NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

thats why we would go to genetic content

but killing babies is moral

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

they're not babies if they are just tissue still
a baby has form
once they have form of a baby then they are a baby
if they are form of cells.. they are nothing.. no soul has found them yet

and who said anything about dungbettles? they'll survive the human apocopylse with ease... I'm talking everything from birds to whales to the forest creatures were slaughter all the time for what? farm land that is wasted?!

and our own standered of living is poor because of our population already
if the population was lower then the oil wouldn't be running out.. everyone would get the propper attention they need for education.. and poverty would be a thing of the past

they're not babies if they are just tissue still


YOUR JUST TISSUE

I'm not pro-life and I'm not pro-abortion.

I love that way of explaining pro-choice. I personally hate the idea of and would not choose an abortion, but I don't think that should mean other people can't choose a different way.

I love that way of explaining pro-choice. I personally hate the idea of and would not choose an abortion, but I don't think that should mean other people can't choose a different way.

in that case, I'm not pro-death penalty

I'm just pro-choice

thats why we would go to genetic content

So, do we start advocating and advancing rights for all species based on genetic content with the human genome being at the top?

thats why we would go to genetic content
that's why I brought up tumours and criminal. You just keep going in circles.

So, do we start advocating and advancing rights for all species based on genetic content with the human genome being at the top?

I don't care where the bottom is

but I know where the top should be

that's why I brought up tumours and criminal. You just keep going in circles.

and that would be a very good argument

if they had individual human genetic content

I don't care where the bottom is

but I know where the top should be

So, different people with different genetic content should have different rights, right? Or are we basing this eugenic paradise on chromosome pairing or number?

and that would be a very good argument

if they had individual human genetic content

Would be? Oh, okay. . . How about telling me what IS your argument though?

So, different people with different genetic content should have different rights, right? Or are we basing this eugenic paradise on chromosome pairing or number?

no, not at all

we're just observing logic saying that a being with individual human DNA concived of two other human beings is in fact, a human being

Would be? Oh, okay. . . How about telling me what IS your argument though?

that anyone with individual human DNA content concived of two other human beings is a human being and entitled to all the rights and protections deserved there in

and try to get the ten commandments taken out of courtrooms
What's wrong with that? The way you talk about the ACLU one would think they were going around in police vans taking people's Bibles from their homes and burning them.

What's wrong with that? The way you talk about the ACLU one would think they were going around in police vans taking people's Bibles from their homes and burning them.

its a cultural symbol

it has nothing to do with how the law is practiced and you know that

that anyone with individual human DNA content concived of two other human beings is a human being and entitled to all the rights and protections deserved there in
Being life?

YOUR JUST TISSUE

Dude, you really don't understand do you?
you just want everyone up in arms over you
clearly you can't defend your point of view
so you resort to yelling and a form of name calling
are you a child?

Being life?

yes

Dude, you really don't understand do you?
you just want everyone up in arms over you
clearly you can't defend your point of view
so you resort to yelling and a form of name calling
are you a child?

the argument that a fetus is "just cells" or "just tissue" such as the one you used is compleetly ridiculous seeing as how you yourself as just cells and tissue

yes

But criminals sentenced to death row are also humans, what's the difference?

But criminals sentenced to death row are also humans, what's the difference?

they don't pose a threat to human life

they don't pose a threat to human life
So you are saying that life is a right that may be lost?

So you are saying that life is a right that may be lost?

yes indeedy, if you pose a threat to other human life

So if life is a right that may be lost, consequentially is a right that might be gained?

they don't pose a threat to human life

Ok here is an issue no one has brought up yet: what if they DO? Often there are conditions were a mother is likely to die if the child is not aborted and in others they are certain to die unless they abort. Would you support these cases? Also consider that the most, yes THE MOST life threatening period of an average person's life is for a man exiting the womb and for a woman having a child exit hers. Labour is one horrible event despite it's lovely result and is extremely dangerous. That foetus is causing a HUGE threat to that mother, more so in fact than many murderers who commit one crime and would never do it again and FAR many more innocents who are put to death due to miscarriages of justice and are in fact not killers at all.

p.s. PLEASE use punctuation, not using it makes you look like an idiot, not cool.

yes indeedy, if you pose a threat to other human life

YES! I WIN! A foetus DOES pose a threat to the mother! And for the matter so do I! Anyone, anywhere may pose a threat to someone else. Especialy if they drive a car or other vehichle, should we execute motorists for causing a risk to other people's right to live? Should we execute mothers more "murdering" foetuses? Pfff...Some pro-lifer...

So if life is a right that may be lost, consequentially is a right that might be gained?

*clap*

as I said before... overpopulation is a threat to human life.. to our way of living
what do we do to deer when they run out of land? We buy guns and shoot a bunch of them
now I'm not saying doing that to humans.. but we're just like those dear.. our quality of life suffers for each person that is added

so yea.. maybe it SHOULD be gained

YES! I WIN! A foetus DOES pose a threat to the mother!

in what regard does a fetus pose a threat to the mother?

So if life is a right that may be lost, consequentially is a right that might be gained?

only in the pro-abortion way of thinking

Ok here is an issue no one has brought up yet: what if they DO? Often there are conditions were a mother is likely to die if the child is not aborted and in others they are certain to die unless they abort. Would you support these cases? Also consider that the most, yes THE MOST life threatening period of an average person's life is for a man exiting the womb and for a woman having a child exit hers. Labour is one horrible event despite it's lovely result and is extremely dangerous. That foetus is causing a HUGE threat to that mother, more so in fact than many murderers who commit one crime and would never do it again and FAR many more innocents who are put to death due to miscarriages of justice and are in fact not killers at all.

p.s. PLEASE use punctuation, not using it makes you look like an idiot, not cool.

that is a valid point, I'm sorry I didn't address it sooner

abortion is by definition a voluntary procedure, when it is no longer voluntary, it is no longer abortion

killing the child in order to save the life of the mother was legal back when abortion was illegal and will still be legal when abortion is made illegal again

In addition, if Life is a Right that can be lost (or consequentially gained) then Life is NOT an inherent right.

If the right to live has to be gained (by being a good citizen, whatever) then life is NOT a right that should be given automatically, especially when it threatens the already established life of a woman, as my comrade above posted. ;)

I think our friend set himself up. His hypocrisy is shinning right through.

YES! I WIN! A foetus DOES pose a threat to the mother! And for the matter so do I! Anyone, anywhere may pose a threat to someone else. Especialy if they drive a car or other vehichle, should we execute motorists for causing a risk to other people's right to live? Should we execute mothers more "murdering" foetuses? Pfff...Some pro-lifer...

sorry, should have made that a clear and present threat

in what regard does a fetus pose a threat to the mother?

As if the foetus is carried to full term it will have to be born and if it is born it poses a threat to the mother as birthing sometimes (and with black people*) results in death

Also what if abortion WAS banned? We would have back street clinics which are highly unsafe and more likely to kill the pregnant aborter. Sound good to you?

*=Blacks are around three more times likely to die during labour than whites.

only in the pro-abortion way of thinking

Nope. Only in the rational way of thinking. If something can be lost, it also canbe gained. It's called logic.

1+1=2

Do you disagree with that too?

In addition, if Life is a Right that can be lost (or consequentially gained) then Life is NOT an inherent right.

If the right to live has to be gained (by being a good citizen, whatever) then life is NOT a right that should be given automatically, especially when it threatens the already established life of a woman, as my comrade above posted. ;)

I think our friend set himself up. His hypocrisy is shinning right through.

no, I really didn't

the right to live is something that every human being is born with

they have to work to loose it before you can kill them

As if the foetus is carried to full term it will have to be born and if it is born it poses a threat to the mother as birthing sometimes (and with black people*) results in death

Also what if abortion WAS banned? We would have back street clinics which are highly unsafe and more likely to kill the pregnant aborter. Sound good to you?

*=Blacks are around three more times likely to die during labour than whites.

that's a remote posibility, not a clear and present dange

and if abortion was banned we'd probobly see a 99% drop in abortion

a few "unsafe" abortion (I don't care) would be worth it

Mighty, don't waste your time. This guy can't tell his asshole from a hole in the ground. I've been discussing with him for hours and he is yet to give a sound argument.

sorry, should have made that a clear and present threat

It is clear: the foetus' exit from the mother may will result in her death. It might not. The rapist may well rape when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer may well kill when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer/rapist may be guilty of the accused crime. S/he might not be.

Nope. Only in the rational way of thinking. If something can be lost, it also canbe gained. It's called logic.

1+1=2

Do you disagree with that too?

unless its something that you are granted from the begining

like a leg

your given a leg from the beginging, you can loose it, but you can't get it back

that's a remote posibility, not a clear and present dange

and if abortion was banned we'd probobly see a 99% drop in abortion

a few "unsafe" abortion (I don't care) would be worth it


It is not a remote possibilty anymore than someone who may or may not of killed someone killing someone else when they are put in jail.

As for the 99% drop, facts please? Source?

Mighty, don't waste your time. This guy can't tell his asshole from a hole in the ground. I've been discussing with him for hours and he is yet to give a sound argument.

what do you want

there is so much cross debate I can't get everything

tell me what you want

It is clear: the foetus' exit from the mother may will result in her death. It might not. The rapist may well rape when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer may well kill when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer/rapist may be guilty of the accused crime. S/he might not be.

look at the precentages

disagree

tell me what you want


I want you to: A) Source your facts. B) USE PUNCTUATION!

unless its something that you are granted from the begining

like a leg

your given a leg from the beginging, you can loose it, but you can't get it back
Or an a fertilized egg. You can kill it, you know?

It is clear: the foetus' exit from the mother may will result in her death. It might not. The rapist may well rape when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer may well kill when s/he goes to jail. S/he might not. The killer/rapist may be guilty of the accused crime. S/he might not be.

look at the precentages

you have to be able to quantify that danger before you can kill someone

look at the precentages

disagree


??? Please...Just a normal regular sentance is all I ask, I am not being snobby or elitist it is just that I honestly can not understand that.

look at the precentages

you have to be able to quantify that danger before you can kill someone

The percentages show that childbirth is reasonably likely to kill the mother.

what do you want

there is so much cross debate I can't get everything

tell me what you want
A sound argument. Listen, I've explained it to you for hours, I'm not gonna repeat myself ad infinitum. Scroll back, hope you get it right this time.

It is not a remote possibilty anymore than someone who may or may not of killed someone killing someone else when they are put in jail.

As for the 99% drop, facts please? Source?

but its a hell of alot higher than a child killing his mother in birth, and there's the vengence/deturent factor

as per the 99% its baised off the rise in the number of abortions once they were legalized

The percentages show that childbirth is reasonably likely to kill the mother.

no its not

in American its well under 1 in 1,000

but its a hell of alot higher than a child killing his mother in birth, and there's the vengence/deturent factor

as per the 99% its baised off the rise in the number of abortions once they were legalized

Yes but now they are legalised people are sued to them.

Ok, it is late I need to get to bed. Bye!

A sound argument. Listen, I've explained it to you for hours, I'm not gonna repeat myself ad infinitum. Scroll back, hope you get it right this time.

ok, I belive that a fetus is a human being because it has an individual and unique being with human DNA that will grow up to be a human being

I belive that the pros of abortion are far out weighed by the cons

As if the foetus is carried to full term it will have to be born and if it is born it poses a threat to the mother as birthing sometimes (and with black people*) results in death

Also what if abortion WAS banned? We would have back street clinics which are highly unsafe and more likely to kill the pregnant aborter. Sound good to you?

*=Blacks are around three more times likely to die during labour than whites.

I think that percentage is missleading
I belive blacks are currently having children at a rate of three to 1 vs whites
therefore, you see an increase in 'black' woman dying in child birth because of the higher birth rates amoung them

A sound argument. Listen, I've explained it to you for hours, I'm not gonna repeat myself ad infinitum. Scroll back, hope you get it right this time.

ok, I belive that a fetus is a human being because it has an individual and unique being with human DNA that will grow up to be a human being

I belive that the pros of abortion are far out weighed by the cons of killing a human being (not to mention the other cons)

Yes but now they are legalised people are sued to them.

Ok, it is late I need to get to bed. Bye!

#1 - it was still availible back then, just illegaly

#2 - still, the number will drop increadebly

ok, I belive that a fetus is a human being because it has an individual and unique being with human DNA that will grow up to be a human being

I belive that the pros of abortion are far out weighed by the cons of killing a human being (not to mention the other cons)


do you belive in going out and shooting deer when they are overrunning the forests?

do you belive in going out and shooting deer when they are overrunning the forests?

yes, and I know where this is going

but deer are not human beings

Schrandtopia,

Are you as Gullible to think that outlawing abortion decreases the rate of these? For your information, abortion rates are higher in countries where it's legalized. When abortions are outlawed, they just go underground, becoming not only fatal to the fetus, but to the mother as well in many instances.

Outlawing abortion makes things only worse, can't you see that?

yes, and I know where this is going

but deer are not human beings

this is why we will never agree
you are a species-centric person...
beliving that humans are better then all else.. and that your point of view is most right
humans are NOT worth more then any other creature. Every life is as sacred as the next
I hope in your next life you get reborn as a deer so you can see what it's like for humans to hunt you for overpopulation when it's them encrouching on your land
then you'll understand.. maybe

Schrandtopia,

Are you as Gullible to think that outlawing abortion decreases the rate of these? For your information, abortion rates are higher in countries where it's legalized. When abortions are outlawed, they just go underground, becoming not only fatal to the fetus, but to the mother as well in many instances.

Outlawing abortion makes things only worse, can't you see that?

no they don't

one word

Poland

this is why we will never agree
you are a species-centric person...
beliving that humans are better then all else.. and that your point of view is most right
humans are NOT worth more then any other creature. Every life is as sacred as the next
I hope in your next life you get reborn as a deer so you can see what it's like for humans to hunt you for overpopulation when it's them encrouching on your land
then you'll understand.. maybe

if your going to bring religion into it I'm fairly confident I won't be reborn

if your going to bring religion into it I'm fairly confident I won't be reborn

religon nothing. rebirth is a fact. energy cannot be destroyed or created.. meerly changed. thought and conciousness is energy. therefore.. thought cannot die... it can meerly be transformed

religon nothing. rebirth is a fact. energy cannot be destroyed or created.. meerly changed. thought and conciousness is energy. therefore.. thought cannot die... it can meerly be transformed

the Catholic church would argue

the Catholic church would argue

can't argue with science
unless you're BS religon *shakes her head*
and I belive in god for the same energy argument... prayer is energy too... it can't go nowhere.. therefore.. it either creates god.. or goes to god who was there before.. either way, god exists.

I am neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Death Penalty. But the whole point of Pro-Life is to not kill an INOCENT baby. The Death Penalty kills guilty people.
Note: These are not my beliefs

can't argue with science
unless you're BS religon *shakes her head*
and I belive in god for the same energy argument... prayer is energy too... it can't go nowhere.. therefore.. it either creates god.. or goes to god who was there before.. either way, god exists.

what were you smoking when you came to this conclusion

what were you smoking when you came to this conclusion

I don't smoke anything
I simpley study
clearly you don't
you're just a sheep.. following someone else
I am not a sheep.. :)
therefore.. your opinions will never change... you cannot concieve of the truth... you meerly listen to someone else tell it to you.. and won't gather all versons of the truth in one pile to sort through and decide for yourself.
I bet whatever your religon is.. it's your parents (or whoever you live with) as well. do you all vote the same way?
most people do.. they are 'sheep'

I'm pro-choice because I simply don't consider a fetus alive until it's born, or is able to live without the mother's amniotic support.

I'm pro-death penalty because I think it's a waste of time to keep the people who've crossed such a barrier [as to throw their life into such jeopardy between life imprisionment or death] alive - especially considering the resources that go into these people are paid by the public they victimized.

I'm for the war in Iraq, no matter how insidious its beginning may have been (and I'm not admitting to anything, only leaving certain doors open for interpretation).

Even still anything can be negotiated, and I support that first and most. A person can be talked into finding support groups for a baby they don't want, they can find resources and help raising it. A criminal can be talked out of commiting crime. A country can negotiate a diplomatic synergy (I'm for the war in Iraq because Iraq, if nothing else is definetly not willing to 'talk').

Interpret it as you will, but I sleep soundly at night, and I don't feel like my opinions are killing innocents.

no they don't
one word
Poland

How about Latin america? More than one country there.

Re the Poll, it sure is encouraging to see the Green Bar being the longest - how should we interpret that result?

(The other nice thing about the Polls is that no matter how convoluted and askew the thread gets, the Poll gives a consistently strong picture of what most folks are really thinking.)

Re the Poll, it sure is encouraging to see the Green Bar being the longest - how should we interpret that result?

(The other nice thing about the Polls is that no matter how convoluted and askew the thread gets, the Poll gives a consistently strong picture of what most folks are really thinking.)

I don't really find it surprising, as the population of these forums is predominantly textbook left-liberal. A popular viewpoint here may or may not be right, but it is almost certain to be left. ;)

Don't know if anyone else has said this, but here are my thoughts on the matter.

I'm Pro-Choice, and Pro-Death. My personal view on it it that it all boils down to one simple question: Does society have the right to kill a person? I feel that society does.

Personally, I feel that abortion should only be available to rape victims, in cases of incest, or if carrying the pregenacy to term would have a strong negative impact on the mother's health, but I don't make the laws. I feel that people who have an accidental pregenacy, but with none of the conditions mentioned before, should carry the pregenacy to term, and, if they decide they don't want the baby, put the child up for adpotion. However, it's not my place to decide for other people.

Does society have the right to kill human beings? I think it does.

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?

Good question. I'm pro-life and pro-capital punishment. I oppose abortion because abortion kills the innocent, but I favor capital punishment because it punishes those who have killed themselves. Regardless of liberal interpretations, the Bible explicitly approves of punishing murderers by death.

Re the Poll, it sure is encouraging to see the Green Bar being the longest - how should we interpret that result?

(The other nice thing about the Polls is that no matter how convoluted and askew the thread gets, the Poll gives a consistently strong picture of what most folks are really thinking.)

I don't really find it surprising, as the population of these forums is predominantly textbook left-liberal. A popular viewpoint here may or may not be right, but it is almost certain to be left. ;)

That might be true for a much larger part of Western society as well. It certainly gives me hope for a better world and better future.

I'm pro-life, anti death penalty (accept in a few select cases), and not passificst.

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?

Just gotta say that those who are Pro-Choice doesn't see the featus in the early months of prenency as a real life, and therefor it's not able to be compaired to death-penalty.

Maybe i already said something like that in this thread? =P

Just gotta say that those who are Pro-Choice doesn't see the featus in the early months of prenency as a real life, and therefor it's not able to be compaired to death-penalty.

Maybe i already said something like that in this thread? =P

Or maybe I did. Or maybe you did on another thread? Or maybe I did? Or maybe someone else did?

Naah, this *must* be the first time he has heard of that idea.

Here’s my stance on the issues.

Abortion: It’s nobodies problem except for those involved. If you don’t want to have an abortion, than don’t have one. What purpose does it serve to stick your nose in somebody’s personal business so long as it doesn’t effect others around the area?

Death Penalty: Really needs to be restructured to be more effective. Instead of just executing criminals in cases of just the most severe crimes, the bar should be lowered so that the more moderate of crimes are punishable by death. Crimes such as Grand theft, armed robbery, molesting children, rape, and a whole plethora of other crimes that I‘m too lazy to put down.

First off, I am totally opposed to the death penalty. Killing someone, whether they have killed another or not is morally unjustifiable. Suppose they didn't do what they were convicted of doing, then society has killed an innocent man. This is just my personal view of course, but nobody has the right to take anothers life, unless by inaction more people will die. The death penalty is just revenge, and:

'if it was an eye for an eye the whole world would be blind' - Mathama Ghandi

Onto the other subject, and probably the more controversial one these days. It seems to me, and the poll would support this conclusion, that most people agree that abortion at the end of pregnancy is almost always wrong, ecept maybe for exceptional medical reasons. However, most people seem to feel that abortion is acceptable at the beginning of pregnancy, when the embryo is only a very small ball of cells. Herin lies the problem. Abortion is a grey scale; right at one end and wrong at the other, while law is a black or white system.

If abortion is not allowed, then in many cases, we are condemning the mother, who is often teenage, and the child to a harder life, possibly even poverty.

I am not supporting abortion as a method of contraception, it should not be necessary, but it is, in the same sense that the police are necessary.

Sorry for going on a bit, but another thing that worries me is the apparent hijacking of the pro life stance by the christian right. Does anyone else have a view on this?