though the chances of a woman getting pregnant while on birthcontrol is what? 3%? Pro-lifers argue that women should abstain completely from sex in order to avoid the miniscule possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

How can one suggest complete abstinence to prevent a 3% possibility of an unwanted pregnancy. Sex IS in fact a basic life necessity which apparently not even priests can't escape. Not life sustaining -- you were the one who squeezed that in -- but a life necessity nevertheless.

Would you live without electricity because there's a 3% possibility that you might be electrecuted? I didn't think so.

Why do you think young boys have wet dreams before they have even started masturbating? Or completely chaste girls not even interested in boys having erotic dreams? Sexuality is a major drive of human behaviour.

I'm really surprised you've come to the point of denying that.

the pro-life movment NEVER said people should stop having sex

the vast vast vast majority of priests are celebate

there are better methods than cemical birth control

and for the record, yes, I would stop using electricity

You stray completely off to unneeded rhetoric during your arguments and jump from issue to issue as you lose footholds.
I'm asking for a simple post on your view of what laws are for, as simply as it is possible for you to put it.


Laws should not seek to control the lives of people, simply establish a framework for a successful collaboration between individual viewpoints and opinions and actions that lead to a powerful, dynamic and successful society. Otherwise they are simply tools of tyranny and oppression.

I also haven't "lost a foothold" yet, but nice try capitalizing on gains you haven't made.

Wrong. It costs more tax money to kill a murderer than to incarcerate him for life.

Exactly! Thank you!

Benefits of Sex

1.Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half.

2. Reduced depression

3.Pain-relief-Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

4.Better bladder control

5.A happier prostate? (relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate)

6. Less-frequent colds and flu

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

Wrong. It costs more tax money to kill a murderer than to incarcerate him for life.

right now, but that will change

especialy with prisoners living longer and longer lives

and the abortion part of that was just ridiculous

Benefits of Sex

1.Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half.

2. Reduced depression

3.Pain-relief-Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

4.Better bladder control

5.A happier prostate? (relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate)

6. Less-frequent colds and flu

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html

this is pertinant to the topic..................how?

Pro-lifers argue that women should abstain completely from sex in order to avoid the miniscule possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

Eh, not all of us. Some would simply point out that even in situations where a woman is unable to take care of an unexpected child, the alternative of adoption exists.

I agree with the statement that people that are "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" are hipocrites. Likewise with the "pro-choice"/"anti-death penalty" group. Many abortions are done with people who really don't know the meaning of the word "contraceptive" or "abstinance". Abortions in those case should with out a doubt be outlawed because there was a concious decision to be involved in the sexual activity. As for rape/incest victims some sort of adoption system should be set up to care for the child.

As for the death penalty, which sounds more like a fitting punishment? A quick and painless end to it all or spending the rest of your life eating bad food and avoiding that guy "Bubba" who thinks you've got a cute ass?

Laws should not seek to control the lives of people, simply establish a framework for a successful collaboration between individual viewpoints and opinions and actions that lead to a powerful, dynamic and successful society. Otherwise they are simply tools of tyranny and oppression.

I also haven't "lost a foothold" yet, but nice try capitalizing on gains you haven't made.

what are you tlaking about, laws control our lives

the pro-life movment NEVER said people should stop having sex


A couple of posts behind you said that the woman knows there exists a possibility of getting pregnant from sex. . . and that she had the choice of abstaining? Maybe I didn't read correctly?

I agree with the statement that people that are "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" are hipocrites. Likewise with the "pro-choice"/"anti-death penalty" group. Many abortions are done with people who really don't know the meaning of the word "contraceptive" or "abstinance". Abortions in those case should with out a doubt be outlawed because there was a concious decision to be involved in the sexual activity. As for rape/incest victims some sort of adoption system should be set up to care for the child.

As for the death penalty, which sounds more like a fitting punishment? A quick and painless end to it all or spending the rest of your life eating bad food and avoiding that guy "Bubba" who thinks you've got a cute ass?

yeay prison rape

right now, but that will change

especialy with prisoners living longer and longer lives

and the abortion part of that was just ridiculous

What studies are showing prisoners are living longer and longer lives and that this well-known cost difference is changing?

A couple of posts behind you said that the woman knows there exists a possibility of getting pregnant from sex. . . and that she had the choice of abstaining? Maybe I didn't read correctly?

yes, there is ALSWAYS that risk

we didn't say people should stop having sex because of it and to imply that we did is ridiculous

people just need to be prepared for the possible concequences

right now, but that will change

especialy with prisoners living longer and longer lives

No it won't. Not as long as we're granting death row inmates a legitimate appeals process.

3.Pain-relief-Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine.

Heh. So much for the "Not right now, I've got a headache" excuse. ;)

I agree with the statement that people that are "pro-life" and "pro-death penalty" are hipocrites. Likewise with the "pro-choice"/"anti-death penalty" group. Many abortions are done with people who really don't know the meaning of the word "contraceptive" or "abstinance". Abortions in those case should with out a doubt be outlawed because there was a concious decision to be involved in the sexual activity. As for rape/incest victims some sort of adoption system should be set up to care for the child.

As for the death penalty, which sounds more like a fitting punishment? A quick and painless end to it all or spending the rest of your life eating bad food and avoiding that guy "Bubba" who thinks you've got a cute ass?

I think nobody is getting the point here.

Pro-life arent really so. They should call themselves "Pro-chastity." If they were pro-life they would not excuse abortion in the case of right -- that "child" is still innocent, right?

They allow abortion because the woman didn't consent to the sexual act.

They deny abortion to the women who consents the sexual act.

In other words, they punish the woman for making the choice of having sex.

What studies are showing prisoners are living longer and longer lives and that this well-known cost difference is changing?

as the populations longevity expands why don't you think the prison popluations won't aswell

especially with the better food, medical care, and in many states no more prison labor

what are you tlaking about, laws control our lives

Yes, that's why people kill each other, take and sell drugs, steal cars and money and never break the speed limit. Because laws "control" our lives.

Laws do not "control" anything. They only provide the framework and serve as a basic agreement of the minimum responsibilities for living in a given society and benefiting from that society. If they seek to do more than that, then you no longer have a free society, but an oppressed and tyrannical one.

they allow abortion because the woman didn't consent to the sexual act.

we do?

since when?

Yes, that's why people kill each other, take and sell drugs, steal cars and money and never break the speed limit. Because laws "control" our lives.

Laws do not "control" anything. They only provide the framework and serve as a basic agreement of the minimum responsibilities for living in a given society and benefiting from that society. If they seek to do more than that, then you no longer have a free society, but an oppressed and tyrannical one.

and that "framework" is often upheld by large men with guns

yes, there is ALSWAYS that risk

we didn't say people should stop having sex because of it and to imply that we did is ridiculous


Do you want me to show you were you stated that? (Unless you went back and edited it of course)

people just need to be prepared for the possible concequences
And some women deal with it by choosing abortion. Again, you're missing the point.

I'm not advocating chastity here. Just using a little common sense with sex and use some kind of contraceptive. i.e. "the pill" or a condom.

as the populations longevity expands why don't you think the prison popluations won't aswell

especially with the better food, medical care, and in many states no more prison labor

No, not necessarily. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that for every two years spent in jail, the prisoner's life expectency is shortened by one year.

we do?

since when?

For the last time,

if you really are PRO - LIFE, you would not support abortion for raped women because that "child" is still a Person, according to you, and still INNOCENT.

What's the difference between the raped woman and the the rest? That the rest MADE THE CHOICE of having sex, understand?

and that "framework" is often upheld by large men with guns

Which are not laws. By your reasoning, so long as Al-Qaeda had the largest men with the biggest guns then we as United States citizens would have to do whatever they decided to make a "law."

You're talking about two different issues. Laws and enforcement. Laws are exactly what they are and enforcement is a whole different kettle of snakes.

Do you want me to show you were you stated that? (Unless you went back and edited it of course)

And some women deal with it by choosing abortion. Again, you're missing the point.

pleae show me where I said every human being should stop haveing sex

and some people deal with immegration by choosing genocide, again you are missing the point

No, not necessarily. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that for every two years spent in jail, the prisoner's life expectency is shortened by one year.

interesting

I've never heard that before

anything to substanciate it?

I'm not advocating chastity here. Just using a little common sense with sex and use some kind of contraceptive. i.e. "the pill" or a condom.

The notion of women using abortion as a birthcontrol method is a myth. In fact, most women who abort were in some kind of birthcontrol method, but the latter failed. (i.e. condoms and the pill are not 100% effective.)

My friend's girlfriend had an abortion done, and it is a traumatic experience. Trust me, women are not carelessly having sex and then say "who cares! I can always get an abortion!"

For the last time,

if you really are PRO - LIFE, you would not support abortion for raped women because that "child" is still a Person, according to you, and still INNOCENT.

What's the difference between the raped woman and the the rest? That the rest MADE THE CHOICE of having sex, understand?

What would you say to those of us who don't support abortion in cases of rape and incest?

For the last time,

if you really are PRO - LIFE, you would not support abortion for raped women because that "child" is still a Person, according to you, and still INNOCENT.



I am really pro-life

and I don't belive that anyone should be aborted (with the exception of medical nessecity) that means even people who are the products of rape

I never said women who were raped should have an abortion, nor has the national pro-life movment ever said that

Which are not laws. By your reasoning, so long as Al-Qaeda had the largest men with the biggest guns then we as United States citizens would have to do whatever they decided to make a "law."

You're talking about two different issues. Laws and enforcement. Laws are exactly what they are and enforcement is a whole different kettle of snakes.

thats not what I said at all

not by a long shot

you said that laws are just a "framework" for how we should act

and I'm saying that they are how we act because if we don't follow them we tend to end up in jail

By your argument then, only women should argue this topic. No, let's take this one step further, only women who've had an abortion and then a birth shall argue this.No--my argument is that since there are legitimate differences of opinion, then we should allow individuals to make decisions that affect them and not allow those decisions to be made by outsiders.

"Don't give me the life at conception" and "rights of the unborn gargabe" Right, don't give me the rights to ones own body garbage. Should a siamese twin be allowed to murder their twin?After reading this post, I have to wonder if you're smart enough to breathe without someone reminding you to do it. Conjoined twins are two individuals that happen to be attached to each other--two individuals, each with self-awareness and individual rights. Were one half of the conjoined pair to deliberately kill the other--assuming the first survived the ordeal--he or she could be charged with murder.

You want to know the physical and psychological damage done by abortion... it is neither safe nor benificial in most... note "MOST" situations. Mean a vast majority of them. And with nearly always a safer alternative.I know the physical and psychological damage--and so do the women who undergo the procedure. If they're willing to undergo it, then why the hell should I stand in their way? I don't tell people they shouldn't drink alcohol or smoke pot. I don't tell people that they shouldn't eat McDonald's every day. It's not my place, just like it's not my place to tell a woman that she can't terminate her pregnancy.

The notion of women using abortion as a birthcontrol method is a myth. In fact, most women who abort were in some kind of birthcontrol method, but the latter failed. (i.e. condoms and the pill are not 100% effective.)

My friend's girlfriend had an abortion done, and it is a traumatic experience. Trust me, women are not carelessly having sex and then say "who cares! I can always get an abortion!"

I know girls who have said that

Both parties are stuck in their ways though I believe Democrats are also pro-death penalty to some degree.
They do not fight against it. The democrats were also pro-war before it went south in Iraq.
How much difference is there between the Republicans and the Democrats these days anyway? I suppose at least the Democrats are free of religious authoritarians in their ranks.

I know the physical and psychological damage--and so do the women who undergo the procedure. If they're willing to undergo it, then why the hell should I stand in their way? I don't tell people they shouldn't drink alcohol or smoke pot. I don't tell people that they shouldn't eat McDonald's every day. It's not my place, just like it's not my place to tell a woman that she can't terminate her pregnancy.

if people are willing to undergo the phycological damage of commiting genocide why should we stand it their way?

I am really pro-life

and I don't belive that anyone should be aborted (with the exception of medical nessecity) that means even people who are the products of rape

I never said women who were raped should have an abortion, nor has the national pro-life movment ever said that
That's great to know, at least you are consequent. Most pro-lifers aren't. Stop taking things personally.

How much difference is there between the Republicans and the Democrats these days anyway? I suppose at least the Democrats are free of religious authoritarians in their ranks.

not when you count the militant athiests and ACLU members as their versions of religious authoritarians

That's great to know, at least you are consequent. Most pro-lifers aren't. Stop taking things personally.

si, si

but understand, that position is also the one of the national movment

pleae show me where I said every human being should stop haveing sex

It's Pro-lifers, and I've talked about women all the time, not "every human being"
Post#103

Drum:
Because whether or not she specifically intended to become pregnant, she knew it was a possibility. If she didn't want to take the risk, she was free to choose to abstain.


and some people deal with immegration by choosing genocide, again you are missing the point

Uh? I thought you had agreed with me before on the issue not being "people having to deal with the consequences a certain," for that would have been imposing your values. We both agreed on the point being whether, FOR THE THIRD TIME, the fertilized egg is something to be guarded.

Where did I exactly lose you?

Ok Schrandtopia firstly the graves Saddam filled were indeed larger than 11,000 but these tended to happen all at once rather than steadily over the years. Saddam rarely killed 11,000 within two years. Also that amount of civilian death is horrific and unnecceccary, they did not need to die for Saddam to be removed. I have respect for the armed forces, I know they defend my country and are incredibly brave but I would rather 11,000 of them had died than civilians. They signed up for the army knowing they may die but the civilians never did such a thing.

As for abortion I am against it after a period when the foetus could survive outside of the womb and for it prior to that time.

Uh? I thought you had agreed with me before on the issue not being "people having to deal with the consequences a certain," for that would have been imposing your values. We both agreed on the point being whether, FOR THE THIRD TIME, the fertilized egg is something to be guarded.

Where did I exactly lose you?

when you stepped outside those lines by saying some people just use abortion as a solution to pregnancy

si, si

but understand, that position is also the one of the national movment

Schrandtopia,

When you debate Christianity in forums, you don't debate the Jesuits, you debate the Southern Bible Thumpers. We are debating the common position. Understand?

not when you count the militant athiests and ACLU members as their versions of religious authoritarians


Firstly: militant atheists? WTF?! I am pro-secualar schools but I have never strapped a C4 charge any ten comandments on the walls. As for the ACLU, they are concerned with American rights just like the NRA.

Ok Schrandtopia firstly the graves Saddam filled were indeed larger than 11,000 but these tended to happen all at once rather than steadily over the years. Saddam rarely killed 11,000 within two years. Also that amount of civilian death is horrific and unnecceccary, they did not need to die for Saddam to be removed. I have respect for the armed forces, I know they defend my country and are incredibly brave but I would rather 11,000 of them had died than civilians. They signed up for the army knowing they may die but the civilians never did such a thing.

As for abortion I am against it after a period when the foetus could survive outside of the womb and for it prior to that time.

#1 - the 11,000 figure counts those that died fighting, if you count those for saddam his total is in the millions if not tens of millions

#2 - why then

Schrandtopia,

When you debate Christianity in forums, you don't debate the Jesuits, you debate the Southern Bible Thumpers. We are debating the common position. Understand?

yeah, but there is actually a national orginization on this one

The first Gulf war was not defensive. Kuwait was always part of Iraq. Two British morons decided to draw it out of Iraqi territory and claimed they had the right to do so. They ignored the political and ethnic makeup of the region. The first Gulf War denied Iraqi's of territory that was recognized as theirs by everyone in the region.

It was also a exercise in futility given it killed numerous Iraqis. And failed to topple the tyrant who was killing his own people. The diff. between the two gulf wars is the reason of going. In the second one we went to take the chains off the Iraqi people. In the first one we went to save our oil interests in Kuwait.
I am aware that Iraq has a historical claim to Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not right because it violated Kuwait's sovereignty when they had posed no threat to Iraq.

You are right that in 1991 the US went to save its oil interests. in 2003/2004 the US again went to save its oil interests.

Firstly: militant atheists? WTF?! I am pro-secualar schools but I have never strapped a C4 charge any ten comandments on the walls. As for the ACLU, they are concerned with American rights just like the NRA.

sssuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeee they are

Anti Christian Liberals Union

almost all of their cases these days are against christianity

like taking a cross off the LA city seal, but leaving the pagan goddess saying that the goddess was historical but in a city founded by Catholic missionaries the cross somehow isnt

thats just as bad (and more effective) than anything the right has

I am aware that Iraq has a historical claim to Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was not right because it violated Kuwait's sovereignty when they had posed no threat to Iraq.

You are right that in 1991 the US went to save its oil interests. in 2003/2004 the US again went to save its oil interests.

WHAT OIL INTERESTS?????????????????

"#1 - the 11,000 figure counts those that died fighting,"

No it does not. I get the stats from groups counting civilian Iraq deaths. You think they are unreliable? Well go ask Donald Rumsfeld how many died then...Oh, whoops forgot, here are his words on the issue: "It is not really a matter that concerns me." He did not bother to count the corpses so the groups I state (which are by the way, not concerned with making up stats and use multiple media sources, actual footage or reliable personal acounts from troops) are my sources.

" if you count those for saddam his total is in the millions if not tens of millions"

WRONG! They number at most in the low hundred thousands.
Saddam was not Hitler.

"#2 - why then"

What?

not when you count the militant athiests and ACLU members as their versions of religious authoritarians
Could you name some of these militant atheists? I've never heard of them. The ACLU stands up for the civil rights that Bush is trying to deny; what's wrong with that?

sssuuuuuuuurrrrrrreeeeee they are

Anti Christian Liberals Union

almost all of their cases these days are against christianity

like taking a cross off the LA city seal, but leaving the pagan goddess saying that the goddess was historical but in a city founded by Catholic missionaries the cross somehow isnt

thats just as bad (and more effective) than anything the right has

Almost all there cases are against Christians? Nope, in support of people having their rights taken away by Christians. Besides, the LA seal? Does that really matter?

WHAT OIL INTERESTS?????????????????

If you not aware how much oil Iraq has you are in no position to discuss this issue. Also Kuwait was run by a family based dictatorship. Does this mean Iraq's invasion was right? Well that is not my point but it is worth knowing.

"#1 - the 11,000 figure counts those that died fighting,"

No it does not. I get the stats from groups counting civilian Iraq deaths. You think they are unreliable? Well go ask Donald Rumsfeld how many died then...Oh, whoops forgot, here are his words on the issue: "It is not really a matter that concerns me." He did not bother to count the corpses so the groups I state (which are by the way, not concerned with making up stats and use multiple media sources, actual footage or reliable personal acounts from troops) are my sources.

you mean to tell me the American forces killed 11,000 civilians, knowing they were civilians, for no other reason than to kill them

" if you count those for saddam his total is in the millions if not tens of millions"

WRONG! They number at most in the low hundred thousands.
Saddam was not Hitler.

if you count the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War version 1.0 then...right!

"#2 - why then"

What?

why do you belive a child can moraly be killed before it could survive on its own (which is a very loose definition) but can not be moraly killed after that point?

Could you name some of these militant atheists? I've never heard of them.

They must be REALLY sneaky! They might be behind you RIGHT NOW!!!!! RUUNNN!!!!! THEY'RE GOING TO DESECRATE YOUR HOLY ICONS AND GIVE YOUR CHILDREN POT!!!

The ACLU stands up for the civil rights that Bush is trying to deny; what's wrong with that?

Because conservatives like him and peacew movements set up by pensioners are trying to kill us all!

yeah, but there is actually a national orginization on this one
You don't understand. :)

I'm pro-choice, and anti-death penalty. I don't see what's wrong with destroying a mass of cells, but when you kill someone, you are inessence as bad as the killer. The fetus (which is not even alive yet) doesn't know that it is alive, and doesn't really care just yet.

The killer does. And I think it makes more sense to let them live a miserable life in prison as payment for what they did, than to simply let them off easy with the death penalty.
Actually, all life forms are just masses of cells (except those beings that have only one cell). I think that feotuses are sentient (well, not in the earliest stages). Haven't you ever known someone who remembers being in their mother's womb?

Could you name some of these militant atheists? I've never heard of them. The ACLU stands up for the civil rights that Bush is trying to deny; what's wrong with that?

on paper they do

in the mean time the do things like the LA seal incenednt I spoke of

and try to get the ten commandments taken out of courtrooms

and change the A.D. in school history books to A.C.E.

You said that you consider them human because they "look pretty human."

You can't come up with that in a rational argument, since that's an appeal to emotion.

You wouldn't respect a robot who "looks pretty human" as a human, would you?

You must have a rational argument to back up your stance if you plan to impose it on people, if not, you must keep it in the closet of your personal faith.

That's the bottom line.

If you not aware how much oil Iraq has you are in no position to discuss this issue. Also Kuwait was run by a family based dictatorship. Does this mean Iraq's invasion was right? Well that is not my point but it is worth knowing.

if we wanted their oil we would have only had to three majical words at the security council: Lift The Embargo

besides, if we wanted oil we'd be in Alaska right now

I believe that a large number of those 'pro-lifers' are encumbered by the same agenda that prevents them exercising autonomy for much of their lives - i.e 'the book says... and so say I'. While I can't arguie aginst those whose true motivations are ethically driven I am rather sceptical of the moral fighters because morality is and always has been by its nature relative. You can't argue morality across cultures and societies because each society has its own law on morality and ethics. And, as we westerners are so apt at doing, and America is so incessant at demonstrating - morality is the cloak we use to pass off our evil acts as just.

Leave the choice to the parents who the only cpmassonate party and take influence away from the church/mosque etc etc

Pro - choice because the choice does not exist for others to make!

You don't understand. :)

no, I do

there maybe a few hipocrites out there but by and large the pro-life movments are led by the national orginization(s) that do not belive abortion is justified in cases of rape

You said that you consider them human because they "look pretty human."

You can't come up with that in a rational argument, since that's an appeal to emotion.

You wouldn't respect a robot who "looks pretty human" as a human, would you?

You must have a rational argument to back up your stance if you plan to impose it on people, if not, you must keep it in the closet of your personal faith.

That's the bottom line.

they're geneticaly human

if people are willing to undergo the phycological damage of commiting genocide why should we stand it their way?If you're too much of a moron to understand the idiocy of that statement, then you won't understand my explanation of why it's idioitc either. Nonetheless, for the benefit of others, here we go.

In the case of unrestricted abortion as it is practiced in the US, the fetus is unable to survive outside the womb. First trimester abortion we're talking about here. Therefore, by any reasonable definition, the fetus is a part of the woman's body--anything that is done to it is done under the purview of a woman being willing to undergo the physical and psychological damage to herself that an abortion will cause.

Committing genocide is the killing off of fully-formed humans. Therefore, that action involves the violation of other persons' rights to be secure in their own bodies. There is no right to violate another's person. Whether or not the person committing genocide can handle the psychological damage is irrelevant.

Pro - choice because the choice does not exist for others to make!

in that case can we just consider the death penalty a choice that does not exist for you to make and therefore must be respected

you mean to tell me the American forces killed 11,000 civilians, knowing they were civilians, for no other reason than to kill them

No as that would be wrong. I mean to say they did not take nearly enough care to make sure that so many civilians died. Bombing in residential areas accounted for a huge amount of those deaths when a ground troup based assult would have done the job (albeit with more casualties).


if you count the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War version 1.0 then...right!?[/QUOTE]

Err...No.


why do you belive a child can moraly be killed before it could survive on its own (which is a very loose definition) but can not be moraly killed after that point?[/QUOTE]

The child can survive after around 20 weeks. The foetus can not.

I walk the fence on abortion rights
anything after three months should be illeagle given after that the featus is no longer JUST part of the mother and is actually a seperating life form (before that it's still a mass of tissues the body can easily reject)
And I think really people should be more educated on birth control in the first place so they don't have to make a bad choice like abortion

I'm for the death penality as it's cruel to keep people in jail for life.. not meerly for them but for the tax payer

War is bad but nessisary for population control (we're already growing out of proportion! 6+ billion people?!?!)

crime.. war.. poverty.. and abortion would all be out the door if we just had better ways of controlling population :)
once we get into outerspace this will all be good

so those two doctors are God?

Nice rhetoric to ignore the rest of my argument.

Is there an ignorefuction on these boards?

(or a spellchecker?)

Stinky liberals flock to turdish behaviors. That's all I need to say.

They create some victimizing claim "Oh it is oppressive for us not to have the choice to kill our own baby." That is just a pathedic way of looking at it. We're all lucky that we had a chance to grow up and become what we are today.

Pro-choice, anti-responsibility activists, you had the chance to grow up and become a darling of the Left. Here's news for you; human beings are not mistakes that can be deleted from history. Not because of some irresponsible teen's action to have sex.

Of course, now, there are exceptions to that rule. I am not a radical leftist OR a radical right-winger... both of those sicken me. It would be insulting to FORCE a woman to have a baby if she was raped. It would be inhumane to FORCE a woman to have a baby, even if it was threatening her life.

On the same ticket, it is inhumane to terminate a baby simply because the woman did not take necessary precautions. It's her fault the baby has to die before it can grow up. You know what, you only get one chance at life... and personally, I am greatful that I got mine. I wasnt deleted from some 16 year old girl's womb because I was mistake.

I find it hilarious and ironic that future pro-choice / anti-reponsibility / help-me-I-am-being-oppressed-by-the-government advocates are being aborted everyday. They didnt even have the chance to go on their radical campaign... they were cut down before they were even born.

If you're too much of a moron to understand the idiocy of that statement, then you won't understand my explanation of why it's idioitc either. Nonetheless, for the benefit of others, here we go.


you said that this was a serious choice, and that it was a part of the woman, and if she was willing to kill it who are we to stand it her way

genocide is a serious choice, and an ethnic minority is part of the other country, and if that other country is willing to kill it who are we to stand in their way

Err...No.
QUOTE]

I hate to tell you but the Iraq-Iraq war was and unprovoked one cause by saddam in which millions if not tens of millions of people died

[QUOTE=TheMightyMongDynasty]The child can survive after around 20 weeks. The foetus can not.

but that child cannot survive on its own, no child can, probobly not until they are atleast 4

on paper they do

in the mean time the do things like the LA seal incenednt I spoke of

and try to get the ten commandments taken out of courtrooms

and change the A.D. in school history books to A.C.E.


1) L.A. Seal. Non issue. Who gives a fuck?

2) Ten commandments out of courtroom: good idea, destroys atmosphere of Christianity in courtrooms.

3)A.D. to A.C.E.: this actualy seems like a good idea.


"if we wanted their oil we would have only had to three majical words at the security council: Lift The Embargo"

Ah the Embargo...How I wish they had uttered those words and the 1/2 a million Iraqis (mostly children) did not die. However they were paranoid about Saddam seeking WMDs and building palaces and so would never have done this.

"besides, if we wanted oil we'd be in Alaska right now "

Error. WE want oil, BUSH is the one with the plan to get us oil. Drilling in Alaska would add mobilisation to the enviromentalist vote and give Kerry a barrel full of ammo. Bush thought a successful war would be a vote winner wheras drilling would not be. Also Alaska has FAR less oil than Iraq.

they're geneticaly human

So is a tumour. So is a criminal.

you said that this was a serious choice, and that it was a part of the woman, and if she was willing to kill it who are we to stand it her way

genocide is a serious choice, and an ethnic minority is part of the other country, and if that other country is willing to kill it who are we to stand in their wayBecause no matter how you try to argue that they are the same, abortion is not equal to genocide. Abortion is a personal choice by one person about her own body. Genocide is the wholesale killing of an ethnic group. The two are not even remotely the same.

I walk the fence on abortion rights
anything after three months should be illeagle given after that the featus is no longer JUST part of the mother and is actually a seperating life form

what happens at exactly three months, why at exactly three months is a fetus no longer part of the mothers body?

(before that it's still a mass of tissues the body can easily reject)

no, no it cant

War is bad but nessisary for population control (we're already growing out of proportion! 6+ billion people?!?!)


and we could easily house another 12 billion, probobly even another 36 million with GM crops

So is a tumour. So is a criminal.
Therefore, human genetic content will not suffice as an argument.

but that child cannot survive on its own, no child can, probobly not until they are atleast 4

Did I say on their own? Well if I did I meant to say they could survive OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. With respirators and all that, if they could survive then no, no abortion. If not then fine.

"I hate to tell you but the Iraq-Iraq war was and unprovoked one cause by saddam in which millions if not tens of millions of people died"

Well Iran is a dictatorship! We invaded Saddam and later justified it saying that he was a dictator who oppressed rival parties and invaded him without provocation and yet he can not do the same? Also millions of people did not die.

Oh and please for the sake of all that is holy and unholy: USE SOME FUCKING PUNCTUATION! PLEASE! Making a proper sentance is not that hard or time consuming. At the start of a sentance use a capital letter by pressing the shift button. At the end use a full stop (or period to Americans like yourself) or substitute such as an explanation mark or question mark.

Bush going to war for oil is possibly the most over-clichéd thing I've heard come from leftists and supporters of John "I'm not Bush" Kerry.

If he went for oil, he could have easily obtained oil. Gas prices still wouldnt be at rediculous prices (and no, because they're slowly declining now DOESNT mean that we're stealing poor Iraq's oil), and we still wouldnt have to shell out a fortune to fill our tanks.

Actually, Bush even said the fields belong to the Iraqi people. And as far as we can see, they DO belong to the Iraqi people.

But you can stick to your "George Bush is a puppet for the oil companies" philosophies if you want.

1) L.A. Seal. Non issue. Who gives a fuck?

2) Ten commandments out of courtroom: good idea, destroys atmosphere of Christianity in courtrooms.

3)A.D. to A.C.E.: this actualy seems like a good idea.

1. - I do

2. - yeah, what has chrisitanity ever done for us

3. - sure, just pretent Jesus never lived, pretent he didn't shape the modern world, that'll make him go away

"if we wanted their oil we would have only had to three majical words at the security council: Lift The Embargo"

Ah the Embargo...How I wish they had uttered those words and the 1/2 a million Iraqis (mostly children) did not die. However they were paranoid about Saddam seeking WMDs and building palaces and so would never have done this.

gosh, I could have sword there was some sort of a program to make sure the embargo didn't effect the Iraqi people only their ability to make wepons, some like food for oil or something. but I know saddam didn't embessily the money because his word is as good as gold, and the UN wasn't on the cut because they're infoulable. therefore it must be America's fault

"besides, if we wanted oil we'd be in Alaska right now "

Error. WE want oil, BUSH is the one with the plan to get us oil. Drilling in Alaska would add mobilisation to the enviromentalist vote and give Kerry a barrel full of ammo. Bush thought a successful war would be a vote winner wheras drilling would not be. Also Alaska has FAR less oil than Iraq.

and for every green vote kerry would get bush would have gotten get five when the ecconomy shot up

So is a tumour. So is a criminal.

a tumor is genetialy a human?

go back to bio class

Bush going to war for oil is possibly the most over-clichéd thing I've heard come from leftists and supporters of John "I'm not Bush" Kerry.

If he went for oil, he could have easily obtained oil. Gas prices still wouldnt be at rediculous prices (and no, because they're slowly declining now DOESNT mean that we're stealing poor Iraq's oil), and we still wouldnt have to shell out a fortune to fill our tanks.

Actually, Bush even said the fields belong to the Iraqi people. And as far as we can see, they DO belong to the Iraqi people.

But you can stick to your "George Bush is a puppet for the oil companies" philosophies if you want.


On the leftie John "I'm not Bush" Kerry thing visit this page: www.kerryisadouchebagbutimstillgoingtovoteforhim.com

Also what Bush "said" is not quite what Bush means.

Because no matter how you try to argue that they are the same, abortion is not equal to genocide. Abortion is a personal choice by one person about her own body. Genocide is the wholesale killing of an ethnic group. The two are not even remotely the same.

take kristalnocht in german, that was genocide, but it came down to individual choices

and I'll remind you 42 million Americans have been killed

I'd call that genocide

So is a tumour. So is a criminal.

You think you can delete a baby in its womb in the same innocent way you can get rid of a tumor?

Oh man, that's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Funny, too!

Hey, how many innocent women and children did this unborn child rape, kill, maim, destroy, and chop into several pieces before dumping them into the Anacostia river?

Yeah... I am PRO-CHOICE too, until it comes to killing criminals with a kill count that would make Stalin shake in his boots. They deserve to live, by golly!!! However, undeveloped babies are fine... they dont mean crap. Heck, they'd probably just grow up to be serial killers, anyway... (or the scientist who invents the cure for cancer, or the President of the US who pulls his country out of a giant recession; you know, nothing important).

a tumor is genetialy a human?

go back to bio class

We're talking about genetic content, don't be a flaming bitch on me just because this other guy is showing your historical and political ignorance.

take kristalnocht in german, that was genocide, but it came down to individual choices

and I'll remind you 42 million Americans have been killed

I'd call that genocideThen you're a moron and there's nothing anyone can do to help you. Have a good life in your absolutist, pathetic little world.

1) L.A. Seal. Non issue. Who gives a fuck?

The ACLU, apparently.

Did I say on their own? Well if I did I meant to say they could survive OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. With respirators and all that, if they could survive then no, no abortion. If not then fine.

I've seen kids at 23 weeks survive on resperators

and there are plenty of adults that couldn't survive on their own

Well Iran is a dictatorship! We invaded Saddam and later justified it saying that he was a dictator who oppressed rival parties and invaded him without provocation and yet he can not do the same? Also millions of people did not die.

we get to justify that because we're not a dictatorship and will bring democracy to iraq, saddam doesn't get to use that argument because he wouldn't have been any better

and my reasearch shows casualties well over the 1,000,000 mark, what do you baise you theories one

Also what Bush "said" is not quite what Bush means.

Yeah, Bush has NO idea what he's talking about... he doesnt even have as good of a vision for this country as John Kerry... now that's a great man. If you can catch him in one of his sincere moments (when he actually feels strongly about a decision and isnt flip flopping like a flapjack), you can really understand his great vision for America. With programs that could only work if he cut out unimportant doodads like Social Security or education... (who needs them, anyway?)

Oh, yeah... a dude who voted for the war in Iraq but voted against funding it is certainly the "man with the plan."

You think you can delete a baby in its womb in the same innocent way you can get rid of a tumor?

Oh man, that's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Funny, too!

Hey, how many innocent women and children did this unborn child rape, kill, maim, destroy, and chop into several pieces before dumping them into the Anacostia river?

Yeah... I am PRO-CHOICE too, until it comes to killing criminals with a kill count that would make Stalin shake in his boots. They deserve to live, by golly!!! However, undeveloped babies are fine... they dont mean crap. Heck, they'd probably just grow up to be serial killers, anyway... (or the scientist who invents the cure for cancer, or the President of the US who pulls his country out of a giant recession; you know, nothing important).


That's just fantastic, but will you be yet one more of the pro-lifers who will only blast with their sel-righteouss pompous garbage while offering no valid argument for their stance whatsoever?

I think the latter is the case.

Oh and please for the sake of all that is holy and unholy: USE SOME FUCKING PUNCTUATION! PLEASE! Making a proper sentance is not that hard or time consuming. At the start of a sentance use a capital letter by pressing the shift button. At the end use a full stop (or period to Americans like yourself) or substitute such as an explanation mark or question mark.

is that all you have?

you can't assult my logic so you have to go for grammar?

We're talking about genetic content, don't be a flaming bitch on me just because this other guy is showing your historical and political ignorance.

genetic content

not INDIVIDUAL HUMAN genetic content

That's just fantastic, but will you be yet one more of the pro-lifers who will only blast with their sel-righteouss pompous garbage while offering no valid argument for their stance whatsoever?

I think the latter is the case.

Uhh... if ANYONE is having problems making valid arguments, it's the "Pro-choicers." Hahaha...

You make me laugh... they should put you on SNL... or drop the politics and become a stand up comedian.

"Hey everyone did you hear about the Pro-life advocates that didnt have any valid arguments?"

*laughter bursts out*

"Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week."

Then you're a moron and there's nothing anyone can do to help you. Have a good life in your absolutist, pathetic little world.

belive me, its wonderful







knowing I'm right

That's just fantastic, but will you be yet one more of the pro-lifers who will only blast with their sel-righteouss pompous garbage while offering no valid argument for their stance whatsoever?

I think the latter is the case.

he wasn't justifying his stance

only assulting yours

I'm pro-choice because, even if the fetus is alive, it is still inside of the mother and completely dependent. The only difference between the fetus and a baby is this: the baby feeds of the mother. In that sense, it can be viewed as a parasitic life form. Don't get me wrong, I like babies, but thats what they can be viewed as. If then, they are parasitic, there should be no problem in gaining an abortion. I am just pro-choice because I think it is the woman's right to choose.

On the flip side, I am anti-death penalty. Mostly because our justice system is imperfect. Because of this, I think that all criminals judged guilty of a crime from rape on up. (rape, murder, other violent crimes) should serve a mandatory life sentance, no chance of paroll. This gives two results: 1. a life sentance in a 6 x 6 is worse than dying (to me). 2. If the person is found to be wrongly accused, they can be acquited. If they are dead, its hard to do.

I also disaprove of aggressive war.

genetic content

not INDIVIDUAL HUMAN genetic content
Are you again slipping modifiers in? That's a no-no as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. ;)

what happens at exactly three months, why at exactly three months is a fetus no longer part of the mothers body?



no, no it cant



and we could easily house another 12 billion, probobly even another 36 million with GM crops

my god.. you think humans have a right to kill off all other life on this world for themselves??! that's true selfishness. we are killing things off rapidly because we are way over populated.. this planet can only support 2 billion humans and their tech without the sacrifices it is making... to say we can have more is to cast other creatures who have as much right to life as we do into the fire pit. that is very very wrong.. immorall... *shakes her head*

he wasn't justifying his stance

only assulting yours

Uh. . .Which was exactly my point?

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

[QUOTE=BLARGistania]I'm pro-choice because, even if the fetus is alive, it is still inside of the mother and completely dependent. The only difference between the fetus and a baby is this: the baby feeds of the mother. In that sense, it can be viewed as a parasitic life form. Don't get me wrong, I like babies, but thats what they can be viewed as. If then, they are parasitic, there should be no problem in gaining an abortion. I am just pro-choice because I think it is the woman's right to choose.
QUOTE]

what about adults that live on resporators

they're technicaly parasites

can I kill them?

Are you again slipping modifiers in? That's a no-no as far as intellectual honesty is concerned. ;)

I said individual human genetic content to begin with

My cousin had a car accident and he ended up in a respirator. My uncle and aunt decided to disconnect him.

Your point is. . .

my god.. you think humans have a right to kill off all other life on this world for themselves??! that's true selfishness. we are killing things off rapidly because we are way over populated.. this planet can only support 2 billion humans and their tech without the sacrifices it is making... to say we can have more is to cast other creatures who have as much right to life as we do into the fire pit. that is very very wrong.. immorall... *shakes her head*

but killing babies is moral

because that way we'll cut down our population and save......dungbettles?

I'm pro-choice because, even if the fetus is alive, it is still inside of the mother and completely dependent. The only difference between the fetus and a baby is this: the baby feeds of the mother. In that sense, it can be viewed as a parasitic life form. Don't get me wrong, I like babies, but thats what they can be viewed as. If then, they are parasitic, there should be no problem in gaining an abortion. I am just pro-choice because I think it is the woman's right to choose.

I commend you that you can make a rational argument without throwing profanities into the air... but allow me to interject.

You see... to justify abortion, you need to twist the views around so much that you are viewing the baby as a parasite.

I think that shows how hard it is to really justify abortion without bringing in sappy excuses like "Well it's the woman's choice and they're being pushed down in society." or something.

Still I commend and respect you that you can create an argument without sappy excuses or throwing in leftist clichés.

My cousin had a car accident and he ended up in a respirator. My uncle and aunt decided to disconnect him.

Your point is. . .

your cousin was already dead

there are plenty of liveing people that depend on resporators

My cousin had a car accident and he ended up in a respirator. My uncle and aunt decided to disconnect him.

Your point is. . .

Saddly I agree. if you're brain dead and can't function to keep the resperator on (as in you can't move at all) you should be let die because that means it's your time anyway (if you belive you're meant to be born and that's why you hate abortion then you shouldn't try to artifically extend your life either.)

keeping them alive is cruel because it teather's the soul in my opinion.. they can't go on to another life or the afterlife.. or where ever... they get stuck in their bodies... locked in there... kinda a private hell if there is no hope to get better

but killing babies is moral

because that way we'll cut down our population and save......dungbettles?

The product of a woman's early stage pregnancy looks much like a frog in its early developmental stages.

I wouldn't quite call them babies.

Uh. . .Which was exactly my point?

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

he has every right to do that