NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, ok, this is a quick question. If you can refute with info I don't know about, all the better. I don't feel like researching for something online.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]

Oh! This is one of those trick questions! Like...

"If there was an Armenian genocide, why the FUCK are there so many Armenians?"

you really dont know?

its a backdoor way of opening up the debate on making abortion illegal

one step at time

From a legal standpoint? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. From a logical standpoint? Because a mother is legally permitted to request an abortion. A complete stranger is not permitted to force an abortion on the mother. Even though the fetus is not yet alive, he forcibly prevents it from ever living - which is something he, unlike the mother, does not have the right to choose.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]

That law was written into the books specifically to begin the anti-abortion legal precedent movement in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade. Basically Congress Republicans used the brouhaha over the Lacy Peterson case to begin their insidious assault on womens' rights (as I see it).

That's an intriguing question... I've never even made the connection between the two events.

I don't even know how to comprehend that conundrum. :confused:

*sign*
I remember a time where the penalty for killing a women of child bearing age was only slightly more harsh than killing anybody else. Now they’re hoping that people will actually stop and give a woman a pregnancy test before killing them off. Aside from killing, they also will probably be found guilty of sexual assault now.

The homicide laws are wrong, not abortion. Anything before the first trimester, at least, is not life.

The homicide laws are wrong, not abortion. Anything before the first trimester, at least, is not life.
I hate to nitpick, but wouldn't anything before the first trimester come before conception? Perhaps you meant before the second trimester...

Not exactly sure why it's a double 'homicide' or 'murder', even, but the reasoning as I recall is that not only are you killing the mother, but you are violating [a lack of] Power of Attorney by killing the unborn foetus.

I hate to nitpick, but wouldn't anything before the first trimester come before conception? Perhaps you meant before the second trimester...
More likely, third, since that's a very common standpoint.

Ok, ok, this is a quick question. If you can refute with info I don't know about, all the better. I don't feel like researching for something online.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]


Really, it's simple. An unborn child is a part of a woman's body and is therefore her property. She can choose whether or not she wants to keep the embryo. But if someone else takes the potential child from her against her will, that's murder because you are preventing that woman's child from being born, and only she can make that decision.

That law was written into the books specifically to begin the anti-abortion legal precedent movement in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade. Basically Congress Republicans used the brouhaha over the Lacy Peterson case to begin their insidious assault on womens' rights (as I see it).
This is the case.

It's only a matter of time before abortion doctors are charged with murder. :rolleyes:

Ok, ok, this is a quick question. If you can refute with info I don't know about, all the better. I don't feel like researching for something online.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]

Because you're trying to get someone to make a mistake and say that the fetus is alive so you can argue that abortions shouldn't be legal. Nice try.

Ok, ok, this is a quick question. If you can refute with info I don't know about, all the better. I don't feel like researching for something online.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]

Wedge legislation - if they get such a law in as double homicide in such cases, then later, they can cite it in overturning Roe v. Wade. Also, this is not the law everywhere, and a major point of contention.

Really, it's simple. An unborn child is a part of a woman's body and is therefore her property. She can choose whether or not she wants to keep the embryo. But if someone else takes the potential child from her against her will, that's murder because you are preventing that woman's child from being born, and only she can make that decision.

Interesting idea...but the law doesn't usualy hinge on such subjectivity. If you're sentencing someone for taking life or not, how can you say it's life when that was dependent on the mother's decision? That would seem to immediately refute that it was life.

This is the case.

It's only a matter of time before abortion doctors are charged with murder. :rolleyes:
good.

From a legal standpoint? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. From a logical standpoint? Because a mother is legally permitted to request an abortion. A complete stranger is not permitted to force an abortion on the mother. Even though the fetus is not yet alive, he forcibly prevents it from ever living - which is something he, unlike the mother, does not have the right to choose.

A homoside involves murder..... If a fetus is not alive how can it be killed? And if it can be killed then won't abortions be murder...?

Bold: HOW DOES THE MOTHER HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THE BABY!?? WHAT GIVES HER THE RIGHT?? Its the same thing as if the murderer killed it. Any way it goes you kill the baby and in the end denies the child his life. WHat gives anyone the right to deny a baby his life????

Ok, ok, this is a quick question. If you can refute with info I don't know about, all the better. I don't feel like researching for something online.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but when a pregnant woman is killed it's classified as double homicide [in the United States]

Kinda like how they say partial birth abortion is ok because it's *technically* not born yet...

Simply put, people are stupid and want to do whatever they want. They want to punish muderers and get away with their own murders. They want life without consequences...

good.
Please think of the repercussions of that.

Please think of the repercussions of that.
You mean people having hissyfits? Nothin' new...

The fact remains that this sort of legislation was introduced specifically to spur this kind of debate.

They can't overturn Roe v. Wade (yet), so they try to legislate against it bit by bit. As someone pointed out yesterday, Roe v. Wade itself is on shaky ground after Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, in which the fundamental right to an abortion was deemed not so fundamental anymore, and Justice O'Connor said the best reason to keep abortion in place is that people have come to expect it, and that throwing endless obstacles at women trying to get abortions is perfectly legitimate.


Three of the justices are already pro-life. Just takes two more.

btw, our last hope may in fact be a powerful Republican (!)

Arlen Specter, a Senator from Pennsylvania, wields huge control over judicial appointments, and he said to Bush in no uncertain terms not to try to force ultra-conservative justices onto the Supreme Court.

<snip>

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg

Because you're trying to get someone to make a mistake and say that the fetus is alive so you can argue that abortions shouldn't be legal. Nice try.

Agreed.

Because you're trying to get someone to make a mistake and say that the fetus is alive so you can argue that abortions shouldn't be legal. Nice try.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alive

http://hive-mind.com/shelly/images/operation.jpg

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alive

Thanks for the English lesson. Now, were you trying to prove a point with that? Because if you were, I suggest you try again, because you seem to have failed.

Thanks for the English lesson. Now, were you trying to prove a point with that? Because if you were, I suggest you try again, because you seem to have failed.

A fetus is alive. As to whether or not it's human life, I never said. Just that it is alive.

A fetus is alive. As to whether or not it's human life, I never said. Just that it is alive.

Ah, I see. You weren't trying to be a jerk. My apologies. I just have come to expect the worst out of people here. My apologies again.

A fetus is alive. As to whether or not it's human life, I never said. Just that it is alive.
Well if you aren't saying it's human life, then what's the big deal? After all, we slaughter animals daily (who feel more pain than any early-term fetus could).

And zygotes feel NO pain. You try to justify banning early abortions by showing messy pictures of late-term abortions. It doesn't follow.

A homoside involves murder..... If a fetus is not alive how can it be killed? And if it can be killed then won't abortions be murder...?

Bold: HOW DOES THE MOTHER HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THE BABY!?? WHAT GIVES HER THE RIGHT?? Its the same thing as if the murderer killed it. Any way it goes you kill the baby and in the end denies the child his life. WHat gives anyone the right to deny a baby his life????

homocide is illegal, and hence fits the definition of murder.
abortion is legal, and so does NOT fit the definition of murder.

Even if it were illegal, it would not be murder before the infant has a brain, because murder has to be against the person's will. An infant without a brain has no will, so you can abort them just like you can pull the plug on someone who is pronounced brain dead with no chance of recovery.

The mother has the same right to refuse to donate an organ AS ANYONE ELSE DOES. I can refuse to donate an organ TO MY OWN CHILD. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child EVEN IF THE CHILD WILL DIE. I can refuse to donate an organ, to my own child, even if they will die, AND EVEN IF THEY NEED THE ORGAN DUE TO MY OWN ACTIONS. Legally, no one has any right to force anyone else to donate their body against their will. And that's ever. There are NO exceptions currently. Even the attempt to make post-humous (that's after you're dead) organ donation compulsary failed. Even DEAD people have the right to NOT donate organs.

Now, YOU explain why women (and ONLY when pregnant) should be the SOLE exception to this.

Cheez, and people wonder why I fantasize about mass murder sprees (HINT: It's not because I'm pro-choice, it's because people are fucking idiots)

Well if you aren't saying it's human life, then what's the big deal? After all, we slaughter animals daily
I didn't say I'm not going to say it's human life...It most certainly is, that just wasn't my point at that time.
As for animals, we, for the most part, slaughter animals out of need...need for food, clothing, etc. If you're a Christian, then you believe that man was created above all other creatures...If not, then evolution would dictate that nature put us above them. Either way, humans are the clear rulers of this planet.
But, we are not animals. We belong to the kingdom animalia, but we are not monkeys, we are thinking, feeling beings, capable of something that no other creature is really capable of: compassion, sympathy, and above all, the ability to completely ignore the ideal of "survival of the fittest."
Really, you must come down to this choice: Either all human life is sacred, or it all is not.
If the former, you must accept that a fetus is a human life: life because it falls in the definition of "living"; human, because it is a human, albeit a very very young one (and it can't be anything other than human because I've yet to see a human mother give birth to animals or aliens...and scientifically, they all have human DNA). So if it's alive, and it has human DNA, what else can it be but a human life? Once you have accepted that, you realize that if killing an adult human is "wrong," then killing a very young human is "wrong" (I use quotes because "wrong" is a very subjective term). In short, if killing humans is wrong, and fetuses are human, then abortions (which kill fetuses), are wrong, because abortions kill humans.
If the latter, then you accept that no human life is sacred, in which case murder is acceptable. This view, however is commonly called "criminally insane," and regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is harmful to society, so society (obviously) doesn't like it. So, if we apply this back to the first assumption: You think abortion is right, abortion kills humans, you think killing humans is right, you are criminally insane. (And yes, I realize that I'm calling a lot of people insane. It's called "hyperbole").
There is a third choice that people take, rather, another view incoporated into the first assumption. This choice is that while human life is sacred, there is a difference between a "human" and a Homo sapien (ie: a fetus is Homo sapien , but it is not [i]human)...If you believe in capital punishment, you fall here. If you believe that abortion is right, then you fall here. Here is where the term "human" is questioned...obviously killing humans is wrong, so what constitutes a human? Murderers and such are not considered "human," they are considered monters, unfeeling, just not nice people, for lack of a better word. They have abused their privilege to be called "human," and earned the label, "criminal." Once they are criminal, the "unalienable rights" can be taken from them, as they are no longer part of the "people." It is this logic that leads to abortion: a fetus is not human, thus, it does not have the same rights as a human. It's life is at the mercy of those who rule the planet, real humans.

Now, is a fetus a "human" and not just a "thinking ape that walks on two legs"? Dictionary.com says that a human is:
1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.
By the first definition, yes, a fetus is a human, but for the sake of the argument, we'll go with the second, that is, a person.

Person:
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar.
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

So, we exclude the first, because we know that already, the second, because we're not talking about fame, the sixth, because that's what's being argued, and the rest because they don't apply.
That leaves us with 3, 4, and 5.

3. Does a fetus have a personality? Fetal Development (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp#Does%20the%20unborn%20baby%20dream?)
It's too much to post, but if you scroll down, you can see where they talk about thinking and dreaming...
Also, a newborn baby can already recognize its mother's voice. I've also heard stories (just stories mind you) of very young children having memories from inside the womb (whether you believe this or not, it is up to you. I present it as an option). So, if it is capable of thinking and dreaming and emotion, I'd say it has personality...Let's move on.
4. Is it the body of a human? Well, i should think so, granted, it's very young. No, it's not entirely formed, but after 7 months (look it up if you don't believe me), a baby is capable of living independently of the mother...It is fully formed, it just needs some more time to grow. After 7 months, it is a human, Homo sapien, baby, simply living inside the womb instead of outside of it. Which brings us to 5...
5. Does it look like a human? See for yourself:
http://www.davebrownlow.com/baby_in_womb.jpg
Looks pretty human to me. Granted, it's bald, and really small, but it looks a lot like a human. True, you could also say this applies to monkeys, but I'm guessing a doctor or zoologist could tell the difference in any case that a layperson would be unsure.

So, of the three applicable definitions, one is certainly human, one is uncertain, and one is leaning heavily towards humanity. This leads me to the conclusion that a fetus, at least at some point, becomes a human. So, at some point abortion is killing a human life, not just a Homo sapien life...At that point, if you believe nothing else, abortion should be illegal (partial birth abortion especially).

Now, if your personal definition of "human" means that it has been born, I pose this question to you...How has a baby changed in the small time it takes to be born? Physically, it's a few seconds older...not enough to change anything. Mentally, maybe a new nerve or two has formed...not enough for real change. The only thing that has changed are its immediate surroundings. If you judge humanity by what's around you, you are a very superficial person, and I would direct you towards my statements at the end of the latter assumption.

(who feel more pain than any early-term fetus could). And zygotes feel NO pain. You try to justify banning early abortions by showing messy pictures of late-term abortions. It doesn't follow.

A zygot may not be able to feel pain, but a fetus certainly can, and probably more that the animals, since its nerves are completely new and haven't experienced pain before (much like a two-year-old cries at a scraped elbo, while older people laugh at a broken arm).

homocide is illegal, and hence fits the definition of murder.
abortion is legal, and so does NOT fit the definition of murder.

Even if it were illegal, it would not be murder before the infant has a brain, because murder has to be against the person's will. An infant without a brain has no will, so you can abort them just like you can pull the plug on someone who is pronounced brain dead with no chance of recovery.

The mother has the same right to refuse to donate an organ AS ANYONE ELSE DOES. I can refuse to donate an organ TO MY OWN CHILD. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child EVEN IF THE CHILD WILL DIE. I can refuse to donate an organ, to my own child, even if they will die, AND EVEN IF THEY NEED THE ORGAN DUE TO MY OWN ACTIONS. Legally, no one has any right to force anyone else to donate their body against their will. And that's ever. There are NO exceptions currently. Even the attempt to make post-humous (that's after you're dead) organ donation compulsary failed. Even DEAD people have the right to NOT donate organs.

Now, YOU explain why women (and ONLY when pregnant) should be the SOLE exception to this.
They're not. A fetus is not an organ, nor does it belong to the mother. If all humans have the right to refuse organ donation (inlcuding dead ones [who, i would remind you, aren't capable of thinking]), then one would think that a baby (albeit, unborn), has the right to NOT give up it's organs and limbs.

Cheez, and people wonder why I fantasize about mass murder sprees (HINT: It's not because I'm pro-choice, it's because people are fucking idiots)
I agree, though obviously not for the same reasons.

Rhino D, some nice points about the late foetus being a "person", but extremely late abortions are not permitted without extreme medical need in most countries anyway. For good reason.

The issue is the right to an *early* abortion on demand - by a definition of "person" swinging on "personality" and "a human body" and suchlike, the zygote, the embryo and the early foetus clearly don't qualify.

And yet, strangely, most people who go on about how person-like and capable of survival the late foetus is, and how horrible late abortions are, very rarely acknowledge the clear logical consequence: that abortion of the zygote, embryo or early foetus is, by that same standard, perfectly acceptable. [To clarify: early=prior to full formation of central nervous system.]

But in fact, most pro-lifers seem to be of the opinion that aborting a zygote is as bad as aborting a foetus in the 8th month. This tells us something, namely that for most of them (and I don't know if this includes you, Rhino D, but it certainly includes most pro-lifers), rhetoric about the human-ness of the late foetus is not their main reason for opposing abortion: it is merely a rationalisation.

You also miss the point in the organ donation analogy. The foetus isn't the organ the woman is donating: her entire body is the donated organ. It's being donated to the foetus for use as a life-support mechanism for nine months. The point is that if all human beings have the right to refuse to donate an organ, even if doing so means someone else will die, then a woman must equally have the right to refuse to let her body be used as a life-support mechanism, even if doing so means the foetus will die.

I'm not sure how good that particular argument is, mind. For my money, the only argument that is really needed is that the early foetus is not a person, due to lacking a functional central nervous system (like a brain-dead person); therefore killing it is not illegal; therefore women have a right to abortion on demand in this period of pregnancy; but in later pregnancy, when the CNS is formed, much stricter rules are needed (and there is room for discussion about what those rules should be, exactly).

Rhino D, some nice points about the late foetus being a "person", but extremely late abortions are not permitted without extreme medical need in most countries anyway. For good reason.

The issue is the right to an *early* abortion on demand - by a definition of "person" swinging on "personality" and "a human body" and suchlike, the zygote, the embryo and the early foetus clearly don't qualify.

And yet, strangely, most people who go on about how person-like and capable of survival the late foetus is, and how horrible late abortions are, very rarely acknowledge the clear logical consequence: that abortion of the zygote, embryo or early foetus is, by that same standard, perfectly acceptable. [To clarify: early=prior to full formation of central nervous system.]

But in fact, most pro-lifers seem to be of the opinion that aborting a zygote is as bad as aborting a foetus in the 8th month. This tells us something, namely that for most of them (and I don't know if this includes you, Rhino D, but it certainly includes most pro-lifers), rhetoric about the human-ness of the late foetus is not their main reason for opposing abortion: it is merely a rationalisation.

It is another view of what makes us human, really, that is a purely moral (and therefore subjective) view, and that is that a zygot is just as human as a fetus.
I believe that a zygot is human because I believe that God has a purpose for that zygot and he has formed it already. I believe that it is a not a random meeting of a sperm and egg, but rather a very well-planned meeting of a specific sperm and specific egg, specially chosen by God to create that zygot, and eventually, a fully grown person that will (hopefully) love God as much as God loves him.
I haven't tried to argue this, however, because I know it is a subjective opinion. (Rather, society today treats it as subjective). Logic in itself cannot prove it, unless you first acknowledge God and his plan, which is a personal decision that I know I cannot prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt. I can try to convince you to accept it, but again, it is a personal choice.
On that note, it is your personal choice not to. Please don't act like it is scientific fact. You cannot prove to me it isn't a human any more than I can prove it is.

Why others believe it, no idea, but I'd assume most of them would be along the same lines as me.

You also miss the point in the organ donation analogy. The foetus isn't the organ the woman is donating: her entire body is the donated organ. It's being donated to the foetus for use as a life-support mechanism for nine months. The point is that if all human beings have the right to refuse to donate an organ, even if doing so means someone else will die, then a woman must equally have the right to refuse to let her body be used as a life-support mechanism, even if doing so means the foetus will die.
The mother, though (in my opinion anyway) has already made the decision by allowing herself to become pregnant. If she didn't want a baby, she should have made him wear a condom or worn a diaphram or a long list of things, or, ultimately, not had sex. Yes, accidents happen, but that is part of life, and you must deal with the repercussions.
Besides, it's just selfish to hoard your organs when you don't need them :D

I'm not sure how good that particular argument is, mind. For my money, the only argument that is really needed is that the early foetus is not a person, due to lacking a functional central nervous system (like a brain-dead person); therefore killing it is not illegal; therefore women have a right to abortion on demand in this period of pregnancy; but in later pregnancy, when the CNS is formed, much stricter rules are needed (and there is room for discussion about what those rules should be, exactly).
Two problems with that...The first is the double homicide if a pregnant mother is killed, the other is the previously asserted statement that even dead (non-thinking) humans have rights.

Oh, and it's Rhyno ;)

Just a thought about the whole "pull the plug on the brain dead patient" argument. A brain-dead patient has no chance of recovery, whereas the child's brain is "developing" Not exactly the same situation.

Just a thought about the whole "pull the plug on the brain dead patient" argument. A brain-dead patient has no chance of recovery, whereas the child's brain is "developing" Not exactly the same situation.
Yes!

Which brings me to another point I want to make...
Killing a zygot is the same as killing a fetus because that zygot would have become a fetus, which would have become a baby. You may be killing it sooner rather than later, but you're still killing it...
Dictionary.com
Kill: 1. b. To deprive of life
You are depriving that child of his future life. No, it may not have the brain power to decide now whether or not it wants to die, but it will...Why not wait until it can, and then ask it?

Not quite sure what the law is here in Australia but I do remember about a year ago (maybe more) of a drunk driver who hit another car. This accident terminated the other driver's pregency.

A lot of people wanted him charged with murder but the law here does not define the feteus as human and therefore he couldn't be charged (with murder or manslaughter. I think he got a grevious bodily harm charge).

I remember there being a lot of talk from a)christian groups, B) the government c) the opposition d) any moron who rings into talkback radio, about having the law changed.

Of course the story faded into the background a few weeks later when the next controversital story come along. I suspect that the law was in fact never actually changed.

Of course, I could be wrong

Kill: 1. b. To deprive of life

Deprive: To take something away from.

If a zygote never had "life", it couldn't be taken away from it, hence a zygote cannot be killed.

...but on the other hand, if you use definition #2 of "deprive", you get "Deprive: To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny" which would support your point.

...but on the other hand, if you use the first definition of kill, you get "Kill: To put to death." which is meaningless if we don't consider the zygote to be alive in the first place.

I suggest we quit the petty debates about semantics.

The key difference:

pro-lifers believe that a zygote is a living human being and so is entitled to protection.

pro-choicers don't consider it human/living until a certain point - such as when it gets a nervous system.

It comes down to that.

I don't see how you can persuade a pro-choice person that abortion is morally wrong if he doesn't see the fetus/zygote as human and alive yet. I also don't see how you can persuade a pro-lifer that abortion of any sort is acceptable if they believe that the fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The best solution is probably a compromise - find a boundary somewhere in the pregnancy after which abortion is not allowed except in truly exceptional circumstances (mother would die if baby didn't). This way, you could ban aborting this http://www.davebrownlow.com/baby_in_womb.jpg without banning aborting this
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg .

It is another view of what makes us human, really, that is a purely moral (and therefore subjective) view, and that is that a zygot is just as human as a fetus.
[...]
On that note, it is your personal choice not to. Please don't act like it is scientific fact. You cannot prove to me it isn't a human any more than I can prove it is.

Why others believe it, no idea, but I'd assume most of them would be along the same lines as me.

Fine. If you want to believe that abortion is wrong for religious reasons, you have every right to do so. If women of your religious persuasion want to *not* get abortions, it's their every right to do so. What you *don't* have is the right to make abortions illegal, which would prevent women who are not of your religious persuasion from having one.

You admit your religious opinion is subjective; and yet you seek to apply it to others who do not share that subjective opinion.

Thus the rhetoric about the humanness of the late foetus; which, according to your own admission, is irrelevent to you anyway, because your opposition to abortion is based on religious considerations. you are using the arguments about the late foetus to support your own position - all abortion is wrong - when in fact, as I demonstrated above, that argument alone leads to a completely different conclusion - that late abortion is wrong but early abortion is fine.

I cannot be the only one who sees a problem here.


The mother, though (in my opinion anyway) has already made the decision by allowing herself to become pregnant.

If I make a decision to give someone a kidney, and I sign the forms, and we both go to hospital, and we do all the tests, and the theatre is prepped and the surgeon scrubs up, I still have the perfect right - at any point - to turn around and say "actually, no, I've thought again, I don't want to go ahead with this" - up to any point before they actually give me the anaesthetic. Similarly a woman who becomes pregnant - even if it's completely intentional - has the full right to change her mind and refuse to allow the foetus to use her body.

Since this is true even if the pregnancy is intentional, your points about unintentional pregnancy are ultimately irrelevent.

Besides, it's just selfish to hoard your organs when you don't need them :D

Selfish perhaps, but a right we all have.


Two problems with that...The first is the double homicide if a pregnant mother is killed, the other is the previously asserted statement that even dead (non-thinking) humans have rights.

Your problems are not problems.

1) this is a silly law, not found in most legal systems; as has been pointed out, it was introduced in the US by religious pro-lifers with the direct intention of using it as a wedge to overturn the legality of abortion. To argue from the assumption that this is a sensible law is to assume your conclusion, thus begging the question.
2) the "right" of a dead person to not donate organs is an aspect of the right of the living to have their property (including their body) disposed according to one's directions. This is the idea that underlies wills.

All in all, I'm not aware of any workable definition of "person" that makes sense other than "human organism in possession of a functional sentient central nervous system". Religious definitions that extend "person" to cover the early foetus, embryo and zygote necessarily make appeal to such intangibles as "God" or "the soul". But these notions have no place in the legal system, by virtue of their very intangibility.

ps sorry I misspelt your name.

The best solution is probably a compromise - find a boundary somewhere in the pregnancy after which abortion is not allowed except in truly exceptional circumstances (mother would die if baby didn't). This way, you could ban aborting this http://www.davebrownlow.com/baby_in_womb.jpg without banning aborting this
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg .

And guess what? In most legal systems, that is exactly the rule we have now.

Hurrah for the status quo.

I wrote about this in another abortion thread, so I will repaet it here:

The Laci Petersen case is partly valid because the fetus was VIABLE at the time of her death, meaning it could have survived outside of the womb if removed upon the mother's death. The question of whether oir not it was LIFE is a different issue. The status quo as mentioned earlier is that if a fetus is viable, it should not be aborted except in medical emergencies. Usually, a fetus is delivered early under such circumstances. The only exception I know of is when the fetus despite maturity cannot live outside of the womb, such as when a baby's brain develops outside of its body (and that does happen).

Laci's fetus would have lived at the time its mother was killed. Therefore, the law could state easily that this was a double homicide. The fact that anti-abortion activists use it as a back door is truly sad, because the legal distinction of VIABLE is well-established, and that's all that the Petersen case is addressing in terms of the state of the fetus. It does NOT answer questions about abortion.

Ge-Ren

I didn't say I'm not going to say it's human life...It most certainly is, that just wasn't my point at that time.
As for animals, we, for the most part, slaughter animals out of need...need for food, clothing, etc. If you're a Christian, then you believe that man was created above all other creatures...If not, then evolution would dictate that nature put us above them. Either way, humans are the clear rulers of this planet.
But, we are not animals. We belong to the kingdom animalia, but we are not monkeys, we are thinking, feeling beings, capable of something that no other creature is really capable of: compassion, sympathy, and above all, the ability to completely ignore the ideal of "survival of the fittest."

Funny, God doesn't seem to agree with you that it's a human life:

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall abe fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The crime for killing the woman is "life for life," but causing her to lose the fetus only carries a fine. Thusly, a fetus is not considered life according to scripture. If it were life, the penalty would be death, as it is with the mother.

Evolution, also doesn;t put one creature above another. That's just the interpretation of Social Darwinists who were later trying to use the theory to prove such theories as you are now. Evolution states that creatures adapt to their environment or die.


Really, you must come down to this choice: Either all human life is sacred, or it all is not.
If the former, you must accept that a fetus is a human life: life because it falls in the definition of "living"; human, because it is a human, albeit a very very young one (and it can't be anything other than human because I've yet to see a human mother give birth to animals or aliens...and scientifically, they all have human DNA). So if it's alive, and it has human DNA, what else can it be but a human life?

A conglomerate of dividing human cells. Pretty simple, really.

My finger is living, and it has human DNA, yet if I were to cut it off, no one would claim that it was human. Just because something is of humans and has some qualities of life does not mean that it is a person. Only a relgious perspective demands such a black-and-white view of life...science accepts that it is something less than a life in the legal or ethical sense, and laws are based on this. Saying, "Well it looks human to me!" is a foolish argument. Just because it can become a human does not mean it is. Any egg can become human pending fertilization, just as any zygote can grow into a human pending gestation, yet we don;t see a movement to try to ban menstruation.

Did you know that, centuries ago, they used to believe that there were tiny babies in every egg/sperm (depending on the theory)? Hmm, I see a parallel here...

Is abortion just a bed-time story told to scare children like Michael Jackson and George W Bush's election victory?

I abhore abortion. The amazing numbers of abortions conducted in the US is one the worst of the many problems we have. I find it disgusting that it's considered a women's rights issue. I strongly advise anyone considering an abortion not to do it. I believe it's wrong. It's most certainly wrong in the late stages. I cannot fathom how any medical professional could perfrom them, particullarly partial birth abortions. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with terminating a zygote, but I suggest we err on the side of caution. I suppose if you're an atheist and don't at least consider God or karma to be a possiblity, you would argue that there's nothing be cautious about. In that case, I'm not sure what to say.

I find the Roe vs Wade decision to be on shaky ground. Franky, I can't possibly imagine why the same argument hasn't successfuly been made in court to strike down statutes prohibiting suicide and euthanasia, as well as those restricting all other medical procedures. I'm of the opinion that the states ought to retain the authority to decide the law regarding abortion. It shouldn't have ever been a matter for the federal courts. However, I don't necessarily think a ban would be the right way to go. I would rather they be performed by competent doctors than the type of people who tend to succeed in our black markets. I'm sure if the supremes struck down R v W, some states would move swiftly to ban abortion outright while others would move to protect it.

I think the heart of the problem is that so many Americans equate morality with legality - that it's okay to do something that's legal and that is wrong to do that which is illegal. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. One more thing I have an enormous problem with is tax dollars going to organizations that perfrom abortions. Pro-life Bush supporters should
read this (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=24521).

I find the Roe vs Wade decision to be on shaky ground. Franky, I can't possibly imagine why the same argument hasn't successfuly been made in court to strike down statutes prohibiting suicide and euthanasia, as well as those restricting all other medical procedures.

And why shouldn't they? Those things ought to be legal.

I think the heart of the problem is that so many Americans equate morality with legality - that it's okay to do something that's legal and that is wrong to do that which is illegal. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think the bigger problem is that some people confuse their morality with legality, and the perception of a right to mold the latter to the former.

You abhor abortion? Fine, don't get one.

And why shouldn't they? Those things ought to be legal.



I think the bigger problem is that some people confuse their morality with legality, and the perception of a right to mold the latter to the former.

You abhor abortion? Fine, don't get one.

Damn commie! :mp5:

<snip>
A zygot may not be able to feel pain, but a fetus certainly can, and probably more that the animals, since its nerves are completely new and haven't experienced pain before (much like a two-year-old cries at a scraped elbo, while older people laugh at a broken arm).
Whatever amount of pain a fetus feels while being aborted in a doctor's office, it would most certainly feel much more pain being yanked out of the womb in a back alley with a wire coat hanger.

The mother, though (in my opinion anyway) has already made the decision by allowing herself to become pregnant. If she didn't want a baby, she should have made him wear a condom or worn a diaphram or a long list of things, or, ultimately, not had sex. Yes, accidents happen, but that is part of life, and you must deal with the repercussions.
So then you seek to punish women for having sex? I can't imagine living a life simply to be a punishment for my mother's behavior.

One more thing I have an enormous problem with is tax dollars going to organizations that perfrom abortions
I can see perhaps objecting to this on moral grounds, but certainly not on fiscal grounds. You'd be paying a hell of a lot more of your tax dollars clothing, feeding, supporting, etc. those children who weren't aborted as fetuses than you'd have spent aborting them. I'm not saying that simply because something saves money, then that's what we should do, I'm trying to determine if that's what you're saying.

Funny, God doesn't seem to agree with you that it's a human life:

Exodus 21:22-25 (NRSV)
When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall abe fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The crime for killing the woman is "life for life," but causing her to lose the fetus only carries a fine. Thusly, a fetus is not considered life according to scripture. If it were life, the penalty would be death, as it is with the mother.
Oh really? I think not (http://www.carmical.net/articles/biblical.html).


Evolution, also doesn;t put one creature above another. That's just the interpretation of Social Darwinists who were later trying to use the theory to prove such theories as you are now. Evolution states that creatures adapt to their environment or die.
I refer you to my rather large post a bit back, particularly the section about assumptions of human life.




A conglomerate of dividing human cells. Pretty simple, really.
Dictionary.com, Kill: 1 b To deprive of life
You are depriving an adult of his life by killing him/her as a fetus. ie, you are killing him/her, just sooner than usual so you can excuse it.

My finger is living, and it has human DNA, yet if I were to cut it off, no one would claim that it was human. Just because something is of humans and has some qualities of life does not mean that it is a person. Only a relgious perspective demands such a black-and-white view of life...science accepts that it is something less than a life in the legal or ethical sense, and laws are based on this. Saying, "Well it looks human to me!" is a foolish argument. Just because it can become a human does not mean it is. Any egg can become human pending fertilization, just as any zygote can grow into a human pending gestation, yet we don;t see a movement to try to ban menstruation.
Your finger is human, but it's not a human. It is a part of a whole being, not a separate entity unto itself.
A fetus, on the other hand, is a separate entity. It is neither the father, nor the mother, nor an organ. It is simply connected to the mother. It is its own being. At the very least, it is a complete, separate human by 7 months (look it up if you don't believe me).

Did you know that, centuries ago, they used to believe that there were tiny babies in every egg/sperm (depending on the theory)? Hmm, I see a parallel here...
Did you know that not long ago at all, we thought Blacks weren't human either? I see a parallel here, too...

Whatever amount of pain a fetus feels while being aborted in a doctor's office, it would most certainly feel much more pain being yanked out of the womb in a back alley with a wire coat hanger.
Do you realize how few people would get an abortion if that was the only way? True, some would...But then, a lot of people do stupid things.
But let's think...1.3 (?) million abortions (deaths) a year (excluding women who die from complecations) v. probably less than a hundred deaths a year, combined mother and child...Which is more right? Even if it was 1 million deaths resulting from legalized abortions v. 999,999 deaths resulting from illegal "allyway" abortions, you've just saved one life.

AND, instead of spending money to legalize abortion, you could be spending money on houses and counceling for the mothers and babies and avoid the whole issue altogether.

So then you seek to punish women for having sex? I can't imagine living a life simply to be a punishment for my mother's behavior.
I never said it was a punishment, I said it was consequence...Big difference...Not all consequences are bad.

ie, cause and effect. The effect, pregnancy...the cause, sex. That is how it is.
If you do not know or cannot except it, then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. Even if you do have unprotected sex, you have to accept that accidents happen.
If you can't accept that then you have to accept that the only 100% protection is abstinence.
If you can't accept that, then you're just being selfish, wanting what you want whenever you want it and however you want it, without stopping to think about what happens and the other people that it affects.

Oh really? I think not (http://www.carmical.net/articles/biblical.html).

NRSV is the most respected translation to date for accuracy. You want to bring a dif. version into it, we have little to discuss.

I refer you to my rather large post a bit back, particularly the section about assumptions of human life.

Oh yeah, your assumption that a fetus is alive, and subsequent assumption that we find the logic which convinces you convincing...I do remember that...both were wrong.

Dictionary.com, Kill: 1 b To deprive of life
You are depriving an adult of his life by killing him/her as a fetus. ie, you are killing him/her, just sooner than usual so you can excuse it.

Yeah, that's the definition of "kill." Pity you haven't done squat to prove it's alive. Let's see some more pictures of late-term abortions, that oughta do it. :rolleyes:

Your finger is human, but it's not a human. It is a part of a whole being, not a separate entity unto itself.
A fetus, on the other hand, is a separate entity. It is neither the father, nor the mother, nor an organ. It is simply connected to the mother. It is its own being. At the very least, it is a complete, separate human by 7 months (look it up if you don't believe me).

Look it up amidst the plethora of "facts" you've provided? I think not. We've already discussed viability, but since you think it looks human, clearly you'd know better. Better get Scientific American on the line, we've resolved the issue.

By the 7th month, the nervous system is more or less operating, so I don;t support abortion save for medical emergency after that point anyway. Contrary to the pictures flashed around by the Anti-Choice lobby, very few abortions are performed after that point anyway. Strawman, anyone?

Did you know that not long ago at all, we thought Blacks weren't human either? I see a parallel here, too...

Let's see...crap science to crap science, versus a ball of cells to a fully formed person...I think mine is a bit stronger. But thanks for playing. ;)

Because she most likely planned having the baby.

There are many choices made wether humans can kill humans or not. Fine, make abortion illeagal so the baby is born; all so it can be sent to Iraq in 20 years. Or so it can join a gang and get killed by cops. Or so it can live on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean where everyone is dying of malaria and cholera.

My point is...I don't care if a fetus er whatever is alive or not. It will live...wow...maybe a century...if it is lucky...and then will DIE ANYWAYS. It does not matter if it is born or not.

Not Born- boo hoo one less human in the world :(

Born- either one more Jesus Christ :) (for all we know)....or....the other end of the spectrum...another Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin :mp5: :sniper:

(one will note that the latter is more common than the former)

Do you realize how few people would get an abortion if that was the only way? True, some would...But then, a lot of people do stupid things.
But let's think...1.3 (?) million abortions (deaths) a year (excluding women who die from complecations) v. probably less than a hundred deaths a year, combined mother and child...Which is more right? Even if it was 1 million deaths resulting from legalized abortions v. 999,999 deaths resulting from illegal "allyway" abortions, you've just saved one life.

AND, instead of spending money to legalize abortion, you could be spending money on houses and counceling for the mothers and babies and avoid the whole issue altogether.
Certainly fewer women would get abortions if they weren't legal, but it would be well over 100 who do. And, yes, illegalizing abortions would save "lives", but that wasn't the argument I was arguing against. Your argument was pain, and I said that the combined pain that all of the illegally aborted fetuses would experience is greater than the combined pain that all of the legally aborted fetuses feel.

Your second argument applies to you. Instead of spending the money to illegalize abortion, why not spend the money on providing homes for all of the babies who aren't aborted and are never adopted?

I never said it was a punishment, I said it was consequence...Big difference...Not all consequences are bad.
Consequences are pretty much the same thing as punishments, especially the way that you used the word consequences in that earlier post.

NRSV is the most respected translation to date for accuracy. You want to bring a dif. version into it, we have little to discuss.
That's in the original Greek buddy. ;)
Do you speak/read Greek?

Oh yeah, your assumption that a fetus is alive, and subsequent assumption that we find the logic which convinces you convincing...I do remember that...both were wrong.
Alive (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=alive)
Living (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=living)
Life (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life)
Dead (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dead)
Nonliving (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nonliving)
Death (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=death)
Do I really have to get out my Bio2 book and look up the scientific definition/signs of life? :headbang:


Yeah, that's the definition of "kill." Pity you haven't done squat to prove it's alive. Let's see some more pictures of late-term abortions, that oughta do it. :rolleyes:
And you haven't done...well...much of anything, except bitch at me ;)


Look it up amidst the plethora of "facts" you've provided? I think not. We've already discussed viability, but since you think it looks human, clearly you'd know better. Better get Scientific American on the line, we've resolved the issue.
Have you even looked at the stuff I posted? If you've got a better idea, by all means, tell me. All I see, though, is you trying to prove me wrong with nothing more than the words "you're wrong" and the assumption that you're smarter than me because you say the words "I'm smarter than him."
Nice logic there, guy.

By the 7th month, the nervous system is more or less operating, so I don;t support abortion save for medical emergency after that point anyway. Contrary to the pictures flashed around by the Anti-Choice lobby, very few abortions are performed after that point anyway. Strawman, anyone?
Got any proof?
Cuz :D
Very few, eh?... :rolleyes:


Let's see...crap science to crap science, versus a ball of cells to a fully formed person...I think mine is a bit stronger. But thanks for playing. ;)
Yes, and back then they would have said something like, "crap science to crap science versus a stupid n----- to a educated White man."
Thank you for playing. :rolleyes:

Certainly fewer women would get abortions if they weren't legal, but it would be well over 100 who do. And, yes, illegalizing abortions would save "lives", but that wasn't the argument I was arguing against. Your argument was pain, and I said that the combined pain that all of the illegally aborted fetuses would experience is greater than the combined pain that all of the legally aborted fetuses feel.
I looked it up, and the number I'm getting is 100,000 a year before legalization. I am sorry, I made a wrong assumption.
But, that's still less than a tenth of the abortions done today. That's 1,200,000 lives being saved.
And I seriously doubt that a coathanger is any more painfull than being torn apart with a vacuum...
That, however, is a subjective matter, and as none of use have been aborted, we're in no position to judge...sufficive to say, abortion is painful, yes?

Your second argument applies to you. Instead of spending the money to illegalize abortion, why not spend the money on providing homes for all of the babies who aren't aborted and are never adopted?
Actually, my dad was just telling me about a church he visited; they bought an old house and fixed it up for pregnant teens who'd been kicked out of their houses.
Plenty of money is being used for providing homes.

And do you know how much money is being spent for the abortions themselves? $400-$5000 per abortion, times 1.3 million abortions a year...that's a hell of a lot of money!

Consequences are pretty much the same thing as punishments, especially the way that you used the word consequences in that earlier post.
Quite the opposite. If I study, the consequence is that I get good grades.

True, it is usually held in a negative connotation.

Regardless, my point was that it is not a punishment, it just is...It is something that happens sometimes when you have sex. If you don't like it, don't have sex.

Aside from the abortion backdoor, morally the majority of society supports abortion rights for women but does not afford complete strangers that right.

The answer lies with the statement unlawful killing. With respect to California and the original question:

After Roe V Wade there was a legal case where a man while on his way home was stricken with the belief that his wife was not pregnant with his child. When he arrived home he began to batter his wife, and she fled out of the house, entered her vehicle, and drove away. He followed her in his vehicle, ramming the rear end of her car until she went off the road. He then pulled her out of her car and began jumping on her abdomen, with such force that it lead to her body terminating the pregnancy. She survived, and brought suit. But the courts in CA could find no cause of action for her losing the fetus, and thus the husband faced no penalty (was charged with battery etc).

Upon the result of the trial the legislature enacted a fetuscide act that punishes the unlawful killing of a fetus the same as murder. It is still viable. Where the mother did not desire her pregnancy to be terminated and the volitional unauthorized act of another result in her losing the pregnancy, the actor is liable for fetuscide.

It is not some vast right wing conspiracy, but a bi-partisan act to provide justice for the wrongful termination of life to the parent(s).

I looked it up, and the number I'm getting is 100,000 a year before legalization. I am sorry, I made a wrong assumption.
But, that's still less than a tenth of the abortions done today. That's 1,200,000 lives being saved.
And I seriously doubt that a coathanger is any more painfull than being torn apart with a vacuum...
That, however, is a subjective matter, and as none of use have been aborted, we're in no position to judge...sufficive to say, abortion is painful, yes?


Actually, my dad was just telling me about a church he visited; they bought an old house and fixed it up for pregnant teens who'd been kicked out of their houses.
Plenty of money is being used for providing homes.

And do you know how much money is being spent for the abortions themselves? $400-$5000 per abortion, times 1.3 million abortions a year...that's a hell of a lot of money!
Fair enough, I agree, abortion is painful.

More money would be spent raising the babies not aborted into adults than is spent on abortions.

Quite the opposite. If I study, the consequence is that I get good grades.

True, it is usually held in a negative connotation.

Regardless, my point was that it is not a punishment, it just is...It is something that happens sometimes when you have sex. If you don't like it, don't have sex.
And sometimes when people get pregnant, as a consequence the pregnancy is terminated. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally. Don't like it, don't get pregnant (or get anyone pregnant.)

And sometimes when people get pregnant, as a consequence the pregnancy is terminated. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally. Don't like it, don't get pregnant (or get anyone pregnant.)
I don't intend to, until I'm ready for the baby.

Regardless: Would you like to know the repercussions of an abortion? A dead baby, for one. And the psychological effects are horrible. That is one thing that pro-choice sites will not show or tell you...The majority of women who have an abortion come out of it emotionally scarred.
Here's a big long list (http://www.priestsforlife.org/postabortion/postabortiontestimonywomen.htm).
Another story (http://www.testimonies.com.au/topics/abortion_1.htm)
Another long list (http://www.cbrinfo.org/AbortionNO/hurt.html)

Here's a list of stats (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)...Pay close attention to that last bit...only 16%....

And I believe I alreadly linked to this, but here is a study on the psychological effects of abortions (http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp).

So, consequences of having sex include getting pregnant, which can include getting an abortion, which can include all the above-mentioned...unpleasantness...

Why not play it safe and avoid the issue altogether?

Fair enough, I agree, abortion is painful.

More money would be spent raising the babies not aborted into adults than is spent on abortions.
That may be true. But all the money involved combined, the money spent to legalize it, the money spent to illegalize it, the money spent to do it, and the money spent not to do it would certainly take care of a lot of babies. Even if it couldn't take care of ALL of the babies, it wouldn't have to, because, believe it or not, there is a waiting list of people who want to adopt babies...Any facility made to house would-be abortions would only have to hold them for a short time...then, another family with enough income can adopt it. There are plenty of families willing and able.

The Empire of Presidency has this quote from a famous person, "Ask not what abortion can do for you, but rather what you can do for abortion."

As I was saying, before I was so rudely deleted...

Fine. If you want to believe that abortion is wrong for religious reasons, you have every right to do so. If women of your religious persuasion want to *not* get abortions, it's their every right to do so. What you *don't* have is the right to make abortions illegal, which would prevent women who are not of your religious persuasion from having one.
I'm not the one making it illegal. I'm trying to convince people that it should be and gain the power of the majority, which does have the right to make something illegal.

And does a woman have the right to kill people?


You admit your religious opinion is subjective; and yet you seek to apply it to others who do not share that subjective opinion.
I have only offered my religious opinion when asked. Any time I offered it, it was as my opinion only, no more, no less. I have never presented it as fact, nor have I presented that as the only explanation.
If you are unwilling to accept my opinions as such, then ignore them, because they aren't addressed to you. They are addressed to those who believe likewise or are willing to accept them as a possible solution.

Thus the rhetoric about the humanness of the late foetus; which, according to your own admission, is irrelevent to you anyway, because your opposition to abortion is based on religious considerations. you are using the arguments about the late foetus to support your own position - all abortion is wrong - when in fact, as I demonstrated above, that argument alone leads to a completely different conclusion - that late abortion is wrong but early abortion is fine.
It was never my intention to use those arguments to say that ALL abortion is wrong. I have presented multiple arguments, most of which center on proving that abortion, at some point, is wrong, regardless of where that point lies.

If I make a decision to give someone a kidney, and I sign the forms, and we both go to hospital, and we do all the tests, and the theatre is prepped and the surgeon scrubs up, I still have the perfect right - at any point - to turn around and say "actually, no, I've thought again, I don't want to go ahead with this" - up to any point before they actually give me the anaesthetic. Similarly a woman who becomes pregnant - even if it's completely intentional - has the full right to change her mind and refuse to allow the foetus to use her body.
Someone made the point earlier that you never have to donate your organs, even if it is your fault that the person needs them.
But, if that person dies, and it is your fault, you are charged with manslaughter or murder or something, depending on the circumstances.

You are the one that allowed that child to come into life, and if you abort it, you are directly responsible for its death. No, you don't have you let it use your body, but neither does a criminal have to not pull a trigger.

Since this is true even if the pregnancy is intentional, your points about unintentional pregnancy are ultimately irrelevent.
The only possible time I can think of that a child would be aborted in an intentional pregnancy would be in cases where it would kill the mother...But those are 2% or so of all abortions done. I think that that the other 97.something% is pretty relevant.

Selfish perhaps, but a right we all have.
1 Corinthians 10:23
Everything is permissible"–but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"–but not everything is constructive.

Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Just because it's legal, it doesn't make it right.

Your problems are not problems.

1) this is a silly law, not found in most legal systems; as has been pointed out, it was introduced in the US by religious pro-lifers with the direct intention of using it as a wedge to overturn the legality of abortion. To argue from the assumption that this is a sensible law is to assume your conclusion, thus begging the question.
Even if it was just a wedge (which is arguable), the fact is, it passed. It was an example for those who have no moral standing whatsoever: even if you have no belief in morals or religion or anything, legally, a fetus is a human.

2) the "right" of a dead person to not donate organs is an aspect of the right of the living to have their property (including their body) disposed according to one's directions. This is the idea that underlies wills.
You missed my point. A dead person is..well...dead. It cannot think, it cannot move, it cannot do anything but rot. A fetus, on the other hand, thinks and grows and moves. A zygot at least grows and moves...
And yet, a completely lifeless body is given more rights than a living, growing body.

All in all, I'm not aware of any workable definition of "person" that makes sense other than "human organism in possession of a functional sentient central nervous system". Religious definitions that extend "person" to cover the early foetus, embryo and zygote necessarily make appeal to such intangibles as "God" or "the soul". But these notions have no place in the legal system, by virtue of their very intangibility.
But, as intangible as they are, so is the concept that says early fetuses are not persons.
You cannot prove to me that they are not human any more than I can prove they are. If my views have no place, neither do yours.

ps sorry I misspelt your name.
Wouldn't be the first time :D

Deprive: To take something away from.

If a zygote never had "life", it couldn't be taken away from it, hence a zygote cannot be killed.

...but on the other hand, if you use definition #2 of "deprive", you get "Deprive: To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny" which would support your point.

...but on the other hand, if you use the first definition of kill, you get "Kill: To put to death." which is meaningless if we don't consider the zygote to be alive in the first place.

I suggest we quit the petty debates about semantics.

The key difference:

pro-lifers believe that a zygote is a living human being and so is entitled to protection.

pro-choicers don't consider it human/living until a certain point - such as when it gets a nervous system.

It comes down to that.

I don't see how you can persuade a pro-choice person that abortion is morally wrong if he doesn't see the fetus/zygote as human and alive yet. I also don't see how you can persuade a pro-lifer that abortion of any sort is acceptable if they believe that the fetus is human from the moment of conception.

The best solution is probably a compromise - find a boundary somewhere in the pregnancy after which abortion is not allowed except in truly exceptional circumstances (mother would die if baby didn't). This way, you could ban aborting this http://www.davebrownlow.com/baby_in_womb.jpg without banning aborting this
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/zygote.jpg .

Again...do I really have to get out my Bio2 textbook and look up the signs of life? It is alive, regardless of whether or not it is a human being.

There are many choices made wether humans can kill humans or not. Fine, make abortion illeagal so the baby is born; all so it can be sent to Iraq in 20 years. Or so it can join a gang and get killed by cops. Or so it can live on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean where everyone is dying of malaria and cholera.

My point is...I don't care if a fetus er whatever is alive or not. It will live...wow...maybe a century...if it is lucky...and then will DIE ANYWAYS. It does not matter if it is born or not.

Not Born- boo hoo one less human in the world :(

Born- either one more Jesus Christ :) (for all we know)....or....the other end of the spectrum...another Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin :mp5: :sniper:

(one will note that the latter is more common than the former)

Then why don't we all go ahead and kill whomever we don't like, cuz, ya know, they're going to die anyway...And let's just go ahead and nuke Iraq and the middle east, because they're going to die anyway. And if we get nuked back, who cares, because we're going to die anyway.

In fact, why are we alive in the first place? Why bother getting up in the morning? Why bother doing anything? We're all going to die, why not just shoot ourselves now and save us all the trouble?

(BTW, I'm 100% serious about all of this...I really want you to give me a reason...)


I heard about this excerise people did, a survey kind of thing...They were given two hypothetical babies, and the choice to abort one of them...
The first had birth defects, it probably would not live long if it wasn't aborted first. I think it would have been born into a poor family (not sure...can't remember).
The second, though, was a perfectly healthy baby. All of its brothers and sisters had been miscarried or died shortly after birth. Its parents wanted the baby very badly.

People obviously chose to abort the former, killing Motzart.
The baby they chose to save was Hitler.

The Empire of Presidency has this quote from a famous person, "Ask not what abortion can do for you, but rather what you can do for abortion."
Let all babies be born. Let us drown the ones we do not want.
- G.K. Chesterton

Regardless: Would you like to know the repercussions of an abortion? A dead baby, for one. And the psychological effects are horrible. That is one thing that pro-choice sites will not show or tell you...The majority of women who have an abortion come out of it emotionally scarred.

So, consequences of having sex include getting pregnant, which can include getting an abortion, which can include all the above-mentioned...unpleasantness...Why not play it safe and avoid the issue altogether?
1) That represents a failure of the abortion providers to give complete information, not a failure in the legality of abortion. Also, having children has been known to cause emotional scarring, also...post-partum depression, for instance.

2) It's not something that I have to worry about, however many people do, for whatever reason. Sometimes they're irresponsible with their sex lives, sometimes they do have safe sex, but the condom breaks, or sometimes they have sex simply because they feel that it's an expression of love. (But that's a whole other issue.)

Even if it couldn't take care of ALL of the babies, it wouldn't have to, because, believe it or not, there is a waiting list of people who want to adopt babies...Any facility made to house would-be abortions would only have to hold them for a short time...then, another family with enough income can adopt it. There are plenty of families willing and able.
There is a waiting list to adopt white babies, yes, but not minority/mixed race babies.

1) That represents a failure of the abortion providers to give complete information, not a failure in the legality of abortion. Also, having children has been known to cause emotional scarring, also...post-partum depression, for instance.
Not have as much as abortion. Besides, how many stories are there about how great it is to have kids? How many stories are there about how great abortion is? Not many...Some will say, yeah, I didn't mind it, or yeah, it was ok, or yeah, my life is great since I don't have a kid...But the first two aren't good, per se, they just are...And the last isn't unique to abortion. And there are far more stories about how horrible abortion is than there are praising it.



2) It's not something that I have to worry about, however many people do, for whatever reason. Sometimes they're irresponsible with their sex lives, sometimes they do have safe sex, but the condom breaks, or sometimes they have sex simply because they feel that it's an expression of love. (But that's a whole other issue.)
Yes, and sometimes people are irresponsible with their guns or with their wives or with their children or with drugs or with alcohol. Sometimes people just fall asleep at the wheel, sometimes they were going just a bit over the speed limit and their brakes broke, and sometimes they were just out for a good time but couldn't find a girl that was willing. Sometimes husbands beat wives because it's the only way they know to show love, and sometimes people do drugs because it's cool. Sometimes they need cash really bad but don't have any, sometimes people just had a little bit too much to drink before they got in the car, sometimes people are in a hurry and run a light.
Sometimes you mess up, just a little bit, just the smallest accident, the tiniest little lapse in attention, the smallest little thing happens at the worst possible time, and it ends up costing someone else's life. Sometimes things happen that you didn't mean to happen, that you would never in your life have wanted to do, but they happen anyway.

There is a waiting list to adopt white babies, yes, but not minority/mixed race babies.

Trust me, if someone is waiting for a baby, they will take a black or white or a purple and yellow polka-dot baby. They may prefer one or the other, but they will take whatever baby they can get.


And have you thought of the possibility that there's not a minority/mixed waiting list because there might be a lot of such babies to be had? Or that there just aren't enough orfaned/abandoned white babies? Or some combination of the two? I don't know, but it is a possibility, eh?

Trust me, if someone is waiting for a baby, they will take a black or white or a purple and yellow polka-dot baby. They may prefer one or the other, but they will take whatever baby they can get.


And have you thought of the possibility that there's not a minority/mixed waiting list because there might be a lot of such babies to be had? Or that there just aren't enough orfaned/abandoned white babies? Or some combination of the two? I don't know, but it is a possibility, eh?
Well I have to adopt and although I'm not bothered about the race of my child I know that my partner will want a white child. There is a strong feeling in people that they would like at least one person in the street to acknowledge that the child with them is there's.

Well I have to adopt and although I'm not bothered about the race of my child I know that my partner will want a white child. There is a strong feeling in people that they would like at least one person in the street to acknowledge that the child with them is there's.
I know...I never meant to make it seem racist...
I know that as white person I would be most comfortable rasing a white child...It'd just be easier, wouldn't it? Likewise, I'm guessing a black family would want a black child.


But, as to why, specifically, there's only a waiting list for white babies (assuming it's true), I can only speculate, but the vibe I got was that people only want white babies, which I'm sure is not the case...

one more step to make abortion illegal.
one more step to making one religion control all of the civil actions this country takes.

I know...I never meant to make it seem racist...
I know that as white person I would be most comfortable rasing a white child...It'd just be easier, wouldn't it? Likewise, I'm guessing a black family would want a black child.

Why?

I'm going to have kids that aren't the same colour as me. Hurray for interracialness! :D
Although it is somewhat different since they wil have come from me, they might still look very different from me. I may have little pale redheaded kids, and I'm Indian. The point is, that people in the street may not immediately identify them as my kids either.

Well I have to adopt and although I'm not bothered about the race of my child I know that my partner will want a white child. There is a strong feeling in people that they would like at least one person in the street to acknowledge that the child with them is there's.
Funnily enough, my (adopted, obviously) sister's Hispanic and the rest of us are Irish/German, but people still used to tell us she looks like my brother!

Actually, there is a pretty strong undercurrent of people wanting to adopt foreign (especially from impoverished countries, and hence almost all non-white) children. My parents never even looked in America, and there are quite a few agencies that only place international kids.

People don't really notice as much as you'd expect. If they do, they pretty much just go, "Oh, she must be adopted." I'm from a pretty rural, uber-conservative town, but there were at least a dozen or so adoptees of different races than their families overlapping with me in high school, so everyone was pretty used to it.

Trust me, if someone is waiting for a baby, they will take a black or white or a purple and yellow polka-dot baby. They may prefer one or the other, but they will take whatever baby they can get.


And have you thought of the possibility that there's not a minority/mixed waiting list because there might be a lot of such babies to be had? Or that there just aren't enough orfaned/abandoned white babies? Or some combination of the two? I don't know, but it is a possibility, eh?
Sometimes people will take a baby regardless of race, but many times they won't. If people who wanted children were just willing to take any baby that there is, then why would they bother procreating in the first place? The reason that they do is because they want the child to be a "part of them."

I'm assuming that the reason there's a waiting list for the white babies is because most people who adopt are white. And they'd adopt a white baby because they can still pretend that the white baby is carrying on a part of them to future generations. (genetically speaking, I mean.) I don't know exactly what ratio there is of white/minority group adoptees.

Yes, and sometimes people are irresponsible with their guns or with their wives or with their children or with drugs or with alcohol. Sometimes people just fall asleep at the wheel, sometimes they were going just a bit over the speed limit and their brakes broke, and sometimes they were just out for a good time but couldn't find a girl that was willing. Sometimes husbands beat wives because it's the only way they know to show love, and sometimes people do drugs because it's cool. Sometimes they need cash really bad but don't have any, sometimes people just had a little bit too much to drink before they got in the car, sometimes people are in a hurry and run a light.
Sometimes you mess up, just a little bit, just the smallest accident, the tiniest little lapse in attention, the smallest little thing happens at the worst possible time, and it ends up costing someone else's life. Sometimes things happen that you didn't mean to happen, that you would never in your life have wanted to do, but they happen anyway.Yes, and then you deal with it. Sometimes the way you deal with it is healthy, sometimes it isn't. And the cycle repeats itself over and over again.

Spike here,
Alright this topic is sensitive, so I will try to avoid offending anyone. There are two questions you have to ask yourself. Can a fetus chosse? And is stem cell research a good thing? Stem cell research is where you create a life so that you can kill it and use its parts and body to further advance society and our health. It brings me to another point, is it fair to eat animals like dogs and cats as food. The only difference an animal is betweeen a pet and food, is the way you look at it. Some countries need the food, and have to kill the animals for food; you may just want to hod it and cuddle it, and then scold it when it pees on your furniture or your floor. it is all on how you look at it. Why can't it be the same way with stem cell research?
My other point, can a fetus choose, and the answer is no. if a mother is raped and doesn't want a child that has ruined her body, or whatever you want to call it, why can't she get an abortion. Some say, let it live, let her go through all that trouble of labor and set the bay for adoption, so that the mother never has to worry about ti again. what if she doesn't wantt ot go throuhg all that troble diliverying a kid and then never seeing it. Is it worth that pain and suffering. You can choose, I only show you the answers, you decide.
Spike

Trust me, if someone is waiting for a baby, they will take a black or white or a purple and yellow polka-dot baby. They may prefer one or the other, but they will take whatever baby they can get.

actually, that's not the case at all. according to the most recent statistics, only 8% of adoptions are mixed race.

while adoptions from foreign countries more often involve mixed-race pairings of parent to child, adoptions occuring within the US a far more likely to be cases where the parents insist on a child of a certain race. this situation is improving, but the inequality is still there. also, minority children are far more likely to have special needs, either emotional or medical, and thus are far less likely to be adopted. minority children are also more likely to be in situations where multiple siblings from a single family are up for adoption simultaneously, and adoption agencies often have trouble placing siblings together.

basically, minority babies tend to have "strings" attached, and potential adoptive parents aren't usually prepared to deal with all that. because of the fact that such minority kids usually have special circumstances, many adoptive parents feel nervous about accepting children of minority ethnicities even if there is no reported special circumstance, because they are suspicious that there may be some condition that hasn't been reported.

Do you realize how few people would get an abortion if that was the only way? True, some would...But then, a lot of people do stupid things.
But let's think...1.3 (?) million abortions (deaths) a year (excluding women who die from complecations) v. probably less than a hundred deaths a year, combined mother and child...Which is more right? Even if it was 1 million deaths resulting from legalized abortions v. 999,999 deaths resulting from illegal "allyway" abortions, you've just saved one life.

AND, instead of spending money to legalize abortion, you could be spending money on houses and counceling for the mothers and babies and avoid the whole issue altogether.

Giving birth is one of the top ten killers of women.

In third world countries it's even worse.

I never said it was a punishment, I said it was consequence...Big difference...Not all consequences are bad.

ie, cause and effect. The effect, pregnancy...the cause, sex. That is how it is.
If you do not know or cannot except it, then you shouldn't have unprotected sex. Even if you do have unprotected sex, you have to accept that accidents happen.
If you can't accept that then you have to accept that the only 100% protection is abstinence.
If you can't accept that, then you're just being selfish, wanting what you want whenever you want it and however you want it, without stopping to think about what happens and the other people that it affects.

ie, the effect, abortion... the cause, unwanted pregnancy. That is how it is.

Abortions are not only a perfectly valid way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, they are also much less selfish than carrying a child, simply to abandone it into the adoption/foster care system, simple so you can feel good about yourself, and stay up on your high-horse.

I looked it up, and the number I'm getting is 100,000 a year before legalization. I am sorry, I made a wrong assumption.
But, that's still less than a tenth of the abortions done today. That's 1,200,000 lives being saved.
And I seriously doubt that a coathanger is any more painfull than being torn apart with a vacuum...
That, however, is a subjective matter, and as none of use have been aborted, we're in no position to judge...suffice to say, abortion is painful, yes? ...snip[

Actually... elective abortions occur before the cerebral cortex is formed... so it's actually, not, I repeat NOT, painful (pain is registered in the cerebral cortex... no cerebral cortex, no pain).

"That's 1,200,000 lives being saved."

And what, pray, do you suggest we DO with those people? Shove them into sock drawers? We need LESS people, not more.

Just more proof that pro-choice = quality, and anti-abortion = quanity.

Yes, and then you deal with it. Sometimes the way you deal with it is healthy, sometimes it isn't. And the cycle repeats itself over and over again.
You have completely missed my point. My point is that all of those things are BAD. Sometimes things happen, but that doesn't make it right or your reaction right. Sometimes you get pregnant when you don't want to be...Sometimes you run a red light. Sometimes you abort the baby...sometimes you T-bone a car and kill someone.

Just because you didn't want it to happen, it doesn't make it ok.

Abortions are not only a perfectly valid way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, they are also much less selfish than carrying a child, simply to abandone it into the adoption/foster care system, simple so you can feel good about yourself, and stay up on your high-horse.

Selfish!? Letting a child live is selfish!? Killing it for your own benefit is unselfish!?

Again: Let all babies be born. Let us drown the ones we do not want.
- G.K. Chesterton

Selfish my ass.

Actually... elective abortions occur before the cerebral cortex is formed... so it's actually, not, I repeat NOT, painful (pain is registered in the cerebral cortex... no cerebral cortex, no pain).

fetal pain (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp)

"That's 1,200,000 lives being saved."

And what, pray, do you suggest we DO with those people? Shove them into sock drawers? We need LESS people, not more.
And what makes you so special that you are one of the special few that is allowed to live? If the world is so small, then why don't we kill off the stupid people or the old people or the homeless people or the poor people or the lame or deaf or blind or hospitalized or that annoying guy down the street or that baby that won't stop crying or that guy who was tailgating you?

For God's sake, if you're going to kill someone, kill someone who's actually had a full happy life! Not someone who's never even had the chance to be happy at all!

Just more proof that pro-choice = quality, and anti-abortion = quanity.
More proof that pro-choice = selfish and pro-life = giving a rat's ass about someone other than yourself.

Deeply entrenched within your minds is the matter of God.

Does God exist? If he does, this means every humain being "should" have a soul, or whatever it is, even "newcomers" (Talking about fetus here). Therefore making abortion "bad", or "evil".

But tell me, who would use something he can't prove and know nothing of as an argument? Oh, sorry Mr. President.

No soul = what's left? Body and self-consciousness. From what state does the fetus begin to experiment consciousness? From the pictures you've seen, I'm pretty sure you can assert a fetus goes through all man's evolution before it actually becomes a man (or woman, for that matter). Cell, two cells, four cells, zygot, embryo (more and more cells are added to become organs, then flesh, then it becomes more complex with months, with cortex and the rest of the brain), etc. Now this means, at one step or another of conception, that a fetus will be, let's say, 20 million years back in matters of evolution. Because, we have to face it, we "are" animals, we've just evolved further.

Now the question is, is shooting a deer a murder? Does a deer have self-consciousness? Does a 2 month-old baby have self-consciousness?

Besides, how many stories are there about how great it is to have kids? How many stories are there about how great abortion is? Not many...Some will say, yeah, I didn't mind it, or yeah, it was ok, or yeah, my life is great since I don't have a kid...But the first two aren't good, per se, they just are...And the last isn't unique to abortion. And there are far more stories about how horrible abortion is than there are praising it.
Well, yeah, that's because generally before people have children, they decide that they want them. Why would somebody be unhappy at getting what they want? However, nobody wants an abortion, at least not until they wind up pregnant.

Selfish!? Letting a child live is selfish!? Killing it for your own benefit is unselfish!?

Again:

Selfish my ass.

Giving birth to a child SOLEY so you can keep your ridiculous moral code intact, with the full intention to pawn them off as if they were a piece of meat as soon as they are born is the supreme act of selfishness. It is saying "I will harm another so I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF".

This is why we put animals down when they are in pain (and people, also, in more progressive countries). Prolonging suffering should never be mistaken for giving kindness.

I hope Pithica won't mind, but this quote raises the question I want answered.

Until it is, I'm going to assume the anti-abortion side of this debate is internally inconsistant and illogical. Enjoy.


As a human being, I have the rights (at least in my country, and in every other one I have ever heard of), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if it is my wife, parent, best friend, and even most especially my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

If abortion were made illegal, it would be the one, and only exception to this rule. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a logical and founded reasoning for the exception and I would really like to hear one.

Might I add that this exception would ONLY be for women and ONLY while they are pregnant. It seems the utmost folly that anyone would attempt to justify this (perhaps why no one has, hmm? Funny how people still claim to be anti-abortion, while they remain unable to defend this simple point)

Giving birth to a child SOLEY so you can keep your ridiculous moral code intact, with the full intention to pawn them off as if they were a piece of meat as soon as they are born is the supreme act of selfishness. It is saying "I will harm another so I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF".
Yes, because ripping them apart with a vacuum isn't harming them...

This is why we put animals down when they are in pain (and people, also, in more progressive countries). Prolonging suffering should never be mistaken for giving kindness.
I would remind you that not everyone believes in euthanasia.

And you also seem to be under the impression that just because a baby is put up for adoption that it automatically means it's going to have a crappy life. I know plenty of adopted kids who are just fine with it. No, it's not the best thing in the world, yeah, it might have been better if their parents had wanted them, but such is the way of things.
Again, you can't go around killing anyone who will ever feel bad about themselves. Everyone has issues, that's no reason to kill them for it. If you killed everyone who ever had a problem with themselves, you'd have very very few people alive today, if any.

Yes, because ripping them apart isn't harming them...

many people, myself included, believe that killing a pre-viable fetus is the same as a man wasting his sperm or a woman having her period; since the tissue in question is not a child, no child can be harmed by that tissue leaving the body (no matter how it leaves). you're wasting time with this line of emotive antagonism.


And you also seem to be under the impression that just because a baby is put up for adoption that it automatically means it's going to have a crappy life. I know plenty of adopted kids who are just fine with it. No, it's not the best thing in the world, yeah, it might have been better if their parents had wanted them, but such is the way of things.

whether or not the child has a happy life is not the point. the point is that the decision to carry a fetus to term with full intention of putting it up for adoption is the least responsible act a pregnant woman could take (in my opinion). i agree with Shaed that it is an extremely selfish act.

Would you anti-aborters even keep the baby if the pregnancy resulted from a rape? A rape on a beggar woman? A single, STDed woman, mother of 13 children already?

Can you not simply accept a case by case basis?

Would you anti-aborters even keep the baby if the pregnancy resulted from a rape? A rape on a beggar woman? A single, STDed woman, mother of 13 children already?

Can you not simply accept a case by case basis?
to be fair, i am pro-choice and i am totally unwilling to accept a case-by-case basis. ALL women, in ALL situations, should be allowed totally 100% unrestricted access to abortion, for any reason, at any time. there is no condition under which a woman lacks the right to have a fetus removed from her body if she so desires.

many people, myself included, believe that killing a pre-viable fetus is the same as a man wasting his sperm or a woman having her period; since the tissue in question is not a child, no child can be harmed by that tissue leaving the body (no matter how it leaves). you're wasting time with this line of emotive antagonism.
And I do not. What is your point? If I'm wasting my time, you certainly are too.


whether or not the child has a happy life is not the point. the point is that the decision to carry a fetus to term with full intention of putting it up for adoption is the least responsible act a pregnant woman could take (in my opinion). i agree with Shaed that it is an extremely selfish act.
If it's not about how happy the baby is, then how is it selfish to carry the baby to full term and give it up for adoption?

to be fair, i am pro-choice and i am totally unwilling to accept a case-by-case basis. ALL women, in ALL situations, should be allowed totally 100% unrestricted access to abortion, for any reason, at any time. there is no condition under which a woman lacks the right to have a fetus removed from her body if she so desires.
Just to let you know, only 16% of the country thinks this way :D

Just to let you know, only 16% of the country thinks this way :D

And I'd argue that only about twice that think.
;)

Just to let you know, only 16% of the country thinks this way :D
So let the other 84% choose to limit their own abortions to the parameters that they deem acceptable to them personally.

Just to let you know, only 16% of the country thinks this way :D
meh. only about 16% of the country has a college degree. 100 years ago, less than 15% of Americans believed that blacks and whites should be able to inter-marry. Fewer than 10% of adult Americans can name each of the basic items on the Bill of Rights. how many people believe in something has nothing to do with its importance, morality, or truth.

And I do not. What is your point? If I'm wasting my time, you certainly are too.

it is a waste of time because it is a matter of pure, unadulterated opinion, and your efforts to use emotive ploys are not going to have any impact on people who don't already share your opinions. you are free to keep using them, obviously, i'm just saying that you might want to redirect your energy into a more productive area.


If it's not about how happy the baby is, then how is it selfish to carry the baby to full term and give it up for adoption?
um, those two phrases have nothing to do with one another. ready what i said: the happiness of the "baby" has nothing to do with the evaluation, so the fact that it is selfish to carry to term with the intent to foist the child off on somebody else has nothing to do with the "child's" happiness.