NationStates Jolt Archive

Pro-choice= pro-abortion

it shouldn't be pro-choice. It's misleading. But without the "choice" thing going on for them they have nothing.
That is incorrect. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Pro-abortion is pro-abortion. I have no clue what you mean by the last sentence. Pro-choice is well-named; it means exactly what it says.

so cells are alive but fetuses are not?


Cell does not equate to organism.

There are single-celled organisms, but not every single cell is an organism.

The problem is, the woman decided beforehand to become pregnant, even though the aim might have been completely for pleasure. People don't just 'get' pregnant - they have to undergo a reproductive act. Why should the woman then be surprised?

Like all of the other pro-choice people, you seem limited in your thinking to a very small timespan. The embroyo/fetus will most likely, if allowed to develop, become a fully grown human being. The pro-choice people wish to interrupt that, and therefore are ending what almost certainly will (barring accidents, etc) be a grown human being in the quite near future.

Short term thinking is what got them pregnant - you'd think they'd learn something.

No, the woman might not have decidedd beforehand to get pregnant -- she might have -- and after all, it is her body. Its her LIFE.

I am pro-choice, and pro-life -- since is consider the lives of REAL HUMAN BEINGS who constitute a seperate entity with seperate thoughts and feelings (any abnormality such ass "odd-twins" is excepted)

When I have sex; I do not undergo a reproductive act, I have intercourse or more exactly; i have sex (oral, anal etc). I might engage in an reproductive act, but I don't want children anytime soon since that would destroy for MY LIFE. And the individuals, the real human being, life is the only life to observe. Sure, I admit that an embryo might very well BECOME a human being.

But again, potentiality does not give rights, since that right would be the right to parasite -- which in itself, is clearly NOT pro life.

That is incorrect. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Pro-abortion is pro-abortion. I have no clue what you mean by the last sentence. Pro-choice is well-named; it means exactly what it says.

Can someone be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? sounds like a Kerry situation.

Let me tell you about my ex-roommate. She was 17 and engaged to be married to a man about 6 years older than her. They did use protection, but it failed. Although she was about to start college and was only 17, she was convinced that it would be alright since they were engaged and they could just have a family earlier than planned.

She went to his house to tell him and he informed her that he had been cheating on her and didn't think they should "say that we are dating anymore." She promptly threw the engagement ring at him and broke everything of his she could grab and throw on the way out the door.

She agonized over the decision for almost as long as she legally could. She considered keeping the baby and her roommate at the time offerred to help her if that was her decision. In the end, she knew that she could not give it up for adoption (as she thinks this is a bad thing) and knew that she could not take care of it. She asked her father to sign off so that she could have an abortion.

This particular girl sank into a severe depression that semester, due to her breakup, abortion, starting college, being separated from a mother that suddenly wanted nothing to do with her - it was a hard time. With counseling, she got through it.

She constantly wonders what would have happened (as any human being who ever makes a large decision does) and cries every mother's day. However, she does not regret the decision that she made. She regrets the situation, yes, but still believes that the decision was the right one and has never regretted it.

So, no, I don't believe that all women who have abortions later regret it. I know at least one who does not.

Too bad she didn't have someone string the jerk up by his balls. Perhaps regret was the wrong word. She feels the pain, but if it was her only option, she's the one who's living with it. Why would she think giving the child up for adoption was bad?

Can someone be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? sounds like a Kerry situation.

Easily, pro-life is a term misused by the anti-abortion mob.

The doctrine of anti-abortion accomplishes only one thing in practice - the infliction of misery onto human life.

Pro-life in its most reasoned and intelligent usage means something along the lines of "maximize wellbeing in life."

In your fantasy world view, do millions of girls and women across america wake up many friday mornings and repeat the mantra "Tonight I am going to decide beforehand to become pregnant."


The Fact Is That Irresponsible People Have Sex Without Consenting To Carry Pregnancies And Bear Children.

This. Is. Immutable.

The idiotic and morally degenerate fantasy that having sex equates in every occurance but rape to consenting to become pregnant is a plague that affects the minds of religous fundementalists, posturing politicians and those of piss-poor intellect.

Dont fall into that trap of error and become an imbecile.I've already shown you that there is no excuse for being irresponsible in this regard. People can do it, they just don't choose to. Therefore they are consenting to have a child, even if it was a side effect of whatever they were going for. I don't think very many people are ignorant of what having sex does, nor do I feel that everyone is stupid and unable to conduct themselves reasonably. People don't have to explicitly say or think "Tonight I am going to decide beforehand to become pregnant.". They just have to decide what to do. Knowingly putting yourself in a situation where it is likely you will not be able to make reasoned decisions is the same as consenting to whatever happens afterwards.

That is incorrect. Pro-choice is pro-choice. Pro-abortion is pro-abortion. I have no clue what you mean by the last sentence. Pro-choice is well-named; it means exactly what it says.

I know what that sentence means - Pyrad is trying to say that people who call themselves pro-choice are really pro-abortion but think that sounds bad so they call themselves pro-choice.

This is not true - pro-choice = belief that no-one but the person having the abortion can decide if it is right.

pro-abortion = abortion is right, period, pro-lifers are stupid. Although obviously not to the extreme of 'everyone should have an abortion' cos that would just be odd.

I think most people are pro-choice. Pro abortion period is pretty rare.

it is also funny how some people think that baby lizards in their shells are more important than baby humans that are in the womb of a woman...

The site contradicts itself. It claims brain waves at 8 weeks and then states that the brain is not full formed until 12. Do the brain waves come from the placenta?

For the record, although I am not a developmental biologist, I do know for a fact that the heart is the first fully formed organ. The brain finishes forming after that.

The heart is the most critical organ. But as to the brain, it begins developing at 5 weeks, so basic brain activity can be detected at 8 weeks. The heart and the brain are the big two, and so develop fastest. This isn't a contradiction.

Like all of the other pro-choice people, you seem limited in your thinking to a very small timespan. The embroyo/fetus will most likely, if allowed to develop, become a fully grown human being. The pro-choice people wish to interrupt that, and therefore are ending what almost certainly will (barring accidents, etc) be a grown human being in the quite near future.

Pro-choice people recognize that potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If a bunch of parts to build a Rolls Royce are sitting at a factory, they will most likely become a Rolls Royce. However, if I destroy them, I have not destroyed a Rolls Royce, I have destroyed a bunch of parts.

Short term thinking is what got them pregnant - you'd think they'd learn something.

This is an idiotic statement. Many people who are pro-choice have never been pregnant. We just realize that some people do have unwanted pregnancies, and we have no right to force anything upon them.

Easily, pro-life is a term misused by the anti-abortion mob.

The doctrine of anti-abortion accomplishes only one thing in practice - the infliction of misery onto human life.

Pro-life in its most reasoned and intelligent usage means something along the lines of "maximize wellbeing in life."

NO. pro-choice is a term missuesed by the ABORTION mob.
The "doctrine" of pro abortion only accomplishes murder.

Too bad she didn't have someone string the jerk up by his balls. Perhaps regret was the wrong word. She feels the pain, but if it was her only option, she's the one who's living with it. Why would she think giving the child up for adoption was bad?

Everyone she has ever known who was adopted had serious mental issues relating to abandonment, so she felt that bringing a child into the world to give it up for adoption would be bringing it into a horrible life. At the same time, she knew that, if she continued the pregnancy, she would most likely not be able to give the child up for adoption, and would therefore never be able to give it a good life.

The heart is the most critical organ. But as to the brain, it begins developing at 5 weeks, so basic brain activity can be detected at 8 weeks. The heart and the brain are the big two, and so develop fastest. This isn't a contradiction.

The site you linked to explicitly stated that the brain is not fully formed until 12 weeks, but claimed full brain activity to produce brain waves at week 8. This is a contradiction. One way or another, "quickening" does not occur until near the end of the 1st trimester - this is when the fetus can sense and respond to stimuli and move on its own. This is the point at which it can be considered a separate organism.

Can someone be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? sounds like a Kerry situation.

It is quite simple. I am personally against abortion. However, I recognize that as a moral religious decision, and thus know that forcing it upon others would be wrong. Therefore, I am pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion.

You are pro-life, anti-choice, and anti-abortion.

Pro-choice people recognize that potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If a bunch of parts to build a Rolls Royce are sitting at a factory, they will most likely become a Rolls Royce. However, if I destroy them, I have not destroyed a Rolls Royce, I have destroyed a bunch of parts.But you have destroyed what is not yours to destroy. However, that is getting more religious (where you and I clearly don't compromise), so I'll stop.


This is an idiotic statement. Many people who are pro-choice have never been pregnant. We just realize that some people do have unwanted pregnancies, and we have no right to force anything upon them. If they chose to have sex, it was not forced upon them. Even if it was, it is hubris to announce that you know what will happen in the future - especially the life of the child you carry, even if it is just 'potential' currently.

But you have destroyed what is not yours to destroy. However, that is getting more religious (where you and I clearly don't compromise), so I'll stop.

If they had to put the parts inside my body to form the Rolls Royce, it would definitely be mine to destroy as I saw fit.

If they chose to have sex, it was not forced upon them.

The fact that they are pregnant was not forced upon them, this is true. But what I cannot force is for someone to continue a pregnancy, at least not until there is more than a religious reason to do so.

A person who smokes cigars every day might develop lung cancer. Does this mean that I get to decide that they can or cannot have chemotherapy?

A person who gets in a car knows that they might get in a horrible accident. Does this mean that I get to decide that they cannot have treatment?

Even if it was, it is hubris to announce that you know what will happen in the future - especially the life of the child you carry, even if it is just 'potential' currently.

You seem to project a lot. It is you who are announcing that you know what will happen in the future.

Pro-choice= pro-abortion

No. I believe abortions are wrong, that makes me pro-life. But I also believe it isn't the govt's (or anyone else's) place to dictate, and it has been pointed out to me that that makes me pro-choice. Pro-choice means the woman has a right to make that decision herself, and is willing and/or able to live with the consequences.
Pro-abortion means someone who is for it's use as a birth control.

NO. pro-choice is a term missuesed by the ABORTION mob.
The "doctrine" of pro abortion only accomplishes murder.



If the Taliban outlaws abortion in the US, what will you outlaw next?

...Although obviously not to the extreme of 'everyone should have an abortion' cos that would just be odd.

I think most people are pro-choice. Pro abortion period is pretty rare.
Haha!

Yes, I think you're right. It would be rare among feeling, caring humans.

If they had to put the parts inside my body to form the Rolls Royce, it would definitely be mine to destroy as I saw fit.
Not really, since you would have been the one putting it there. Why would you do such a thing just to destroy it? Doesn't make much sense.


The fact that they are pregnant was not forced upon them, this is true. But what I cannot force is for someone to continue a pregnancy, at least not until there is more than a religious reason to do so. There are religious and benefits for society when the baby allowed to live. I'm sure you have seen some of these on this thread already, so I won't list them here. Besides, you probably wouldn't give the religious ones a passing glance anyway... :)


A person who smokes cigars every day might develop lung cancer. Does this mean that I get to decide that they can or cannot have chemotherapy?

A person who gets in a car knows that they might get in a horrible accident. Does this mean that I get to decide that they cannot have treatment? These are different things than what the discussion is about; pregnancy is not a bad consequence of intercourse. In fact, it is quite good for everyone. Why should someone's selfishness deprive me of the baby's (or when he grows up) friend's company?


You seem to project a lot. It is you who are announcing that you know what will happen in the future. Not at all. I never said I know what will happen, be it good or bad. It is just that you say you know the absolute value of the fetus' life. I know I cannot know it, so therefore go with the safer option - that being the 'wait-and-see' part.

So long as the two sides in the abortion debate disagree about the fundemental status of a fetus - whether it is a human being or not - both have due cause to consider themselves in the moral right.


That said, the anti-abortion crowd is incorrect. The life and freedom of a human being trumps the development of a fetus, embryo, or zygote attatched to her body in all cases.

Not really, since you would have been the one putting it there. Why would you do such a thing just to destroy it? Doesn't make much sense.

Let's get out of the analogy here. When I have sex with my boyfriend, it is not to make a baby - not yet anyways. It is to express my love for him. If you honestly think that the only purpose of sex is to have children, you are very unfortunate.

There are religious and benefits for society when the baby allowed to live. I'm sure you have seen some of these on this thread already, so I won't list them here. Besides, you probably wouldn't give the religious ones a passing glance anyway... :)

(a) Don't assume I am not religious. I am very religious. However, I believe very strongly in freedom of religion.

(b) There are no definite benefits for society when an unwanted child is brought into the world, other than that there happens to be one more child in an already overpopulated world.

These are different things than what the discussion is about; pregnancy is not a bad consequence of intercourse. In fact, it is quite good for everyone. Why should someone's selfishness deprive me of the baby's (or when he grows up) friend's company?

You haven't been deprived of anything if it never grows up. It seems that it is you who is not thinking past 9 months here.

Pregnancy is a consequence of intercourse. You do not see it as a bad one - some people do. You cannot make that decision for them.

Not at all. I never said I know what will happen, be it good or bad. It is just that you say you know the absolute value of the fetus' life. I know I cannot know it, so therefore go with the safer option - that being the 'wait-and-see' part.

I never for a second claimed to know the absolute value of a fetus. What I claim is that there is no reason other than religious ones to deny a woman the right to abort up to the point at which the fetus can be biologically termed a separate organism.

Everyone she has ever known who was adopted had serious mental issues relating to abandonment, so she felt that bringing a child into the world to give it up for adoption would be bringing it into a horrible life. At the same time, she knew that, if she continued the pregnancy, she would most likely not be able to give the child up for adoption, and would therefore never be able to give it a good life.



The site you linked to explicitly stated that the brain is not fully formed until 12 weeks, but claimed full brain activity to produce brain waves at week 8. This is a contradiction. One way or another, "quickening" does not occur until near the end of the 1st trimester - this is when the fetus can sense and respond to stimuli and move on its own. This is the point at which it can be considered a separate organism.

A fully developed brain is not needed to be able to produce basic brain waves. Think about how the brain develops. The brain stem, the part that controls the basic functions of the body (breathing, digestion, etc.) develops first, beginning at 5 weeks. This portion of the brain is capable of producing waves at 8 weeks, while the rest of the brain continues to develop. Other than that, I agree with you.

So long as the two sides in the abortion debate disagree about the fundemental status of a fetus - whether it is a human being or not - both have due cause to consider themselves in the moral right.Makes me wish one of them would get up and say, "I'm alive!" :) It would be a lot easier on me...


That said, the anti-abortion crowd is incorrect. The life and freedom of a human being trumps the development of a fetus, embryo, or zygote attatched to her body in all cases.Gotta disagree on that one.

Can someone be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? sounds like a Kerry situation.
This is how I see it.
Pro-life = every child/fetus/tissue mass/thingie should live.
Pro-choice = every mother/parent has the right to decide before it is of "viable" or legal status whether to abort.
Pro-abortion = every woman should abort their child/fetus/tissue mass/thingie.

Not the same thing at all. Obviously if you identify with "pro-choice" and "pro-life", you are saying that you would choose to let your child/fetus/tissue mass live as every other mother/parent should also choose for themselves.

It is also possible to be "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", in which case you feel that you would abort any child you might have, but allow that every other mother/parent be allowed to choose for themselves. Like we said, a rare case.

Basically, if you are pro-choice then any other choice you make you are only making for yourself, as you believe every other mother/parent has the right to make a choice for themselves.

Now the political movements that have latched onto the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are a different beast. There they are dealing entirely with the issue of whether or not to legislate regluation about abortion. Obviously the people who side with the "Pro-Choice" movement feel that there should be no legislation, and the people who side with "Pro-Life" feel that there should be legislation regarding this. Not everyone who is "pro-choice" or "pro-life" has joined one of the movements.

Pro-abortion means someone who is for it's use as a birth control.
Abortion is not any sort of birth control. Birth control is a means to prevent pregnancy, and therefore prevent abortion.

Let's get out of the analogy here. When I have sex with my boyfriend, it is not to make a baby - not yet anyways. It is to express my love for him. If you honestly think that the only purpose of sex is to have children, you are very unfortunate.
Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to have children. Religiously, the primary reason for sex is to have children. Love is a human construction, and a stupid and fickle way to define something. You can love your boyfriend and have sex with him, but you can't love your own children enough to refrain from murdering them.


(a) Don't assume I am not religious. I am very religious. However, I believe very strongly in freedom of religion.
Out of curiosity, which religion?


(b) There are no definite benefits for society when an unwanted child is brought into the world, other than that there happens to be one more child in an already overpopulated world.
I think we could squeeze a few more into North Dakota, or Idaho, or Virginia, or even New York, cities may be overcrowded, that doesn't mean the world is.


You haven't been deprived of anything if it never grows up. It seems that it is you who is not thinking past 9 months here.
That's like saying you're not deprived of food if someone burns all your corn seeds, you're not deprived of transportation if someone blows up all the automotive plants...


Pregnancy is a consequence of intercourse. You do not see it as a bad one - some people do. You cannot make that decision for them.
Some see death as a consequence of killing a living human being. Evidently, you feel you can make that choice for someone.


I never for a second claimed to know the absolute value of a fetus. What I claim is that there is no reason other than religious ones to deny a woman the right to abort up to the point at which the fetus can be biologically termed a separate organism.
When is a fetus really seperate? It still needs its mother for physical things such as shelter and milk, not to mention the host of mental and emotional needs it has. Since it's still physically dependent on the mother, should you just be able to kill it until it can eat on its own? What about conjointed twins? Should one be able to kill the other just because they want to be dependent on them? Regardless of how unwanted a pregnancy is, very few pregnancies occur without consensual sex.

Let's get out of the analogy here. When I have sex with my boyfriend, it is not to make a baby - not yet anyways. It is to express my love for him. If you honestly think that the only purpose of sex is to have children, you are very unfortunate. I don't think that. However, I believe the reproductive act should be coupled with the pleasure. And as you say, it is an act of love, but the items making it up should be together, not separate and the baby that comes from it is a gift from God. That is a teaching of my religion.

(a) Don't assume I am not religious. I am very religious. However, I believe very strongly in freedom of religion.Of course. I'm sorry about that. I like freedom of religion too. It lets me preach on this forum...hehe.


(b) There are no definite benefits for society when an unwanted child is brought into the world, other than that there happens to be one more child in an already overpopulated world.I've already presented some in the first page of this thread, and there are other benefits scattered about. The world overpopulation thing is not a good arguement. There have been studies both ways.

You haven't been deprived of anything if it never grows up. It seems that it is you who is not thinking past 9 months here. If you had allowed it to grow up, it would have been associated with other humans in some way. So you would deny someone their company, even if they do not know it. How am I not thinking past 9 months? Please clarify.
Pregnancy is a consequence of intercourse. You do not see it as a bad one - some people do. You cannot make that decision for them.I shoudn't have to. It seems quite obvious.


I never for a second claimed to know the absolute value of a fetus. What I claim is that there is no reason other than religious ones to deny a woman the right to abort up to the point at which the fetus can be biologically termed a separate organism.You have determined that it is less than the whim of the mother, and in doing so have set its value to you. The 'no other reason than religion' is not true; I've presented you some alternative reasons. You can reject them if you wish, but that does not make them any less valid for it.

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to have children. Religiously, the primary reason for sex is to have children. Love is a human construction, and a stupid and fickle way to define something.
God is love. And biology can be very pleasurable with no intention of having children. :D

God is love. And biology can be very pleasurable with no intention of having children. :D
It's pleasurable so you would do it. If the only incentive for sex was to procreate, would anyone actually engage it in? Pleasurability is just a relic for procreation, just like chocolate tastes good because carbs used to be hard to come by, your body burns carbs before fat, etc.

I believe that every fetus deserves a shot at life, but then again, that is just how I feel.

I draw the line at a heartbeat; if the fetus has a heartbeat, it should be illegal to abort him/her.

It's pleasurable so you would do it. If the only incentive for sex was to procreate, would anyone actually engage it in? Pleasurability is just a relic for procreation, just like chocolate tastes good because carbs used to be hard to come by, your body burns carbs before fat, etc.
Pleasure will be a relic when humans are no longer needed for the species to reproduce. :D

Pleasure will be a relic when humans are no longer needed for the species to reproduce. :D
It's a relic in that its purpose is to trick us to engage in something that we realize now we have to engage in anyway. The whole baby process wasn't as clear 5000 years ago as it is now.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Wow, very well said. >standing ovation<

1) how is the pro-life stance NOT anti-choice?

Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.

Eh... seeing if the man and woman didn't have sex the baby wouldn't exist, don't they have a right to kill the baby before it is born, undoing their creation? If I didn't exist, I'm sure I wouldn't be caring too much at the moment.

The way uderstand the word "right" as it is used here in the USA, it is meant to apply to all people equally. (correct me if you think I'm wrong)
The father in of the aborted fetus cannot choose to keep the child.
Niether can the child choose to live instead of being tossed out like a piece of trash without even the dignity of a name.
If the mother decides to keep the baby the father will be held financially responsible for the child for the next 18 years.
The man in this situation has no male equivalent to an abortion even if the rubber broke on a one night stand, he cannot simply say "I made a mistake and cannot afford to be a parent at this point in my life, it would cause me too much inconvienience" and recieve a financial "abortion" He will Pay under threat of jail time even though he did not want the child.
So you see it is not just a matter of saving innocent lives but also one of equal rights for all.
Is it inconstistant for the same country that has seat belt laws to have legal abortion??
A woman could be fined for endangering her self by not wearing a seatbelt while on the way to have her baby killled??
Better yet, What if she were caught in the crossfire of a gangland shooting and the baby killed by a stray bullet?
Would it be murder if the mother wanted the baby??
Would it still be murder if the mother was on her way to an abortion clinic to have the life growing inside her terminated??
So you see there is no "Right" to choose an abortion
Explanation enouph? or did I lose you in my meandering?

The site you linked to explicitly stated that the brain is not fully formed until 12 weeks, but claimed full brain activity to produce brain waves at week 8. This is a contradiction. One way or another, "quickening" does not occur until near the end of the 1st trimester - this is when the fetus can sense and respond to stimuli and move on its own. This is the point at which it can be considered a separate organism.[/QUOTE]
Can I buy some pot from you? LMAO :D

"Pro-Life", "Pro-Choice" - bah, these terms sound waaaay too happy and nice for the given issue. An unwanted pregnancy has the potential to create a resource-consuming individual with a host of social or economic issues as a result of improper nurturing by his/her parents. Aborting a 1st-trimester embryo kills a potential sentient life. Neither are absolute certainties by any means, (the non-aborted kid could become a humanity-saving superhero who inspires others to limit their resource usage, or the embryo could have had a severe genetic disorder that wouldn't have allowed it to live anyway - thus no potential) but neither options - the ones listed before the brackets, not the exceptions - are the least bit happy; it should be emphazsized that it's all about choosing the lesser of the two evils. I motion we call this the "Pro-Oppression vs Pro-Death" debate.

I'm neutral on the issue. You folks can have fun with your killing and/or oppressing. Or get friggin' fixed, so you don't have to choose either outcome. (Hah... no... getting "fixed" sounds unhappy, too. Birth control isn't 100%, and unwanted abstinence has a scientifically proven correlation with unhappiness. I guess we can't win.)

Pro-choice= pro-abortion

it shouldn't be pro-choice. It's misleading. But without the "choice" thing going on for them they have nothing.


NO. pro-choice is a term missuesed by the ABORTION mob.
The "doctrine" of pro abortion only accomplishes murder.

Oh, for the love of...

Ok, basic course in English here:

Pro-choice: People have the right to CHOOSE (see that?) whether they carry the child or not, whether they give it up for adoption or not, whether they use condoms or the birth-control pill or the morning after pill.

They. Get. To. Choose.

Because pro-choicers acknowledge that they CANNOT tell another human being that they must give up one of their organs to save another human. In ANY situation.

"Pro-life" (actually a euphanism, meaning anti-abortion): Want to REMOVE the right for the woman to choose whether she has a right to remove her organ and resources from the use of, what she views as, a parasite.

Pro-choice is about not telling people that they have to live to your own morals. Anti-abortion is about removing one method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Period.

Not really, since you would have been the one putting it there. Why would you do such a thing just to destroy it? Doesn't make much sense.

There are religious and benefits for society when the baby allowed to live. I'm sure you have seen some of these on this thread already, so I won't list them here. Besides, you probably wouldn't give the religious ones a passing glance anyway... :)

These are different things than what the discussion is about; pregnancy is not a bad consequence of intercourse. In fact, it is quite good for everyone. Why should someone's selfishness deprive me of the baby's (or when he grows up) friend's company?

Not at all. I never said I know what will happen, be it good or bad. It is just that you say you know the absolute value of the fetus' life. I know I cannot know it, so therefore go with the safer option - that being the 'wait-and-see' part.

If the mother does not want the child, the pregnancy is, in fact, a bad thing.

If the mother becomes suicidal (not uncommon)... well, that just shatters your little 'happyhappyjoyjoy' scenario, doesn't it?

You have no right to a potential person's company. You also will not be 'deprived'. If they are aborted before they develop a nervous system, there was never any 'them' for you to miss.

Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.

Are you willing to support funding for families who cannot afford to have children? If pro-lifers did that, they would eliminate a great deal of the need for abortion. Unfortunately, most pro-lifers simply DO NOT CARE about what happens to the baby after it is born.

Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.
Then you take away their choice.

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to have children. Religiously, the primary reason for sex is to have children.

Biologically, there are many reasons for sex - procreation is just one of them. Pleasure and release is another (this is why homosexual sex is just as important in many species). Another is social, cementing the bond in any type of pair-bond/mate type relationship. Study behavioral biology and get back to me.

And while your religion may determine that the primary or even the only reason for sex is to have children, mine does not. Some have no religion. I don't really care what your religion says - you have no right to force your religion upon others.

Love is a human construction, and a stupid and fickle way to define something.

I am sad for you that you have never been in love. Give it time, my friend.

You can love your boyfriend and have sex with him, but you can't love your own children enough to refrain from murdering them.

(a) I have stated more than once that I myself would not have an abortion, so this was a completely unprovoked attack one way or another.

(b) There are many people out there who do not believe it is murder. Science dictates that the embryo is not even an organism until it has developed enough of a nervous system to sense and respond to stimuli. Anything before that is purely a religious distinction. Again, I will not force my religious beliefs upon another person without something objective to back it up.

Out of curiosity, which religion?

Christianity.

I think we could squeeze a few more into North Dakota, or Idaho, or Virginia, or even New York, cities may be overcrowded, that doesn't mean the world is.

If you want to squeeze more people into North Dakota/Idaho/etc., go get them from the severely overcrowded 3rd world countries and from Japan. When you are done doing that, get back to me.

That's like saying you're not deprived of food if someone burns all your corn seeds, you're not deprived of transportation if someone blows up all the automotive plants...

Wrong, it is like saying if there never was corn, then you wouldn't be deprived of corn. And if automobiles had never been invented, you wouldn't be deprived of cars.

Some see death as a consequence of killing a living human being. Evidently, you feel you can make that choice for someone.

Baseless assumptions once again. I cannot make that choice for anyone, as I have stated more than once in this thread. Maybe if you learned to read, you would do better on these forums.

When is a fetus really seperate? It still needs its mother for physical things such as shelter and milk, not to mention the host of mental and emotional needs it has. Since it's still physically dependent on the mother, should you just be able to kill it until it can eat on its own? What about conjointed twins? Should one be able to kill the other just because they want to be dependent on them? Regardless of how unwanted a pregnancy is, very few pregnancies occur without consensual sex.

A fetus can be determined to be a separate organism when it meets the biological requirements to be called an organism. Basically, once it has developed a nervous system. At that point, it is essentially a parasitic organism - but is one that can feel pain. This is why women are generally not allowed to have elective abortions past this point. When it is viable, it receives even more rights, so that it can only be removed if the mother's life is in grave danger. Once it is born, it receives the full rights of a human being.

As for your consentual sex comment - how many pregnancies occur in kids who are not old enough to give consent? How many have been coerced? How many were using 2 or more types of birth control? Try to see pass your myopic world viewpoint.

I don't think that. However, I believe the reproductive act should be coupled with the pleasure. And as you say, it is an act of love, but the items making it up should be together, not separate and the baby that comes from it is a gift from God. That is a teaching of my religion.
Of course. I'm sorry about that. I like freedom of religion too. It lets me preach on this forum...hehe.

As long as your idea of freedom of religion means that you don't want to legislate a ban on birth control. After all, not all people follow your religion - and not all think sex should always be coupled with reproduction.

If you had allowed it to grow up, it would have been associated with other humans in some way. So you would deny someone their company, even if they do not know it. How am I not thinking past 9 months? Please clarify.

Someone cannot really feel deprived if they never knew about what they are "deprived" of. If I had never heard about computers, I wouldn't feel deprived by not being able to post to this forum.

You have determined that it is less than the whim of the mother, and in doing so have set its value to you. The 'no other reason than religion' is not true; I've presented you some alternative reasons. You can reject them if you wish, but that does not make them any less valid for it.

Wrong. As I have said more than once, I do not think that the fetus is less than the whim of the mother, and I have only argued that the embryo even can be. However, there is no biological or scientific reason to state that the embryo is worth more than the whim of the mother. Thus, while I think that it is worth more, this is a religious and philosophical viewpoint that I have no business forcing on another human being.

If your alternative reasons are subjective, they mean nothing. Here are the reasons I have heard people try to state as biological reasons:

1) It has different human DNA than the mother!
--So do all of her blood cells and cells in many places in her body if she receives a bone marrow transplant. If she receives any organ transplant, that organ has cells with different DNA. Technically, many of her cells have different DNA due to mutations.

2) It will be a person one day.
--That's great, and I agree, but we don't legislate based on potentiality, we legislate based on actuality. We don't legislate concerning born children as if they are adults and we should not legislate concerning fetuses as if they are born children. At 23, I cannot retire just because I will one day be 65.

3) Well, if we don't know, then isn't conception the best time to consider it a full human being?
--Aboslutely not, and no one really wants to do so. Even those who claim that it is a full human life at conception will not launch a full-scale investigation into ever miscarriage and possibly try the mother for neglect. If you will not do so, you have already demonstrated that you see a clear difference between a zygote, embryo, or fetus and a born human being.

The way uderstand the word "right" as it is used here in the USA, it is meant to apply to all people equally. (correct me if you think I'm wrong)

It can apply to all people equally if all people have equal responsibility for it.

The father in of the aborted fetus cannot choose to keep the child.

The father cannot carry and give birth to the child, so whether or not to abort must ultimately be the woman's choice.

Niether can the child choose to live instead of being tossed out like a piece of trash without even the dignity of a name.

The embryo is not capable of choice, nor is it legally seen as a full human being (if you think it should be, I'll be happy to discuss all of the fun legal niceties that would cause).

If the mother decides to keep the baby the father will be held financially responsible for the child for the next 18 years.
The man in this situation has no male equivalent to an abortion even if the rubber broke on a one night stand, he cannot simply say "I made a mistake and cannot afford to be a parent at this point in my life, it would cause me too much inconvienience" and recieve a financial "abortion" He will Pay under threat of jail time even though he did not want the child.

And this is wrong. The man should have what you would consider a "paper abortion." Namely, before the child is born (or as soon as he finds out about it if she never tells him), he should have the option to fill out legal paperwork to absolve all rights and responsibilities to it. He will never have any type of custody/visitation rights, but will also not be expected to pay child support.

So you see it is not just a matter of saving innocent lives but also one of equal rights for all.

Again, equal rights require equal responsibilities. The man's life is not put in danger by a pregnancy, therefore he has less responsibility in the pregnancy. This necessarily means that he has less rights. Although, as you can see above, I am all for giving him rights as close as reasonable.

Is it inconstistant for the same country that has seat belt laws to have legal abortion??

Only if you believe, as you obviously do, that it is a separate human life from conception on. Although, I would wager that you wouldn't hold to all of the ideals that that decision entails.

I don't know if I can speak for all other "pro-choicers", but I too believe that abortion is murder. Here's an interesting thought to reflect on for awhile though. Eggs and sperm are living cells, right? So each time a woman menstruates, she commits murder, and every time a man masturbates, he commits genocide. If all life is sacred, then how come I never hear any big organized protests against either of these activities?

Also, of course, since women only generally produce one egg per month, the onset of the menopause effectively wastes a huge number of eggs.

And, in the case of males, unused sperm are lost anyway, through urination. So, every time a guy 'takes a leak', he is wasting lives?

Wrong, it is like saying if there never was corn, then you wouldn't be deprived of corn. And if automobiles had never been invented, you wouldn't be deprived of cars.No, this is like if you invented the automobile, and then destroyed the plans because you would be put through too much trouble to market it. Obviously not long term thinking.

As long as your idea of freedom of religion means that you don't want to legislate a ban on birth control. After all, not all people follow your religion - and not all think sex should always be coupled with reproduction. Perhaps so, but religion doesn't stop someone from believing that a human being is created at conception.


Someone cannot really feel deprived if they never knew about what they are "deprived" of. If I had never heard about computers, I wouldn't feel deprived by not being able to post to this forum. Objectively, they are deprived by your actions. Whether they know it or not is irrelavent.


Wrong. As I have said more than once, I do not think that the fetus is less than the whim of the mother, and I have only argued that the embryo even can be. However, there is no biological or scientific reason to state that the embryo is worth more than the whim of the mother. Thus, while I think that it is worth more, this is a religious and philosophical viewpoint that I have no business forcing on another human being. Then let me clarify: You believe that you can summarily kill a human, if you do not think they are 'living' at this exact moment, or can somehow define them as not human. Interesting how genocides come about by the same reasoning.


If your alternative reasons are subjective, they mean nothing. Here are the reasons I have heard people try to state as biological reasons:

1) It has different human DNA than the mother!
--So do all of her blood cells and cells in many places in her body if she receives a bone marrow transplant. If she receives any organ transplant, that organ has cells with different DNA. Technically, many of her cells have different DNA due to mutations.

2) It will be a person one day.
--That's great, and I agree, but we don't legislate based on potentiality, we legislate based on actuality. We don't legislate concerning born children as if they are adults and we should not legislate concerning fetuses as if they are born children. At 23, I cannot retire just because I will one day be 65. I'm not saying that we should legislate concerning fetuses as if they are born children, but rather that they are given some basic rights as human beings. How often are major, long term problems dealt with in 9 months and no thought of them is taken afterward? No reasonable person would do so. Notice that senior citizens are treated differently than middle-aged persons; is there really a difference here?

3) Well, if we don't know, then isn't conception the best time to consider it a full human being?
--Aboslutely not, and no one really wants to do so. Even those who claim that it is a full human life at conception will not launch a full-scale investigation into ever miscarriage and possibly try the mother for neglect. If you will not do so, you have already demonstrated that you see a clear difference between a zygote, embryo, or fetus and a born human being.I see a difference in the intent of the person getting an abortion. They wish to kill (IMO) a human being, and that is just not acceptable.

No, this is like if you invented the automobile, and then destroyed the plans because you would be put through too much trouble to market it. Obviously not long term thinking.

However, the point is that everyone else (who never saw the plans anyway) would not feel deprived. So the statement that you are depriving someone of something that would have possibly happened in the future makes no sense.

Perhaps so, but religion doesn't stop someone from believing that a human being is created at conception.

Some religion does. If you hold very strictly to OT laws, for instance, you would read Exodus and find that a fetus is given substantially less consideration than a born human being. ((Killing it is not considered murder, and is punishable only by a fine paid to the father)).

Objectively, they are deprived by your actions. Whether they know it or not is irrelavent.

People are deprived if I don't know about computers?

Then let me clarify: You believe that you can summarily kill a human, if you do not think they are 'living' at this exact moment, or can somehow define them as not human. Interesting how genocides come about by the same reasoning.

Wrong, I believe no such thing. Learn to read and get back to me.

I'm not saying that we should legislate concerning fetuses as if they are born children, but rather that they are given some basic rights as human beings.

They are given basic rights. And those rights are scaled as they become more and more like born human beings.

How often are major, long term problems dealt with in 9 months and no thought of them is taken afterward? No reasonable person would do so.

All the time. You must be a teenager. It is obvious that you have very little life experience behind you.

I see a difference in the intent of the person getting an abortion. They wish to kill (IMO) a human being, and that is just not acceptable.

You are right, it is not acceptable to you, because of your opinion that an embryo deserves full human rights. However, if you cannot scientifically and objectively prove your opinion, it is useless in the realm of lawmaking, as there will always be those who disagree with you.

Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.That's what I've been trying to say. Thanks!

Some religion does. If you hold very strictly to OT laws, for instance, you would read Exodus and find that a fetus is given substantially less consideration than a born human being. ((Killing it is not considered murder, and is punishable only by a fine paid to the father)).


In fact, Genesis quite clearly establishes that 'life' begins with breathing.

However, the point is that everyone else (who never saw the plans anyway) would not feel deprived. So the statement that you are depriving someone of something that would have possibly happened in the future makes no sense.It doesn't matter if they 'feel' deprived or not; you still would have kept the person from them by your decisions. I don't know how I could make that statement any easier to understand. I imagine you probably do understand it, but wish to argue with it anyway.



Some religion does. If you hold very strictly to OT laws, for instance, you would read Exodus and find that a fetus is given substantially less consideration than a born human being. ((Killing it is not considered murder, and is punishable only by a fine paid to the father)). The New Testament teachings of Jesus have largely superceded what was in the OT. I am not 'fundamentalist', merely practicing.



People are deprived if I don't know about computers?See my answer to the vehicle analogy.



Wrong, I believe no such thing. Learn to read and get back to me. So you say that you are not deciding what the fetus or embroyo is worth? Please make up your mind. I don't see how that is reconcilable with your previous posts.



They are given basic rights. And those rights are scaled as they become more and more like born human beings.The right to life is not a basic right? The US constitution says so. Many people must believe it. Why don't you?


All the time. You must be a teenager. It is obvious that you have very little life experience behind you. You are 23(?) I think you said. I doubt you have made decisions that will last all of your life and beyond, as in this case. I can't say I have either, however, I know that I can't pass judgement on something when I know far too little about the consequences. It would be irresponsible.


You are right, it is not acceptable to you, because of your opinion that an embryo deserves full human rights. However, if you cannot scientifically and objectively prove your opinion, it is useless in the realm of lawmaking, as there will always be those who disagree with you.If a murderer thinks it's good to kill people in their sleep, it's their right to do so then. Hey, they might just be getting rid of real genocidal maniac! The people don't even get the time to wake up and plead with him. I guess that's ok though. I mean, everyone's got an opionion, and who's to say that theirs carries more weight than the murderer's? It's not like they are arguing with him right now, are they?

No, it is much better not to kill anything until its had a chance to prove your assumptions wrong.

To be fair, the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is abstinenceOnly if you 100% abstain.
birth control still has occaisional failures.But works a lot better than no birth control at all because all you were ever told about was abstinance.

The New Testament teachings of Jesus have largely superceded what was in the OT. I am not 'fundamentalist', merely practicing.

Well, I don't remember Jesus explicitly getting rid of that particular law. And since those who like to argue that the entire Bible is literal generally say that anything that wasn't explicitly changed still stands, they need to follow this law as well. Besides, are you really suggesting that God changed God's mind about the worth of a fetus? Because this would suggest that God is not all-powerful.

See my answer to the vehicle analogy.

I'm still fail to see how I personally am depriving anyone of anything, since that is what you suggested.

So you say that you are not deciding what the fetus or embroyo is worth? Please make up your mind. I don't see how that is reconcilable with your previous posts.

That's because you haven't really read them. I can decide what a fetus or embryo is worth to me. I cannot decide what it is worth to another person. All I can do is look at the science and determine at what point there is a objective reason to legislate worth.

The right to life is not a basic right? The US constitution says so. Many people must believe it. Why don't you?

So, do you kill cockroaches? The US constitution applies to them just as much as it does to an embryo right now. I suppose you have committed murder.

I do believe that the right to life is a basic right for a human being. However, as I have pointed out more than once, an embryo is not objectively a human being. It is one in many people's eyes, but there is no objective reasoning behind this.

You are 23(?) I think you said. I doubt you have made decisions that will last all of your life and beyond, as in this case.

Well, you are wrong. I have made plenty of decisions that will affect my entire life.

If a murderer thinks it's good to kill people in their sleep, it's their right to do so then. Hey, they might just be getting rid of real genocidal maniac! The people don't even get the time to wake up and plead with him. I guess that's ok though. I mean, everyone's got an opionion, and who's to say that theirs carries more wieght than the murderer's? It's not like they are arguing with him right now, are they?

There are objective and scientific reasons to deem this as wrong. There is no comparison here and you know it. These human beings are separate human lives that are perfectly capable of protesting in the here and now.

No, it is much better not to kill anything until its had a chance to prove your assumptions wrong.

This is an idiotic statement. If a woman assumes that an embryo does not yet meet all the biological requirements to be an organism, she is absolutely correct. It can never prove that assumption wrong. Potentiality means nothing in this argument.

Only if you 100% abstain.
But works a lot better than no birth control at all because all you were ever told about was abstinance.Of course abstinance would work if you actually practiced it. It's not just a thing you have to do sometimes.

The New Testament teachings of Jesus have largely superceded what was in the OT. I am not 'fundamentalist', merely practicing.


But, since the Old Testament specifically mentions abortion, and the New Testament doesn't.. the Old Testament still stands.

Also, how can the New Testament 'supercede' the Old Testament? The failing point of the Christian religion must be this exact issue...

If the New Testament 'supercedes' the Old Testament, then the Old Testament is fallible.


The right to life is not a basic right? The US constitution says so. Many people must believe it. Why don't you?


Prove it. Take a human, place them in the jungle, surrounded by hungry tigers, and see how long their 'right to life' lasts them.

Take the Sikh who was shot by Texans after 9/11 (because they couldn't tell the difference between a Sikh and a Moslem) that he is 'protected' by his 'right to life'.

The only 'right to life' a person has, is the 'right to life' they obtain for themselves, their family obtains for them, or their society 'allows' them.

In the case of a foetus, it is not capable of asserting it's own right to life (and, in fact, I argue that it isn't 'alive' until, at least, the 'quickening')... the 'family' is the mother-to-be, and her decision to abort is her obviating any pursuit of a 'right-to-life' for the foetus... and society doesn't 'allow' any rights to a foetus (as is only fair) until a point much later (but still fairly arbitrary) in gestation that abortions NORMALLY take place.

To pro-life advocates:

I don't think that many pro-life advocates are thinking clearly about their own stance. Either you value the life of the unborn child, or you value the quality of life of the mother. But when it comes to a person who is considering abortion as an option, pro-life advocates must realize that valuing one side preclude's value of the other.

For example, for those of you who adopt a pro-life stance, you must absolutely take the view at its fullest, to avoid hypocrisy. After all, it doesn't matter if a woman was raped or suffered incest or any other attrocity, or even if her life is in danger. The fact remains that the child is innocent and doesn't deserve death by human hands. To say that "abortion is acceptable if a woman is raped" creates an inappropriate double standard.

Otherwise, you must believe that a woman deserves compassion and has the right to evaluate her own standard of living and terminate a pregnancy if she feels that her emotional or economic well-being is threatened.

But you can't have it both ways.

Now just remember that you can adopt a pro-choice stance and still choose to not have an abortion if you are unfortunate enough to have to face that decision. Likewise, you can still adopt a pro-choice stance and attempt to convince others that abortions are a bad idea. But the pro-choice stance states that no matter what you might believe, it is the mother's ultimate decision that is most important, and that decision should always be respected.

Well, I don't remember Jesus explicitly getting rid of that particular law. And since those who like to argue that the entire Bible is literal generally say that anything that wasn't explicitly changed still stands, they need to follow this law as well. Besides, are you really suggesting that God changed God's mind about the worth of a fetus? Because this would suggest that God is not all-powerful.
Remember the OT was written for a certain type of people, The NT for another. Surely God is able to comprehend our difficulties understanding some issues.



I'm still fail to see how I personally am depriving anyone of anything, since that is what you suggested.I doubt that.



That's because you haven't really read them. I can decide what a fetus or embryo is worth to me. I cannot decide what it is worth to another person. All I can do is look at the science and determine at what point there is a objective reason to legislate worth.That's the catch, isn't it? You say you cannot determine absolute value of a human life. I say I can't determine it either, but am willing to be cautious on the subject.



So, do you kill cockroaches? The US constitution applies to them just as much as it does to an embryo right now. I suppose you have committed murder.It applies to human beings only. You know that. I know that. Don't pretend you don't.

I do believe that the right to life is a basic right for a human being. However, as I have pointed out more than once, an embryo is not objectively a human being. It is one in many people's eyes, but there is no objective reasoning behind this. If there were never any embroyos, there would never be any humans. While some people may not like that fact, it is true. Mere physical changes are irrelavent; it is a human being.


Well, you are wrong. I have made plenty of decisions that will affect my entire life.Indeed.


There are objective and scientific reasons to deem this as wrong. There is no comparison here and you know it. These human beings are separate human lives that are perfectly capable of protesting in the here and now. No, one of them is sleeping and will not wake up. Unless it happens rather rudely, or the murder is kind enough to let them wake up and talk to him.[/quote]

This is an idiotic statement. If a woman assumes that an embryo does not yet meet all the biological requirements to be an organism, she is absolutely correct. It can never prove that assumption wrong. Potentiality means nothing in this argument.While some people might value the US dollar as a piece of paper, many use it as currency. Does it have 'potential value', and is therefore a worthless piece of paper, or is it valuable because of what people think of it? I imagine you'll go with the potential value. You are probably able to realize that 'potential' value is good, and in this particular case, the entire argument.

To pro-life advocates:

I don't think that many pro-life advocates are thinking clearly about their own stance. Either you value the life of the unborn child, or you value the quality of life of the mother. But when it comes to a person who is considering abortion as an option, pro-life advocates must realize that valuing one side preclude's value of the other.It does not take away value from the mother's side. I would have both the mother and baby live - pro-choice would have only the mother if being pregnant is somehow offensive to her.

For example, for those of you who adopt a pro-life stance, you must absolutely take the view at its fullest, to avoid hypocrisy. After all, it doesn't matter if a woman was raped or suffered incest or any other attrocity, or even if her life is in danger. The fact remains that the child is innocent and doesn't deserve death by human hands. To say that "abortion is acceptable if a woman is raped" creates an inappropriate double standard.

Otherwise, you must believe that a woman deserves compassion and has the right to evaluate her own standard of living and terminate a pregnancy if she feels that her emotional or economic well-being is threatened.

But you can't have it both ways. You are quite right. How she got pregnant is not the issue; what she does after she is pregnant is.


Now just remember that you can adopt a pro-choice stance and still choose to not have an abortion if you are unfortunate enough to have to face that decision. Likewise, you can still adopt a pro-choice stance and attempt to convince others that abortions are a bad idea. But the pro-choice stance states that no matter what you might believe, it is the mother's ultimate decision that is most important, and that decision should always be respected.Yes. I know what pro-choice means. Thank you.

If there were never any embroyos, there would never be any humans. While some people may not like that fact, it is true. Mere physical changes are irrelavent; it is a human being.

if there were no sperm and no eggs there would never be any humans. therefore, each sperm and each egg is a human.

if there were no sperm and no eggs there would never be any humans. therefore, each sperm and each egg is a human. They are indeed part of a human being, but alone they cannot form a person.

They are indeed part of a human being, but alone they cannot form a person.
alone, an embryo cannot form a person.

They are indeed part of a human being, but alone they cannot form a person.

And, neither can a foetus 'alone' form a person.

And, neither can a foetus 'alone' form a person.
great minds... :)

alone, an embryo cannot form a person.

Great minds think alike....

Remember the OT was written for a certain type of people, The NT for another. Surely God is able to comprehend our difficulties understanding some issues.

So you are saying that God will make up a rule that God does not agree with just because people might get confused otherwise? So if people were confused about whether or not lying was ok, God would just say that lying is ok. People do not control God, and if they did, God would not be all-powerful.

I doubt that.

You doubt what?

That's the catch, isn't it? You say you cannot determine absolute value of a human life. I say I can't determine it either, but am willing to be cautious on the subject.

I am willing to be cautious on the subject too, just like I am willing to be cautious and not go bugee jumping. However, I am not going to force others to bend to my cautious will.

It applies to human beings only. You know that. I know that. Don't pretend you don't.

Actually, that was my entire point. Scientifically, embryos are not human beings, so the Constitution does not apply. You have proven my point. Thank you.

If there were never any embroyos, there would never be any humans. While some people may not like that fact, it is true. Mere physical changes are irrelavent; it is a human being.

Mere physical changes are irrelavent? Ok, I can retire at 23 then, as there is no physical difference between me and a 65 year old. Social Security, here I come!

Scientifically, an embryo is not even an organism yet. You believe that physical changes are irrelevant and it is already a full human being. That is fine, but it is opinion. And you have no right to force your opinion on others.

No, one of them is sleeping and will not wake up. Unless it happens rather rudely, or the murder is kind enough to let them wake up and talk to him.

Doesn't matter. They are capable of protesting if they are made aware of the situation. An embryo is not even capable of being aware or feeling pain, much less responding to anything.

While some people might value the US dollar as a piece of paper, many use it as currency. Does it have 'potential value', and is therefore a worthless piece of paper, or is it valuable because of what people think of it? I imagine you'll go with the potential value. You are probably able to realize that 'potential' value is good, and in this particular case, the entire argument.

This is an invalid analogy, but I'll go with it. Yes, I think the value of the dollar is a dollar in currency. However, if someone else thought that it was just a worthless piece of paper, I would not put them in jail until they decided otherwise. That would be their opinion, and I would feel comfortable disagreeing with it. I may try and convince them that they should spend or invest the dollar, but I would not force them to do so, as would be their dollar, and they would be the only one affected by whether or not they spent it.

Potential value means something to you, and that is great. However, if it does not mean as much to the person who is actually affected by the decision, you have no right to make that decision for them.

great minds... :)

Okay... that was a bit TOO Twilight Zone... :)

Remember the OT was written for a certain type of people, The NT for another. Surely God is able to comprehend our difficulties understanding some issues.


Again:

But, since the Old Testament specifically mentions abortion, and the New Testament doesn't.. the Old Testament still stands.

Also, how can the New Testament 'supercede' the Old Testament? The failing point of the Christian religion MUST be this exact issue...

If the New Testament 'supercedes' the Old Testament, then the Old Testament is fallible.

Of course abstinance would work if you actually practiced it. It's not just a thing you have to do sometimes.All it takes is one fall from grace, and without a safety-net...

I was dealing with the position (much earlier in this thread, together with a bit of baggage from other threads on the subject) that abstinence is 'all you need to know' to avoid ever needing abortion. It's not as relevant to the latest thread content, however.

alone, an embryo cannot form a person.
Without food, you would die. Are you a person without the food? Sorry, not a good choice for an arguement.

So you are saying that God will make up a rule that God does not agree with just because people might get confused otherwise? So if people were confused about whether or not lying was ok, God would just say that lying is ok. People do not control God, and if they did, God would not be all-powerful.I'm saying that He's capable of knowing what we can understand and what we can't at a specific time.



You doubt what?That you are not able to comprehend what I said. I don't think that you are stupid, you know :)



I am willing to be cautious on the subject too, just like I am willing to be cautious and not go bugee jumping. However, I am not going to force others to bend to my cautious will. Even if you knew it would result in an innocent person's death?



Actually, that was my entire point. Scientifically, embryos are not human beings, so the Constitution does not apply. You have proven my point. Thank you.Your definition of human is lacking then.



Mere physical changes are irrelavent? Ok, I can retire at 23 then, as there is no physical difference between me and a 65 year old. Social Security, here I come!The law distinguishes between ages. The law has been changed before, and it will again. I was speaking in a spiritual sense.


Scientifically, an embryo is not even an organism yet. You believe that physical changes are irrelevant and it is already a full human being. That is fine, but it is opinion. And you have no right to force your opinion on others.
I would know that they will kill someone, even if the person doing so may not even realize it. I would be forced to take action based on that.


Doesn't matter. They are capable of protesting if they are made aware of the situation. An embryo is not even capable of being aware or feeling pain, much less responding to anything.They are incapable merely because they have not been given a chance to 'wake up'.



This is an invalid analogy, but I'll go with it. Yes, I think the value of the dollar is a dollar in currency. However, if someone else thought that it was just a worthless piece of paper, I would not put them in jail until they decided otherwise. That would be their opinion, and I would feel comfortable disagreeing with it. I may try and convince them that they should spend or invest the dollar, but I would not force them to do so, as would be their dollar, and they would be the only one affected by whether or not they spent it.

Potential value means something to you, and that is great. However, if it does not mean as much to the person who is actually affected by the decision, you have no right to make that decision for them.I don't intend to put people in jail for having their own opinion. I'm trying to convince you right now to see my POV. You see the glass as half empty, I see it as half full.

Without food, you would die. Are you a person without the food? Sorry, not a good choice for an arguement.

actually, it was your argument. thanks for refuting it for me :).

Again:

But, since the Old Testament specifically mentions abortion, and the New Testament doesn't.. the Old Testament still stands.

Also, how can the New Testament 'supercede' the Old Testament? The failing point of the Christian religion MUST be this exact issue...

If the New Testament 'supercedes' the Old Testament, then the Old Testament is fallible.It doesn't have to mean that it is fallible; merely that it was written with a different people in mind. Would you give a book written in English to a person that only read Arabic?

It doesn't have to mean that it is fallible; merely that it was written with a different people in mind. Would you give a book written in English to a person that only read Arabic?
if i was an all-powerful diety i think i would probably be able to come up with a clear way to tell humans what is and is not murder, regardless of their native language. hell, i can do that right now, and i'm not an all-powerful diety.

actually, it was your argument. thanks for refuting it for me :).Then are you a person without it? You didn't answer.

if i was an all-powerful diety i think i would probably be able to come up with a clear way to tell humans what is and is not murder, regardless of their native language. hell, i can do that right now, and i'm not an all-powerful diety.Could you really? I'm sure some people would disagree with you.

Then are you a person without it? You didn't answer.
honey, YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THAT SIDE.

but if you want, here's my answer anyway: whether or not i am receiving food at this moment, i am still a human being. however, if i fail to receive food for a sufficiently long period of time i will cease to be a human being and will be dead tissue. if i had never received food at any point in my development, or if food had been removed for a sufficiently long period of time during that development, i would never have become a human being.

similarly, an embryo that does not receive necessary nourishment will never become a human being. an embryo may or may not even become a human being, just as a sperm or egg may or may not become an embryo. we don't say that all sperm and all eggs are embryos, because they AREN'T until they have fused and developed the characteristics of an embryo. similarly, an embryo is not a human being until it has reached that point in its development; the fact that it may become a human does not mean that it IS a human. potentiality is not equal to actuality.

Could you really? I'm sure some people would disagree with you.
if i was an all-powerful diety i don't see that being a problem :).

It doesn't have to mean that it is fallible; merely that it was written with a different people in mind. Would you give a book written in English to a person that only read Arabic?

It has to be fallible if the New Testament can replace it... if the text can be 'superceded'.

If it was 'true', then that couldn't change... so it has to be assumed that the Old Testament is, instead, not ALL true.

More to the point, if the Old Testament is ONLY true for Jews, why is it in the Bible?

As you say, it was written for the Jews... and the New Testament is for everyone, one assumes... so why continue to include the Old, which is only 'true' for one section of the human race?

if i was an all-powerful diety i don't see that being a problem :).You said you could do it right now. I understand that if you were all-powerful, there wouldn't be a problem. :)

honey, YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THAT SIDE.

but if you want, here's my answer anyway: whether or not i am receiving food at this moment, i am still a human being. however, if i fail to receive food for a sufficiently long period of time i will cease to be a human being and will be dead tissue. if i had never received food at any point in my development, or if food had been removed for a sufficiently long period of time during that development, i would never have become a human being.

similarly, an embryo that does not receive necessary nourishment will never become a human being. an embryo may or may not even become a human being, just as a sperm or egg may or may not become an embryo. we don't say that all sperm and all eggs are embryos, because they AREN'T until they have fused and developed the characteristics of an embryo. similarly, an embryo is not a human being until it has reached that point in its development; the fact that it may become a human does not mean that it IS a human. potentiality is not equal to actuality.Thank you. Sperm and eggs are not considered embroyos because they cannot ever become a human being, even if properly nourished etc unless they join with their opposite. An embroyo will become a fully grown human if properly nourished and cared for. If you withhold food from it then (or kill it purposfully), that must be murder.

Really it is about whether you belive it is human or not. I don't think I'll be able to convince you.

Thank you. Sperm and eggs are not considered embroyos because they cannot ever become a human being, even if properly nourished etc unless they join with their opposite. An embroyo will become a fully grown human if properly nourished and cared for. If you withhold food from it then (or kill it purposfully), that must be murder.

Really it is about whether you belive it is human or not. I don't think I'll be able to convince you.
The legal term "murder" only applies to human beings.

Without food, you would die. Are you a person without the food? Sorry, not a good choice for an arguement.

I know subtle differences are hard for you, but there is one here. A born human being is already human person. It does not have to become one. With or without food, they will remain so. An embryo is not already a human person (scientifically at least) and will not become one on its own.

I'm saying that He's capable of knowing what we can understand and what we can't at a specific time.

So you are saying that if God thinks human beings are incapable of understanding what murder is, he will tell human beings that murder is ok. In other words, God will lie outright. Wow, you worship a very different God from the one I worship.

That you are not able to comprehend what I said. I don't think that you are stupid, you know :)

But what you said does not apply. I am not personally depriving anyone of anything.

Even if you knew it would result in an innocent person's death?

If I knew that I couldn't prove that it would result in an innocent person's death in a way that was not religion-based.

Your definition of human is lacking then.

Who said it was my definition?

The law distinguishes between ages. The law has been changed before, and it will again. I was speaking in a spiritual sense.

Spiritual is great - but the 1st amendment keeps you from forcing it on others.

I would know that they will kill someone, even if the person doing so may not even realize it. I would be forced to take action based on that.

Then I suggest you go out and start kidnapping pregnant women and forcing your will on them. But don't be surprised if you get arrested.

They are incapable merely because they have not been given a chance to 'wake up'.

There is a big difference between waking up from sleep and developing to the point where that term even means something. A single stem cell in my body might be coerced to create a new human being. Does this mean that if I kill said cell, I am murdering because it hasn't had a chance to wake up?

I don't intend to put people in jail for having their own opinion. I'm trying to convince you right now to see my POV. You see the glass as half empty, I see it as half full.

You forget that I already see your point-of-view. The only part that I don't agree with is the idea that we should legally force our religious views that cannnot be scientifically proven on others.

Thank you. Sperm and eggs are not considered embroyos because they cannot ever become a human being, even if properly nourished etc unless they join with their opposite. An embroyo will become a fully grown human if properly nourished and cared for. If you withhold food from it then (or kill it purposfully), that must be murder.

Really it is about whether you belive it is human or not. I don't think I'll be able to convince you.

An embryo will only become a human if it implants, if it establishes a viable connection, and if it continues to replicate correctly until the point of birth, assuming no injuries and a succesful birth.

That's a lot of if's... which seems like a rather precarious situation if 'god' really intends 'life' to start at conception.

The legal term "murder" only applies to human beings.

Thank you.

Further to that, it is only 'Murder' if it is 'Unlawful'.

So, abortion may be many things, and you may not like it... but there are at least two good reasons why it is NOT murder...

It can apply to all people equally if all people have equal responsibility for it.



The father cannot carry and give birth to the child, so whether or not to abort must ultimately be the woman's choice.



The embryo is not capable of choice, nor is it legally seen as a full human being (if you think it should be, I'll be happy to discuss all of the fun legal niceties that would cause).



And this is wrong. The man should have what you would consider a "paper abortion." Namely, before the child is born (or as soon as he finds out about it if she never tells him), he should have the option to fill out legal paperwork to absolve all rights and responsibilities to it. He will never have any type of custody/visitation rights, but will also not be expected to pay child support.



Again, equal rights require equal responsibilities. The man's life is not put in danger by a pregnancy, therefore he has less responsibility in the pregnancy. This necessarily means that he has less rights. Although, as you can see above, I am all for giving him rights as close as reasonable.



Only if you believe, as you obviously do, that it is a separate human life from conception on. Although, I would wager that you wouldn't hold to all of the ideals that that decision entails.
Bravo on the papar abortion thing (some-one finally gets it!)
I'm not sure what specific ideals you are referring to in your closing statement, can you be more specific?

Bravo on the papar abortion thing (some-one finally gets it!)

I used to not even think about such an idea, but a debate with my boyfriend over reproductive rights led me to decide that a man should legally have the choice that I would personally give him anyways.

I'm not sure what specific ideals you are referring to in your closing statement, can you be more specific?

Namely, if you consider something to be a separate human life from the point of conception on, you must treat it as such, with all the rights given to a human child. This means that if the woman spontaneously aborts due to stress/alcohol/heavy lifting, whether she knew she was pregnant or not, you must try her for neglect in the death of her child. In the end, this would amount to any sexually active woman that hasn't had a hysterectomy being liable for murder every single day of her life.

We must also consider ages from conception. Therefore, a person should be able to vote at 17 and 3 months and consume alcohol legally when they are about 20 and 3 months old according to current standards.

I used to not even think about such an idea, but a debate with my boyfriend over reproductive rights led me to decide that a man should legally have the choice that I would personally give him anyways.



Namely, if you consider something to be a separate human life from the point of conception on, you must treat it as such, with all the rights given to a human child. This means that if the woman spontaneously aborts due to stress/alcohol/heavy lifting, whether she knew she was pregnant or not, you must try her for neglect in the death of her child. In the end, this would amount to any sexually active woman that hasn't had a hysterectomy being liable for murder every single day of her life.

We must also consider ages from conception. Therefore, a person should be able to vote at 17 and 3 months and consume alcohol legally when they are about 20 and 3 months old according to current standards.
I Believe the word for "spontateously aborting" is Miscarriage, I'm quite sure you knew that. I wasn't aware that women ovulate daily, is this a new sceintific discovery? Hmmm must have missed that episode of 60 min.LOL
Should a mother be held resposible for the condition of a child deformed and permanently damaged by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ? I firmly believe yes, because it is a form of abuse/neglect.
The only problem I have with using age from conception is that in most cases it would be virtually impossible to confirm and validate an actual date.
I just don't understand why the location of the death determines the value of the life being extinguished.(inutero or extrautero)

What if a woman was shot in the belly and her baby killed? would it be murder?
Is the value of the baby she carries only to be determined by the whether or not she wanted the child?
What if she was on her way to an abortion clinic when the shooting took place?
Would it still be murder?
Just some interesting thoughts. I do enjoy an opinion that does not digress into personal attack though. Thank you.

I Believe the word for "spontateously aborting" is Miscarriage, I'm quite sure you knew that. I wasn't aware that women ovulate daily, is this a new sceintific discovery? Hmmm must have missed that episode of 60 min.LOL

Study your biology dear, the day the woman ovulates is only the most likely day she can get pregnant. She can, in fact, possibly get pregnant from having sex any day of the year, even during menstruation.

Should a mother be held resposible for the condition of a child deformed and permanently damaged by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome ? I firmly believe yes, because it is a form of abuse/neglect.

Even if she drank alcohol before she found out that she was pregnant?

I just don't understand why the location of the death determines the value of the life being extinguished.(inutero or extrautero)

Location does not, at least not to me. Scientifically, it is the specific qualities of life that determine it. An embryo that has not developed a nervous system does not meet the requirements to be considered a separate organism, therefore (although I disagree with her decision), the woman in whom it is growing can discard it. A fetus that is not yet viable is dependent upon the mother's organs for all nourishment, therefore she can remove that link if her health is endangered by it. A viable fetus that can exist outside the womb should have every effort made to preserve it and should only be cut off from the nourishment of the mother if the mother's life is in danger. Even then, all efforts to preserve both lives should be made.

What if a woman was shot in the belly and her baby killed? would it be murder?

If it were viable, yes.

Is the value of the baby she carries only to be determined by the whether or not she wanted the child?

It's value to her is determined this way.

What if she was on her way to an abortion clinic when the shooting took place?

She would be 1st trimester most likely, so no, it would not be murder.

Just some interesting thoughts. I do enjoy an opinion that does not digress into personal attack though. Thank you.

No prob.

According to Planned Parenthood's own pre-and-post abortion patient surveys, over 80% of all abortions are not health related (their is no situation of potential physical harm to the mother or child), and do not have to do with the product of rape or incest.

In other words, they are elective, just another form of birth control.

Those are the instances of abortion which I oppose. If you don't want a child under those circumstances, give it up, but don't kill it.

I think the character of the pro-choice folks can be seen in their choice of such dehumanizing neologisms as "abortus" for a dead baby, and "parasite" for a fetus.

I used to be pro choice.

Then I had an abortion.

Biggest regret of my life. And I'm not alone. Many women, if not most, who actually have an abortion end up suffering from post abortive stress disorder, which includes many of the same symptoms as post traumatic stress disorder.

I am not pro life because I can't agree with their stance on all issues. I am simply anti-abortion.

It is not a woman's right to decide what to do with a child that took two people to create. Granted, if she wants to donate a kidney or have her stomach stapled, more power to her. That's a decision that affects only her body. But to terminate a pregnancy - which means to end a pregnancy - and pregnancy is the process from which a child develops - no, that is not a choice. That's terrible to think that it could ever be ...or even has become.

I'm pro choice as far as BEFORE conception. A woman has the right to decide whether she will be sexually active or not. Whether she will use contraception. Whether she will make him wear a condom. Lots of time for choice before the actual pregnancy becomes an issue.

And yes, I know you're gonna bring up rape and incest. I'm against abortion in those cases too. Those are both violent crimes and one violent crime (abortion) isn't going to help another violent crime (rape or incest) at all. It's outrageous to believe it ever could. Adoption is always an option.

But, for those of you who are for abortion in cases of rape or incest (or the famous 'in case of the mother's life'), let me just say that before convienence abortion became legal, abortion for those three reasons were ALWAYS legal and would remain legal. The whole battle these days is whether CONVIENENCE abortion should be made legal.

Hope this explains my position more. Oh yeah, vote for Kerry. We gotta get Bush the hell out of office. Thanks.

I think the character of the pro-choice folks can be seen in their choice of such dehumanizing neologisms as "abortus" for a dead baby, and "parasite" for a fetus.

I've never heard the term "abortus," but even if used it would refer to a dead embryo or fetus.

As for parasite, that is certainly not a new word, and the objective truth of it is that this is exactly what a fetus is. In a wanted pregnancy, the woman does not mind it, but in reality a fetus during pregnancy is a parasite. You just don't like the term because you think of a poor conotation of it, instead of the true definition.

Well, the whole thing is the girl's fault. So why should she be allowed to get out of her punishment for having sex before marriage? She knows the risk; but she still does it. It's downright stupid. :rolleyes:

I used to be pro choice.

Then I had an abortion.

Biggest regret of my life. And I'm not alone. Many women, if not most, who actually have an abortion end up suffering from post abortive stress disorder, which includes many of the same symptoms as post traumatic stress disorder.

I am not pro life because I can't agree with their stance on all issues. I am simply anti-abortion.

Thank you for sharing your experience. But it is true that not all women end up regretting it. Even those who do suffer severe depression afterwords do not always regret it.

It is not a woman's right to decide what to do with a child that took two people to create.

Only one person has to carry it.

But to terminate a pregnancy - which means to end a pregnancy - and pregnancy is the process from which a child develops - no, that is not a choice. That's terrible to think that it could ever be ...or even has become.

This is a personal opinion, and not something that can be ethically legislated.

Hope this explains my position more. Oh yeah, vote for Kerry. We gotta get Bush the hell out of office. Thanks.

Thank you!

that logic leads us to conclude that every egg and every sperm should be used for procreation, and any woman who could be pregnant and isn't is withholding the next Einstein from the world. every one of those little eggs is a potential Einstein, according to you, so by allowing her body to flush them out each month she is robbing society of future tax-payers, future researchers, and future friends. any man who allows a single one of his sperm to be wasted is denying the potential for a life, and he is withholding future brilliance and income from society just as the woman would be.

so we all MUST have children, and MUST do so whenever we are able. no women between puberty and menopause should ever be non-pregnant, and no male after puberty should do anything other than impregnate women round the clock.

That's NOT where that logic leads at all. You're being rediculous. His logic leads as follows. When an egg is impregnanted, baring any complications, i.e. miscarriage or abortion, it WILL grow into a fetus. A fetus will grow into a baby. Therefore, an impregnanted egg will become a baby. It is the natural progression of things. The nonsense you just spouted means one of two things....either you didn't understand his argument, which is possible, or you'retaking his argument way beyond where he meant it to argue your own case, and this seems more likely. Without a sperm, the egg will NATURLLY flush out of the body, without an egg, the sperm will die. Natural progression. In case you can't comprehend what I mean the comparrison you've made goes as follows. A man thinks that an adult who gave a child a gun is partially responsible for the school shooting that follows. That is resonable logic. The comparison you made was "Surely, you can't think that people who make guns or people who have guns are all responsible for the shooting." Two different things.

And to the guy who said "I wouldn't be here if my Mom wasn't pro-choice." That makes no sense. Yes you would. You're there because your mom and dad had sex. If your mom was pro-life, you'd still be there. Hate to break it to you.

I've never heard the term "abortus," but even if used it would refer to a dead embryo or fetus.

As for parasite, that is certainly not a new word, and the objective truth of it is that this is exactly what a fetus is. In a wanted pregnancy, the woman does not mind it, but in reality a fetus during pregnancy is a parasite. You just don't like the term because you think of a poor conotation of it, instead of the true definition.

Oh really? Look in the "Abortionists: Explain Yourselves" thread.

A bit earlier in this thread there were several people referring to fetuses as parasites, in the sense that they were of no benefit to the woman. As a mom who has been pregnant three times, I wanted to put in a good word for pregnancy.

Being pregnant causes several conditions including endometriosis and rheumatoid arthritis to go into remission. It also clears up psoriasis and recurrent apthous ulcers as well as many other minor conditions. It improves your hearing, vision, sense of taste and sense of smell. Pregnancy stops periods for a period of at least nine months -- and up to a year or two longer if you breastfeed. If you have painful periods that debilitate you for three or four days a month, pregnancy is much less of a problem. During pregnancy, there is greater flow of blood to the pelvic region, making sex great. After you have a child, usually the pain from periods decreases. If you've carried a baby to term, your risk of uterine and ovarian cancer goes down. If you breastfeed a child for at least a year, your chances of breast cancer go way down. Plus, it is not like when you're pregnant you walk around with a basketball out front and swollen ankles for nine months. For most people, the middle six-seven months are easy sailing. The less pleasant aspects are morning sickness, which not everyone gets, and the last month or so when there is some swelling which means you can't be on your feet all day. Labor is not fun, but unmediated labor is no worse than really bad period cramps -- which I had from the age of twelve on so I was pleasantly surprised that it was no worse.

Also, to clear up one point, fetuses don't "leach the calcium" from your bones unless you are malnourished -- they only require 400mg of calcium per day over the recommended daily allowance for women. That's only one glass of milk, a container of yogurt, a cup of ice cream, two ounces of cheese or a good prenatal vitamin.

50% of fertilized ovum don't even implant themselves in the uterine wall?

also, identical twins share dna, are they one person?

people with chimeria have absorbed the dna of their fraternal twin, does this mean that a) they are murderers before they leave the womb? or if not b) they are legally two people?

Identical twins do not share DNA. They have similar DNA, as do all siblings. By your argument, all people of the same family having similar DNA are one person. I guess you've never studied genetics. Identical twins have different DNA as evidenced by the fact that they have different fingerprints. Scientists are able to pinpoint which twin was which by DNA. Your argument is horribly flawed.

Life and death are two sides of the same coin. People use the phrase "life is sacred" without, I think, taking its sacredness seriously, and without a thought to the fact that "death is sacred" also. Something is sacred when it is an important part of a religious consciousness. Life and death are such things. Life has its devotees ;), its rituals and rites (dating and sex), poets to laud its psalms (in song), and temples (bedrooms) in which it is worshipped and where new life is created. Death, too, has its rituals and funeral rites, and a place of worship, with loud music and a pint or two to numb the pain.

Not everyone is so religiously inclined :). The Christian religion and our modern Western civilization have a rather skewered view of the sacredness of life. It glorifies life and demonizes death, with no acknowledgement for the holiness and necessity of the counterpart to life. It creates a horrible polarization, with Life and Death being equated with the (previously polarized) religious concepts of Good and Evil. It creates an imaginative "after-life" so that the holy concept of Life does not have to be let go of, ever, not for a single moment. But life needs death --without it... let me put it this way: if there were never-ending life the world would be full to capacity in very little time with loving, starving creatures.

Holding life sacred means honouring not only life but its counterpart, death. We honour the death of a human being by acknowledging what they accomplished in their time on this Earth. But what did a fetus accomplish? When we mourn the loss of an infant so small, whether born or pre-born, we are mourning something that didn't happen. It's not real. But it's a human thing to do.

The arguments about what a person "might have" accomplished arise, I believe, from the human belief in Destiny, with an idea that there is some fixedness about the time-line, and that we shouldn't disturb it or tempt it. It's one of my favourite movie themes. Even though people rationally know that the future is not set in place or knowable, they spare a bit of faith for Destiny (much as they would for God) and our human role in it.

(Feel free to ignore my ramblings.)

Oh really? Look in the "Abortionists: Explain Yourselves" thread.

That post ignores several issues. All of the true benefits listed occur after a pregnancy, not during. During the pregnancy, the fetus does meet the definition of a parasite. If a bacteria gets into my blood and I fight it off, my immunity to that parasite increases, does this mean that the bacteria is not a parasite?

On a few of the things listed:
1) Not having periods during pregnancy/breastfeeding - missed periods are known to increase your risk of osteoporosis, so this a benefit only in the convenience sense, not in the health sense.

2) Not leeching calcium. Women add very little calcium to their bones after puberty. Your intake after this point does little to reduce your chances of osteoporosis.

Identical twins do not share DNA. They have similar DNA, as do all siblings. By your argument, all people of the same family having similar DNA are one person. I guess you've never studied genetics. Identical twins have different DNA as evidenced by the fact that they have different fingerprints. Scientists are able to pinpoint which twin was which by DNA. Your argument is horribly flawed.

I am a pro-lifer, but I must object, for the sake of fairness...

Fingerprints are simply determined by how your cells divide up. It's completely random, pretty much. Fraternal twins, yes, do have different DNA. Identical twins, however, don't.

Fraternal twin = Two seperate eggs released from the ovaries, two different zygotes.
Identical Twin = Same zygote, same egg, same sperm. When it divided, there was an error, and it completely separated, making two new zygotes.

Therefore, identical twins have the exact same DNA. Except for mutations in their cells, but those are only a few cells and are very minute.

Identical twins do not share DNA. They have similar DNA, as do all siblings. By your argument, all people of the same family having similar DNA are one person. I guess you've never studied genetics. Identical twins have different DNA as evidenced by the fact that they have different fingerprints. Scientists are able to pinpoint which twin was which by DNA. Your argument is horribly flawed.

So, Ms. Genetics, where does the extra DNA come from? Last I checked, when a sperm enters an egg, they create a new set of DNA. Now, if that embryo splits into two embryos, they have the same DNA, unless some new DNA just pops into existence.

Now, the expression can be slightly different, as expression of all of your genes differ throughout your body. But the DNA is the same, or they are not identical twins.

it's not a kid until it leaves the womb.
there is a huge difference between something that hasn't developped a brain and something that has a fully funcioning central nervious system.

also, there are many medical reasons to abort, many side effects that can happen to previously healthy women who go through with pregnancies.

not to mention that there are more children waiting in foster homes for lack of a place to go then there are people willing to adopt them. unless you produce a white, perfecly healthy infant, chances are they won't find a home.

A child develops the brain and heart halfway into the pregnancy. Thebrain develops at about 2 months I believe. The heart is evident at 4 months I believe. The baby can survive outside of the womb at 6 or 7 months (depending on the baby. This is why so many people are again partial birth abortion. The baby can ALWAYS survive on it's own at that point. It has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins before birth. I won't argue this. If you disagree youre wrong. Functioning heart and brain, by your own admission make life. I won't say life begins at conception. But all abortion beyond 5 months is wrong.

There are very few reasons to abort. The list of medical conditions that force an abortion are so few they take up one page in a definitions index. However, the possible complications from abortion, physical and mental, immediate and lasting, are many. If your case were true, doctors wouldn't be so hesitant to do abortions. In fact, due to health risks and potential side effects, most doctors counsil AGAINST abortion.

And finally, there are more people turned down for adoptions every year than there are children in the system. The adoption standards are so strict about 75% of people who apply for adoptions are turned down, after a waiting period of 3 to 5 years. Many foster parents try to adopt the children they foster parent, almost ALL are turned down. Several children in the foster system have grandparents or distant relatives who are trying to gain custody. Some people are turned down for a child because they have a medical condition that precludes them having children of their own.

Nope. Check the site: www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

"8 weeks - The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers."

Because the other internal organs form slower. The baby isn't completely developed at 12 weeks, but the brain is.

i'm sorry, but i don't trust your site. their abortion data seem quite biased towards the pro-live side, which has a tendency to skew things so that the fetus seems more developped than it really is or would be.

i'm going with the webmd site here, which is designed for expectant mothers, therefore would be giving them an accurate avvount of what is going on in their body.

A child develops the brain and heart halfway into the pregnancy. Thebrain develops at about 2 months I believe. The heart is evident at 4 months I believe. The baby can survive outside of the womb at 6 or 7 months (depending on the baby. This is why so many people are again partial birth abortion. The baby can ALWAYS survive on it's own at that point. It has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins before birth. I won't argue this. If you disagree youre wrong. Functioning heart and brain, by your own admission make life. I won't say life begins at conception. But all abortion beyond 5 months is wrong.

excuse me, but when the hell did i say that abortions should be allowed into the third trimester for anything but the health of the mother?

i didn't.

i said that it wasn't a child until it has exited the womb.

and the brain doesn't start to function until 20 weeks. which is hardly 2 months.

so how about you back the fuck off and actually read what i write instead od making false assumptions. ok?

So, Ms. Genetics, where does the extra DNA come from? Last I checked, when a sperm enters an egg, they create a new set of DNA. Now, if that embryo splits into two embryos, they have the same DNA, unless some new DNA just pops into existence.

Now, the expression can be slightly different, as expression of all of your genes differ throughout your body. But the DNA is the same, or they are not identical twins.

OK, first I'm a guy. Thought I'd clear that up.

Just to show that I actually looked it up, this is from http://health.discovery.com/minisites/dna/glossary/glossary_identical_twins.html
For several reasons, "identical twins" is a poor term, and is not used in professional medical language. We use it frequently on the DNA.comTM website because it is readily understood by our users.

The main problem is that identical twins are not necessarily identical. We frequently hear that one twin has a mole that the other does not, for example. More dramatically, some identical twins are "mirror images" of each other, even though they have the same DNA. In such cases, which are rare, one twin's heart is on their left side (normal) and one twin's heart is on their right side (mirror image). The most famous example of mirror twins are Tweedledee and Tweedledum from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

The medical profession prefers to use the term monozygotic twins. This term describes how the twins arose (from one fertilized egg), rather than the way they look.

In basic revue, (from reading other sites and studies) true identical twins share 100% DNA, but have different teeth marks and finger prints. Some scientists speculate that finger prints come from a tiny bit of DNA that has yet to be discovered. But that's neither here nor there. Identical twin is a term used by the public as opposed to scientists and doctors (who have a plethera of other terms), but many kids who are thought to be identical twins because of appearance are truely not. We're both right. True identical share 100% of everything. Most "identical" twins however are not identical.

NO. pro-choice is a term missuesed by the ABORTION mob.
The "doctrine" of pro abortion only accomplishes murder.

even when it saves the life of a woman?

A child develops the brain and heart halfway into the pregnancy. Thebrain develops at about 2 months I believe. The heart is evident at 4 months I believe. The baby can survive outside of the womb at 6 or 7 months (depending on the baby. This is why so many people are again partial birth abortion. The baby can ALWAYS survive on it's own at that point. It has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that life begins before birth. I won't argue this. If you disagree youre wrong. Functioning heart and brain, by your own admission make life. I won't say life begins at conception. But all abortion beyond 5 months is wrong.

Just so you know, your markers are completely wrong. The heart is actually the first organ to form and the brain is not fully formed until much later.

I've never heard the term "abortus," but even if used it would refer to a dead embryo or fetus.

As for parasite, that is certainly not a new word, and the objective truth of it is that this is exactly what a fetus is. In a wanted pregnancy, the woman does not mind it, but in reality a fetus during pregnancy is a parasite. You just don't like the term because you think of a poor conotation of it, instead of the true definition.
So then by your logic, all of the literally thousands of species of true parasites are not actually living oranisms because they cannot exist independently. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

Well, the whole thing is the girl's fault. So why should she be allowed to get out of her punishment for having sex before marriage? She knows the risk; but she still does it. It's downright stupid. :rolleyes:

Troll.

At least, I really hope 'troll', because I'm alarmed if someone thinks that 'punishment' is a good reason to have children...

even when it saves the life of a woman?

i think i said in a previous board if a mother had an eptopic pregnancy and the babay has no chance to survive anyways then it is not bad. The abortionists explain yourselves post i believe.

I've never heard the term "abortus," but even if used it would refer to a dead embryo or fetus.

As for parasite, that is certainly not a new word, and the objective truth of it is that this is exactly what a fetus is. In a wanted pregnancy, the woman does not mind it, but in reality a fetus during pregnancy is a parasite. You just don't like the term because you think of a poor conotation of it, instead of the true definition.

If that is your view of these little creatures, I can see why you would never want to have children.

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to have children.
then explain the clitoris to me.
it serves no function other than to provide pleasure. it's just a little nub with twice as many nerve endings as the penis...

Religiously, the primary reason for sex is to have children.

then explain the kama sutra to me.

it all depends on your religion... many religions do not necessitate procreation for sex.

Love is a human construction,

actually, it's biological.

and a stupid and fickle way to define something.

my bf is going through a series of tests to determine if his chest pains are related to a severe health problem and if they are, i'm still going to stick with him. yes, love is so fickle.

You can love your boyfriend and have sex with him, but you can't love your own children enough to refrain from murdering them.

it's not a child.
and who said that everyone loved their embryo from the second they find out they're pregnant?

As for parasite, that is certainly not a new word, and the objective truth of it is that this is exactly what a fetus is. In a wanted pregnancy, the woman does not mind it, but in reality a fetus during pregnancy is a parasite. You just don't like the term because you think of a poor conotation of it, instead of the true definition.
I don't believe "parasite" is an accurate term for a fetus. A parasite is a life-form that invades another to feed off it. A child does not invade.

I'm just against abortion because I don't think we should kill things.

It's pleasurable so you would do it. If the only incentive for sex was to procreate, would anyone actually engage it in? Pleasurability is just a relic for procreation, just like chocolate tastes good because carbs used to be hard to come by, your body burns carbs before fat, etc.

actually, chocolate is addictive because it stimulates the brain in the same way love does.

reproduction is most certainly not the only reason for sex. it never has been, never will be.

Personally, I hate abortions. I hote the thought of them and I wish man never thought up of something that horrible. However, now that we have it, we must consider the reprecussions of illegalizing it. Now, I'm not one to debate whether it's moral or not. I'm one to debate what good or bad will come out of legalizing or illegalizing it, and the fact of the matter is, three things will happen if we illegalized abortion.
1.) Abortions will be performed underground, much like drug deals.
2.) Pregnant women will go down to Mexico or Canada where abortion will always be available, if not legal.
3.) Women will kill themselves with coathangers trying to perform abortions on themselves (which is the main reason why Roe v. Wade ended up the way it did. The Supreme Court knew what kind of bad stuff would happen.)
Now, would you pro-lifers rather make it illegal and watch this stuff happen, or would you rather improve alternatives to abortions for these women, because most women who have abortions do so because they can't afford to keep the child. Improve our adoption agencies, give them more child care support, offer these girls a good home, job, and security. If we did this, the number of annual abortions would plummet (it has decreased in the past twelve years, too.) That's just my two cents on abortion.

If that is your view of these little creatures, I can see why you would never want to have children.
Ditto :-)

Life and death are two sides of the same coin. People use the phrase "life is sacred" without, I think, taking its sacredness seriously, and without a thought to the fact that "death is sacred" also. Something is sacred when it is an important part of a religious consciousness. Life and death are such things. Life has its devotees ;), its rituals and rites (dating and sex), poets to laud its psalms (in song), and temples (bedrooms) in which it is worshipped and where new life is created. Death, too, has its rituals and funeral rites, and a place of worship, with loud music and a pint or two to numb the pain.

Not everyone is so religiously inclined :). The Christian religion and our modern Western civilization have a rather skewered view of the sacredness of life. It glorifies life and demonizes death, with no acknowledgement for the holiness and necessity of the counterpart to life. It creates a horrible polarization, with Life and Death being equated with the (previously polarized) religious concepts of Good and Evil. It creates an imaginative "after-life" so that the holy concept of Life does not have to be let go of, ever, not for a single moment. But life needs death --without it... let me put it this way: if there were never-ending life the world would be full to capacity in very little time with loving, starving creatures.

Holding life sacred means honouring not only life but its counterpart, death. We honour the death of a human being by acknowledging what they accomplished in their time on this Earth. But what did a fetus accomplish? When we mourn the loss of an infant so small, whether born or pre-born, we are mourning something that didn't happen. It's not real. But it's a human thing to do.

The arguments about what a person "might have" accomplished arise, I believe, from the human belief in Destiny, with an idea that there is some fixedness about the time-line, and that we shouldn't disturb it or tempt it. It's one of my favourite movie themes. Even though people rationally know that the future is not set in place or knowable, they spare a bit of faith for Destiny (much as they would for God) and our human role in it.

(Feel free to ignore my ramblings.)

you obviously don't know one thing about Catholicism. We honor death the same as life. We honor Christ's death more than his birth. Most of the saints have their feast days on the day they died, not born.

[QUOTE= In the end, this would amount to any sexually active woman that hasn't had a hysterectomy being liable for murder every single day of her life.
[/QUOTE]
Are you really, honestly saying that any non-pregnant, fertile, sexually active female has a miscarriage every single day?
Must have skipped that paragraph in the chapter on human reproduction during my anatomy and physiology course. I'll try to look it up :confused:

I'm just against abortion because I don't think we should kill things.
I hope you just mean human things, because I'm really looking forward to dinner tonight. ;-)

To pro-life advocates:

I don't think that many pro-life advocates are thinking clearly about their own stance. Either you value the life of the unborn child, or you value the quality of life of the mother. But when it comes to a person who is considering abortion as an option, pro-life advocates must realize that valuing one side preclude's value of the other.

For example, for those of you who adopt a pro-life stance, you must absolutely take the view at its fullest, to avoid hypocrisy. After all, it doesn't matter if a woman was raped or suffered incest or any other attrocity, or even if her life is in danger. The fact remains that the child is innocent and doesn't deserve death by human hands. To say that "abortion is acceptable if a woman is raped" creates an inappropriate double standard.

Otherwise, you must believe that a woman deserves compassion and has the right to evaluate her own standard of living and terminate a pregnancy if she feels that her emotional or economic well-being is threatened.

But you can't have it both ways.

Now just remember that you can adopt a pro-choice stance and still choose to not have an abortion if you are unfortunate enough to have to face that decision. Likewise, you can still adopt a pro-choice stance and attempt to convince others that abortions are a bad idea. But the pro-choice stance states that no matter what you might believe, it is the mother's ultimate decision that is most important, and that decision should always be respected.

oh, excellent points. :)

you obviously don't know one thing about Catholicism. We honor death the same as life. We honor Christ's death more than his birth. Most of the saints have their feast days on the day they died, not born.
Ah, but isn't Christ a symbol not of death but of forgiveness? "He died to provide salvation for all..."

Different symbolism entirely.

But yes, Irish Catholics at least do honour death well.

In other words, they are elective, just another form of birth control.

as mentioned earlier, abortion is not birth control. birth control involves preventing a pregnancy.

Those are the instances of abortion which I oppose. If you don't want a child under those circumstances, give it up, but don't kill it.

are you complerely ignorant of the health risks in a typical pregnancy?

In the end, this would amount to any sexually active woman that hasn't had a hysterectomy being liable for murder every single day of her life.
Are you really, honestly saying that any non-pregnant, fertile, sexually active female has a miscarriage every single day?
Must have skipped that paragraph in the chapter on human reproduction during my anatomy and physiology course. I'll try to look it up :confused:
No, but she carries the liability everyday. To be liable means that you can legally be held responsible for something that has or may happen. If the child were a "person" with all the rights of an adult, then every pregnant woman would be liable for the life that she carries inside of her. If anything harmful should happen to the child, she would face criminal charges, and if the child died, even through some accident, she could be charged with murder.

Identical twins do not share DNA. They have similar DNA, as do all siblings. By your argument, all people of the same family having similar DNA are one person. I guess you've never studied genetics. Identical twins have different DNA as evidenced by the fact that they have different fingerprints. Scientists are able to pinpoint which twin was which by DNA. Your argument is horribly flawed.

i guess you've never studied genetics 'cause otherwise you'd know that barring mutations in the dna, two identical twins will share the exact same dna. they come from the same egg that was fertilized with the same sperm, where does this new dna come from?

Are you really, honestly saying that any non-pregnant, fertile, sexually active female has a miscarriage every single day?
Must have skipped that paragraph in the chapter on human reproduction during my anatomy and physiology course. I'll try to look it up :confused:

no, s/he was saying that any sexually active woman of childbearing age with everything in proper working order could potentially be pregnant at any time. (birth control isn't 100%, women can get pregnant no matter what time of the month intercourse occurs at et c) therefore, it is possible that if you are sexually active woman engaging in sternuous lifting, are stressed out, go out for a night on the town involving alcohol, et c, you could be pregnant and you could cause a miscarriage.

and whether you know it or not, it would be negligence.

oh, and upon further investigation of this website: http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

i discovered that it's numbers for the effectiveness of contraceptives is horribly, horribly wrong.

i took their "online pregnancy test" as a joke (my aunt flow is currently in town) and they stated that the failure rate for condoms is 14%, whereas in acutality it's 3% and for the birth control pill, they gave a number of 2-5% where it's actually 1%.

so yeah, beware of any info that comes from there. it may be severely out of date, or they're deliberately trying to deceive people, i'm not sure which.

most women who have abortions do so because they can't afford to keep the child.
Men aren't allowed the luxury of that decision. If she wants to keep it, support enforcemant is after his paycheck, period. He can't say "I can't afford a baby right now." and walk away.
I want the male equilalent of an abortion so long as abortion remains legal, to do anything less is VERY hypocritical and I dare say SEXIST!

PS don't even start with the personal attacks. I'm the custodial father of five beatiful children and would never, ever walk away from my responsibilities as a parent.
It would be six if not for the fact that my first child was aborted by my ex-girlfriend who "Didn't want her body to get stretch marks."
Nobody let me choose!
She could have given the baby to me.
That child would be 17 now.

That was when I switched sides on this whole debate, before then I was pro-choice.

That's NOT where that logic leads at all. You're being rediculous. His logic leads as follows. When an egg is impregnanted, baring any complications, i.e. miscarriage or abortion, it WILL grow into a fetus. A fetus will grow into a baby. Therefore, an impregnanted egg will become a baby. It is the natural progression of things.

wrong. when an egg is fertilized it has less than a 50% chance of ever becoming an embryo. when an embryo is successfully formed it has roughly a 80% chance of ever becoming a fetus. once the fetus is formed it has a pretty good chance of becoming an infant, but all of these things are up in the air; the bread and cheese and meat in my fridge has a very very very good chance of being made into a sandwitch tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that i could correctly refer to those ingredients as a sandwitch right now.

The nonsense you just spouted means one of two things....either you didn't understand his argument, which is possible, or you'retaking his argument way beyond where he meant it to argue your own case, and this seems more likely. Without a sperm, the egg will NATURLLY flush out of the body, without an egg, the sperm will die. Natural progression.

so you are saying that only things that occur in NATURE should be allowed to occur in medicine? i see...therefore we should cease all efforts to counter NATURE at this instant. no more setting of broken bones, no more painkillers, no more treatments for cancer, no more antibiotics. if all that matters to you is NATURAL progression of things, then i guess modern medicine is totally immoral and wrong.

oh, and by the way: the NATURAL course of events will abort over 50% of successful fertilizations. so i guess we are safe after all...NATURE does it, why not us?


In case you can't comprehend what I mean the comparrison you've made goes as follows. A man thinks that an adult who gave a child a gun is partially responsible for the school shooting that follows. That is resonable logic. The comparison you made was "Surely, you can't think that people who make guns or people who have guns are all responsible for the shooting." Two different things.

what on earth are you talking about? i totally agree that an abortion provider is responsible for ending the lives of fetuses, and i have never denied that...i think they are doing a wonderful service, and should all be given a raise immediately. the difference is that you think ending the lives of fetuses is murder (as evidenced by your ridiculous attempt at a parallel), and i do not believe that is the case. you believe that a fetus should have legal status equal to that of a human being, and i not only believe that isn't the case but i also believe that even if it DID get that status it would still be completely appropriate to abort if the mother so desires.


And to the guy who said "I wouldn't be here if my Mom wasn't pro-choice." That makes no sense. Yes you would. You're there because your mom and dad had sex. If your mom was pro-life, you'd still be there. Hate to break it to you.
that was me. try this situation:

my mother gets pregnant at the age of 16. rather than having a child she cannot support and does not want, she has an abortion. she graduates high school, goes off to college a year early, and meets my father. the two of them produce me 7 years later. had my mother not chosen to have the first abortion, she never would have met my father, and i would never have been born.

or hell, try this: my mother is pro-choice, always has been. she's never personally needed an abortion, as she's never had birth control fail, and she was able to plan her family without a hitch. however, she believes that all women have the right to control their own bodies, and to make the choice about abortion for themselves. my mother is, and has always been, pro-choice, yet she has children; this is not a contradiction in the slightest.

remember, being pro-choice doesn't mean you are pro-having-an-abortion-every-time-you-get-pregnant.

hate to break it to you.

no, s/he was saying that any sexually active woman of childbearing age with everything in proper working order could potentially be pregnant at any time. (birth control isn't 100%, women can get pregnant no matter what time of the month intercourse occurs at et c) therefore, it is possible that if you are sexually active woman engaging in sternuous lifting, are stressed out, go out for a night on the town involving alcohol, et c, you could be pregnant and you could cause a miscarriage.

and whether you know it or not, it would be negligence.
Potential??? The quote was "every single day"
Using that convoluted logic, a condom is equivalent to an abortion, so is pulling out as well as masturbation. While some people may believe that is so, I am certainly not among them.
Whacking off is not going to kill anyone.
thank god...or I'd probably be dead by now.

Men aren't allowed the luxury of that decision. If she wants to keep it, support enforcemant is after his paycheck, period. He can't say "I can't afford a baby right now." and walk away.
I want the male equilalent of an abortion so long as abortion remains legal, to do anything less is VERY hypocritical and I dare say SEXIST!

PS don't even start with the personal attacks. I'm the custodial father of five beatiful children and would never, ever walk away from my responsibilities as a parent.
It would be six if not for the fact that my first child was aborted by my ex-girlfriend who "Didn't want her body to get stretch marks."
Nobody let me choose!
She could have given the baby to me.
That child would be 17 now.

That was when I switched sides on this whole debate, before then I was pro-choice.

Know what? Even if she gave the baby to you... she'd have to endure the trials of pregnancy. It's not cake. While I don't agree with aborting a fetus JUST because of physical aesthetics, you aren't the one who would have to endure the side effects of pregnancy. If the stretch marks, back pain, swelling, cramping, hemmerhoids, weird dreams, wild cravings, and hormone wars were your responsibility... if she could pass those off to you, I think we'd be having a different discussion. Until you can decide to bear the baby for her (in order to keep it for yourself), it's really not going to be your call.

Know what? Even if she gave the baby to you... she'd have to endure the trials of pregnancy. It's not cake. While I don't agree with aborting a fetus JUST because of physical aesthetics, you aren't the one who would have to endure the side effects of pregnancy. If the stretch marks, back pain, swelling, cramping, hemmerhoids, weird dreams, wild cravings, and hormone wars were your responsibility... if she could pass those off to you, I think we'd be having a different discussion. Until you can decide to bear the baby for her (in order to keep it for yourself), it's really not going to be your call.
if any guy tried to pull that logic with me i would have a very simple solution: he is welcome to the fetus, and i will give it to him in a jar as soon as it is removed from my body. he can have it, and do anything he wants with it, but he may not use MY body to incubate it against my will. these pro-lifers seem to be arguing that the fetus IS a human, and that it WILL become a human if left to itself, so i figure this could be a very effective experiment to test that fact...the embryo can be removed from me intact (i would even be willing to pay for that, in the interests of science) and then kept to itself in the jar. we'll see how long it takes for it to develop into a baby.

if any guy tried to pull that logic with me i would have a very simple solution: he is welcome to the fetus, and i will give it to him in a jar as soon as it is removed from my body. he can have it, and do anything he wants with it, but he may not use MY body to incubate it against my will. these pro-lifers seem to be arguing that the fetus IS a human, and that it WILL become a human if left to itself, so i figure this could be a very effective experiment to test that fact...the embryo can be removed from me intact (i would even be willing to pay for that, in the interests of science) and then kept to itself in the jar. we'll see how long it takes for it to develop into a baby.

Oooh... harsh! I don't think even I'm that morbid... *shivvers* Still, you make a brilliant point.

Oooh... harsh! I don't think even I'm that morbid... *shivvers* Still, you make a brilliant point.
meh, i'm not as easily grossed out as most guys. i've observed surgeries first hand, so the sight of blood or tissue doesn't bother me. i don't think my position is morbid, simply honest: if he wants HIS baby then he can have it, and he is welcome to it.

meh, i'm not as easily grossed out as most guys. i've observed surgeries first hand, so the sight of blood or tissue doesn't bother me. i don't think my position is morbid, simply honest: if he wants HIS baby then he can have it, and he is welcome to it.

I watched my husband's eye surgery from another room. He called me a ghoul, but it was really neat! I don't think I could hand off an unformed fetus to someone, though (even if I do think it would be an interesting payback for assuming I should be FORCED to carry the child just to give it to him in the end). It's poetic, that's for sure.

If I wasn't already married, I might just hit on you. ;)

I want the male equilalent of an abortion so long as abortion remains legal, to do anything less is VERY hypocritical and I dare say SEXIST!
It is sexist, and this is one instance in which being sexist is entirely acceptable, because it cannot be anything but sexist. It is directly related to the sexes.

As long as a person's right to security of person is guaranteed, through accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and through Constitution, there will never be a "male equivalent of an abortion", at least not until men start implanting wombs.

I watched my husband's eye surgery from another room. He called me a ghoul, but it was really neat! I don't think I could hand off an unformed fetus to someone, though (even if I do think it would be an interesting payback for assuming I should be FORCED to carry the child just to give it to him in the end). It's poetic, that's for sure.

If I wasn't already married, I might just hit on you. ;)
oooh, how flattering! glad to see there are some people who are still attracted to opinions and ideas...these days one can begin to doubt that such people still exist.

It is sexist, and this is one instance in which being sexist is entirely acceptable, because it cannot be anything but sexist. It is directly related to the sexes.

As long as a person's right to security of person is guaranteed, through accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and through Constitution, there will never be a "male equivalent of an abortion", at least not until men start implanting wombs.
kind of like how women can get their health insurance to pay for treatment of ovarian cancer, and men cannot. women can get pre-natal care, and men cannot. there are many things in the medical world which are "sexist," but that's because the medical world is pretty much the only one in which the differences between the sexes really matter.

oooh, how flattering! glad to see there are some people who are still attracted to opinions and ideas...these days one can begin to doubt that such people still exist.

*laughs* There's nothing sexier than an intelligent, well spoken, open-minded man who champions human rights. Period. That's why I ended up with my hubbie in the first place. I hope my kids (as in my students) can pick some of that up from my teaching methods (in class, I advocate critical thinking and informed decision making).

Abortion is not any sort of birth control. Birth control is a means to prevent pregnancy, and therefore prevent abortion.

Yes, I know this. If you had read my initial post, you'd see where I pointed to a case I had personal knowledge of where the woman WAS using it as birth control. There are women out there who use it this way, even though it was never intended as birth control.
I'm not going by the technical definition, but by how the procedure is used.

But, since the Old Testament specifically mentions abortion, and the New Testament doesn't.. the Old Testament still stands.

Also, how can the New Testament 'supercede' the Old Testament? The failing point of the Christian religion must be this exact issue...

If the New Testament 'supercedes' the Old Testament, then the Old Testament is fallible.

If you read the teachings of Christ, he said the OT is the old way. According to Jesus, we're supposed to be following the new testament.

if any guy tried to pull that logic with me i would have a very simple solution: he is welcome to the fetus, and i will give it to him in a jar as soon as it is removed from my body. he can have it, and do anything he wants with it, but he may not use MY body to incubate it against my will. these pro-lifers seem to be arguing that the fetus IS a human, and that it WILL become a human if left to itself, so i figure this could be a very effective experiment to test that fact...the embryo can be removed from me intact (i would even be willing to pay for that, in the interests of science) and then kept to itself in the jar. we'll see how long it takes for it to develop into a baby.
I seem to recall a news story recently about a team of scientist that are attempting to create an artificial womb and claim to be very close to success.
I'll see if I can find a link for you.
Do not forget that the baby in question was the product of consentual sex between well informed adults who both knew well the risks of their actions.
I contend the choice was made prior to implantation of the zygote into the womb. I would have fully accepted the consequenses of my actions, while she was not prepared to do that.
The woman in question knew I wanted a baby, she asked to come inside her.
So don't try your morbid little logic game with me.
The government dictates what people can and cannot do with their own bodies all the time.(seatbelt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, bans on assisted suicide, ect.)
Artificial Womb links
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/health/092302_hs_artificialwomb.html
Soon it may well be a moot point because a woman would be able to do exactly what Bottle proposed.
The next question then becomes "Could a man force a pregnant woman to turn the fetus over alive if she intends to have an abortion?"
And if so, would she be liable for child support?
Thought you had me didn't you bottle??
Not that easy

So then by your logic, all of the literally thousands of species of true parasites are not actually living oranisms because they cannot exist independently. Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?

Not at all. An embryo is not a parasite, it is simply a dividing bundle of cells. It cannot, however, be termed an organism, as it does not meet all of the requirements.

A fetus, however, can sense and respond to stimuli as an organism. So from the point where the nervous system is functional until it is born, the fetus is a parasite.

There is no contradiction here.

Well, the whole thing is the girl's fault. So why should she be allowed to get out of her punishment for having sex before marriage? She knows the risk; but she still does it. It's downright stupid. :rolleyes:

I'm going to assume that's very subtle sarcasm, because otherwise that would be the MOST assinine statement I've ever heard. Women don't get pregnant by osmosis.

And the choice is mostly the woman's, if she's going to have an abortion. It is her body that would bear the stress of the pregnancy. If a guy doesn't bother discussing a woman's feelings about having children before he has his fun, then too bad for him if she gets pregnant and doesn't want to abort the child. In some states, the unwilling father can sign away his parental rights, then walk away if he isn't man enough to take responsibility for something he helped bring about.

If that is your view of these little creatures, I can see why you would never want to have children.

You are either an idiot or a troll. I never said I didn't want to have children. In fact, I fully intend to have children someday. I have also repeatedly stated that I am anti-abortion, personally.

But the truth of the matter is that, scientifically, the fetus is a parasite. You have a poor connotation of the word that you are inferring is meant in my posts, but I am speaking purely from the definition here.

I don't believe "parasite" is an accurate term for a fetus. A parasite is a life-form that invades another to feed off it. A child does not invade.

A parasite does not have to invade. It simply has to live within and completely off of the host. Do you deny that a fetus does so to its mother?

Are you really, honestly saying that any non-pregnant, fertile, sexually active female has a miscarriage every single day?
Must have skipped that paragraph in the chapter on human reproduction during my anatomy and physiology course. I'll try to look it up :confused:

Are you really, honestly that ignorant of the English language? Being liable means that something *may* happen. I am liable for any accidents that I cause while driving, but that does not mean I have an accident every day.

What I am saying is that any sexually active woman could be pregnant at any instant. This is a biological fact. If you have had sex and are not completely infertile, you may be pregnant, regardless of what precautions you have taken. If an embryo is considered to be a full human life. The woman is constantly responsible for the *possibility* that she *might* harm an embryo that *might* be inside of her.

As long as a person's right to security of person is guaranteed, through accord with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and through Constitution, there will never be a "male equivalent of an abortion", at least not until men start implanting wombs.

There can be a male equivalent of an abortion. Basically, they would sever all legal ties to the growing embryo/fetus, giving up all rights and responsibilities to it. What there can never be is any construct in which a male can force a female to carry a child.

oh, and upon further investigation of this website: http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

i discovered that it's numbers for the effectiveness of contraceptives is horribly, horribly wrong.

i took their "online pregnancy test" as a joke (my aunt flow is currently in town) and they stated that the failure rate for condoms is 14%, whereas in acutality it's 3% and for the birth control pill, they gave a number of 2-5% where it's actually 1%.

so yeah, beware of any info that comes from there. it may be severely out of date, or they're deliberately trying to deceive people, i'm not sure which.

I cited it purely for the developmental info. The rest of the stuff was irrelevant to the point of what develops when in a fetus.

I cited it purely for the developmental info. The rest of the stuff was irrelevant to the point of what develops when in a fetus.

I think Dakini's point was that if a great deal of the information on a given site is wrong, you shouldn't really trust any of it.

I personally would trust academic sites more, and those are where I pull my numbers from.

A parasite does not have to invade. It simply has to live within and completely off of the host. Do you deny that a fetus does so to its mother?
Absolutely not. Still, the child is not a parasite. A parasite (http://www.biologie.uni-halle.de/zool/mol_ecol/parasitism.html) is not native to its host. It is a separate species. A child is a part of its mother.

Yes, I know this. If you had read my initial post, you'd see where I pointed to a case I had personal knowledge of where the woman WAS using it as birth control. There are women out there who use it this way, even though it was never intended as birth control.
I'm not going by the technical definition, but by how the procedure is used.
That's simply not possible. Birth controls are measures put in place to prevent pregnancy, and therefore prevent abortion.

If you read the teachings of Christ, he said the OT is the old way. According to Jesus, we're supposed to be following the new testament.
When the New Testament doesn't contradict what the Old Testament says, the Old Testament goes. And the New Testament doesn't even mention the fetus IIRC.

Absolutely not. Still, the child is not a parasite. A parasite (http://www.biologie.uni-halle.de/zool/mol_ecol/parasitism.html) is not native to its host. It is a separate species. A child is a part of its mother.

So you have found an instance of a website with a definition that specifically relegates the definition to a separate species. However, the general definition is one organism that lives within another, living off of the resources of the host.

One way or another, the term is much more accurate than calling it a baby, child, or infant.

I cited it purely for the developmental info. The rest of the stuff was irrelevant to the point of what develops when in a fetus.

webmd has different numbers, and more accurate numbers for methods of contraception. the page you cited has been discovered to have some andiquated information, how do you know you can trust the rest of the information on teh site?

and i turst a site that has no adgenda when it comes to abortion or not vs. one that deals specifically with that topic vs adoption or what have you. webmd is a general health site, they have no reason to deliberately mislead anyone. your site does.

I'm going to assume that's very subtle sarcasm, because otherwise that would be the MOST assinine statement I've ever heard. Women don't get pregnant by osmosis.

i've seen him on other threads. i get the feeling that he's either consistent in his board-persona, or this is the real thing.

I don't believe "parasite" is an accurate term for a fetus. A parasite is a life-form that invades another to feed off it. A child does not invade.

Cancer cells do not invade, either. After all, they are part of the body. By that reasoning, cancer treatments should be illegal.

The fact remains that the most efficient way (and therefore only honestly acceptable way) to prevent abortions from occuring is to adopt a child YOURSELF and to distribute contraceptives among groups with the most statistical likelihood to become pregnant and have an abortion.


I consider any opponent of abortion who refuses to take those two responsibilities upon himself a base fellow and morally unfit to dictate what is acceptable for others.

Are you really, honestly that ignorant of the English language? Being liable means that something *may* happen. I am liable for any accidents that I cause while driving, but that does not mean I have an accident every day.

What I am saying is that any sexually active woman could be pregnant at any instant. This is a biological fact. If you have had sex and are not completely infertile, you may be pregnant, regardless of what precautions you have taken. If an embryo is considered to be a full human life. The woman is constantly responsible for the *possibility* that she *might* harm an embryo that *might* be inside of her.
Yet you are not liable unless and until you have an accident.
We all know that as much as 50% of the ovum that are fertilized do not implant in the endomitrium and are flushed out during the next menstrual cycle. I hate to break it to you but a woman can be scientifically proven to be not pregnant, and the idea that any woman "might" be be pregnant at any given moment is pure idiocy. So describe to me how a woman who just underwent a D&C could possibly be pregnant??? The words you said "could be pregnant at any instant" are quite clearly incorrect if taken to the same literal extreme that you are trying to apply to the word "liable" and to the absolute undeniable fact that an emplanted embryo is quite clearly alive and undoubtedly human. If you were to take a DNA sample, it would test as human and nothing else. You "might" be struck by a meteorite and killed, but the probability so extremely low as to be negligible but chance still exists doesnt it? Furthermore, you are using the term "embryo" which clearly is not a tiny bundle of stem cells that have not yet achieved blastulation.

So you have found an instance of a website with a definition that specifically relegates the definition to a separate species. However, the general definition is one organism that lives within another, living off of the resources of the host.

One way or another, the term is much more accurate than calling it a baby, child, or infant.
If you want, I could list a dozen more websites, but I don't think that would be very productive. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I've been seeing a lot of "so and so wouldn't even be alive today if he had been aborted"

The thing is, though, that they also wouldn't have been alive if they hadn't had sex in the first place, would you make two parents have sex to try and produce babies every single month?

A baby isn't alive until, I think, the 3rd trimester. that's when it can see, feel, sense it's surroundings, think (that might come later, I'm not sure) so before that, you're not killing a human being, because it's not a human being. If it had come out at anytime before the third trimester it would not have been able to survive. It has so much more developing to do before it can function on its own. So it's still basically a part of the mother, therefore it should be her choice what to do with it.

Cancer cells do not invade, either. After all, they are part of the body. By that reasoning, cancer treatments should be illegal.
Ahh, both fetus and cancer take nutrients that the host body needs for their own use. I see.

But neither fetus nor cancer are parasites.

About these comments of how people should have used birth control.

It is not guaranteed. Especially not in my family. My cousin was born despite the use of a condom, a diaphragm, and spermicidal foam. My sister was conceived despite the use of birth control pills. I was conceived despite the use of birth control pills and a condom. My son was conceived despite the use of birth control pills and a condom.

If people are taking precautions to prevent pregnancy and those precautions fail than should they just say "whoops this is the hazard of having sex" and accept it?


I am pro-choice and personally I only support abortion in the first trimester without some valid reason to justify the operation. I do not see an embryo as a living sentient living being anymore than I see my little finger as a sentient living being. Yes, it could "potentially" become a human being but it is not one yet and living with what could / might be is a nice thought but it does not escape the reality of what things are right now. My car could be developed into a 9 second street racer but it is not one now so saying that I have a 9 second car would not true. Just like saying you have a fertilized egg that could develop into a baby does not mean that you have a baby.


Also please stop calling embryos and fetus' babies. Unless of course you would fry up a couple of eggs and call it fried chicken. The scientific community has given them names for a reason.


Just my thoughts and opinions on the matter.

Yet you are not liable unless and until you have an accident.

You do not really know the meaning of the word liable. If something *might* happen and you would be responsible for it, you are liable for it, whether it happens or not. A doctor may never do anything to get sued for malpractice, but he is always liable for a possible malpractice case.

We all know that as much as 50% of the ovum that are fertilized do not implant in the endomitrium and are flushed out during the next menstrual cycle.

Yes, and this is often due to a lifestyle choice on her part that makes her womb inhospitable to implantation. If life begins at conception, she is liable for that decision and should be tried in the death of the embryo.

I hate to break it to you but a woman can be scientifically proven to be not pregnant, and the idea that any woman "might" be be pregnant at any given moment is pure idiocy. So describe to me how a woman who just underwent a D&C could possibly be pregnant???

Now, you are being silly. How many women take a pregnancy test or have a D&C every single day? Every week? Every month? Even every year? Not many. Those women who have not had some sort of definitive test or procedure could be pregnant if they have had sex. This is a biological fact. Even a woman who is currently menstruating could be pregnant and not know it.

The words you said "could be pregnant at any instant" are quite clearly incorrect if taken to the same literal extreme that you are trying to apply to the word "liable"

Fine, a sexually active woman who has not taken a pregnancy test (that didn't return negative results) or had a D&C or any other such procedure since the last time she had sex is possibly pregnant. Therefore, if life begins at conception, any lifestyle choice she makes that results in miscarriage makes her liable for that embryo's death. Better?

and to the absolute undeniable fact that an emplanted embryo is quite clearly alive and undoubtedly human.

It is alive, just as my arm is. It is human, just as my arm is. However, it cannot be termed an organism until it meets the requirements of an organism. Thus, until the nervous system is developed, it is not an organism.

If you were to take a DNA sample, it would test as human and nothing else.

If I took a DNA sample from any cell in my arm, it would test as human and nothing else. Same thing for a cancer cell, bone cell, nerve, etc, etc. That doesn't make any of these things an organism.

You "might" be struck by a meteorite and killed, but the probability so extremely low as to be negligible but chance still exists doesnt it?

Me being struck by a meteor infers no responsibility on my part.

On the other hand, if I am almost positive that there is no one on the sidewalk below me, and I drop something off a 50 story building that kills a pedestrian below, am I not responsible for their death? The chances were really low that anyone would get hurt, but I'm pretty sure I could be prosecuted.

Furthermore, you are using the term "embryo" which clearly is not a tiny bundle of stem cells that have not yet achieved blastulation.

Embryo, I believe, refers to development up to either 8 or 12 weeks, I cannot remember which. And I most certainly do mean to say embryo, since that is the time period we are really debating here.

Then you take away their choice.

That was your response to my post:
Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.

That response was ignorant. I just gave several choices that the woman/man can make, yet you say I have taken away their choice when I say murdering an innocent child isn't an option. So does that mean that the mother of a 6-month-old should have the option of killing her baby if she realizes she can support him/her financially? What if she just decides she really doesn't want the baby anymore? Sure, she could put the kid up for adoption, allow the baby to stay with a family member, whatever. But, in her mind, she thinks killing it would be best. I guess we should let her do it, huh? If not, we're taking away a choice - or so you're response would lead me to believe.

Okay, look at it this way.

1: Abortion

2: No Abortion

1: Some baby loses his LIFE!

2: Some random woman has to deal with a baby for 18 years.

In any situation, I put life before anything else, and so should you! Unless the mother's life is threatened, abortion is MURDER and should be treated as such.

Listen to this:

Would-be Mom: But I don't have the resources to raise a child!

1: Get your husband to wear a stupid CONDOM!

2: Put the baby up for adoption!

Would-be Mom: But I don't have the money to pay for the birthing of the baby!

Simple: Everyone gets free medical insurance, so you don't HAVE to pay.

Some Conservative: But where do we get the money?

Simple. Raise taxes on the rich. They have too much money anyway.

Yet you are not liable unless and until you have an accident.
Perhaps "due diligence" is a better concept to argue this point.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Then you take away their choice.That was your response to my post:
Pro-lifers are more than willing to give women (and men) a choice. They can CHOOSE to be responsible before the woman gets pregnant. If they don't take responsibility at that point, they can CHOOSE to be responsible after the fact and allow the baby to live. If they feel they can't take care of it, they can CHOOSE to put it up for adoption. Seems like people do have choices to make. However, to pro-lifers, murdering an innocent child shouldn't be one of the options.
That response was ignorant. I just gave several choices that the woman/man can make, yet you say I have taken away their choice when I say murdering an innocent child isn't an option. So does that mean that the mother of a 6-month-old should have the option of killing her baby if she realizes she can support him/her financially? What if she just decides she really doesn't want the baby anymore? Sure, she could put the kid up for adoption, allow the baby to stay with a family member, whatever. But, in her mind, she thinks killing it would be best. I guess we should let her do it, huh? If not, we're taking away a choice - or so you're response would lead me to believe.
But don't you see? If you give them choice and then limit what choices they can have, it's not really *their* choice at all. Adults do this to children; it's a part of development learning. Adults do not (should not) do this to other adults. Treating other adults like children is disrespectful. In order to give them choice and respect, you must *inform* them of all their options and let them choose.

Yes, the mother of a 6-month-old should have all the options explained to her --including the legal ramifications of aborting a pre-born in second or third trimester, which probably includes prison --and be allowed to choose.

Laws do not exist to take away people's options. Laws exist to punish those who choose poorly.

Okay, look at it this way.

1: Abortion

2: No Abortion

1: Some baby loses his LIFE!

2: Some random woman has to deal with a baby for 18 years.

In any situation, I put life before anything else, and so should you! Unless the mother's life is threatened, abortion is MURDER and should be treated as such.

Listen to this:

Would-be Mom: But I don't have the resources to raise a child!

1: Get your husband to wear a stupid CONDOM!

2: Put the baby up for adoption!

Would-be Mom: But I don't have the money to pay for the birthing of the baby!

Simple: Everyone gets free medical insurance, so you don't HAVE to pay.

Some Conservative: But where do we get the money?

Simple. Raise taxes on the rich. They have too much money anyway.
1. Choice.

2. One more liberty denied to you by the system.

How un-American.

Oh? So children don't deserve to have choices? Last I checked, they are just as human as us adults! If, as you say, it is amoral to limit the choices of adults, why is it perfectly fine to limit the choices of children? Please inform me of your reasoning.

I am saying this as a responsible adult who has not ceased giving children the respect they reserve as human beings. Just as babies have the right to live, children of all ages should have rights too.

1. Choice.

2. One more liberty denied to you by the system.

How un-American.

1: Dead Baby.

2: Live Baby.

1: Sancity of human life violated.

2: Sancity of human life preserved.

In my eyes this is kind of an ironic thing. Pro Lifers support the rights of that fetus but do not of the mother.

While I believe it was stupid to have sex without a condom, etc, if you did not want a child, it is their right.

All life is precious? Perhaps, but if a woman came to me and asked for an abortion I would grant her that right, if I was some all mighty ruler.

because after all, without her the baby wouldv'e never been born, without her exact DNA the exact baby would not be the same, and itis her right while it is still in her body for her to do it in a clean way. Past first trimester we can talk. I just don't see the point.

Mhy mother had the choice to kill me or not. She was 39 years old. It presented major risks to her, and my health if I were to live. She obviously chose to have me. It was her RIGHT to have me. I rather not be born at all if she didn't want me. If my own mother did not want me then I wouldn't want to be born in the first place. It would be her right not to want me, and I would accept that. Believe it or not, there are worse things than death pro lifers, much worse.

Wow, another debate that won't go anywhere.

This I found on another forum and I thought it was hilarious even though I'm totally pro life and I still couldn't rationalise pro-choice people doing it.

"Abortion is wrong. Full stop.

It's a shameless murder of convenience. Again, full stop. Let that sink in.

So. We pretty much know I think it's wrong, on a moral level. That being said, you can all fuck right off and kill all the little babies you want. They're not my kids, I'm not your fucking father, and I'm not on a crusade to cleanse the world of evil. I've got enough problems of my own.

If you're cool with that, abort away. What do I care whether you murder your own children? If you're the kind of person who can rationalize this sort of thing, maybe we're both better off with your genes dying out with you.

Knock yourselves out, you sick fucks."

What a lovely person. Bet he is the hit at every party.

I gotta call shinnanagins on this "life, liberty and persuite of happiness in that order" thing. Who the hell thought that up? What talking points are you reading O' Riley? Seriously. That's a preamble, it has no legal baring except as... no no legal bearing at all. Sorry, had to call shinnanagins on that. It just means nothing. It's like proposing funding for egg reconstruction based on the harrowing tale of Humpty Dumpty.

More like life, liberty, and the pursuit of land am I right.

Wow, another debate that won't go anywhere.

This I found on another forum and I thought it was hilarious even though I'm totally pro life and I still couldn't rationalise pro-choice people doing it.

"Abortion is wrong. Full stop.

It's a shameless murder of convenience. Again, full stop. Let that sink in.

So. We pretty much know I think it's wrong, on a moral level. That being said, you can all fuck right off and kill all the little babies you want. They're not my kids, I'm not your fucking father, and I'm not on a crusade to cleanse the world of evil. I've got enough problems of my own.

If you're cool with that, abort away. What do I care whether you murder your own children? If you're the kind of person who can rationalize this sort of thing, maybe we're both better off with your genes dying out with you.

Knock yourselves out, you sick fucks."
LOL. Okay, so that would be the pro-choice, pro-life, pro-abortion stance. ;-)

LOL. Okay, so that would be the pro-choice, pro-life, pro-abortion stance. ;-)


I think he's just a Christian that knows he probably can't stop people from doing it. I have argued it heaps before myself but people are either for it or against. I am the only person I know that ever changed their stance and I used to think it was alright based of the fact it was legal. I had never thought about it before.

Oh? So children don't deserve to have choices? Last I checked, they are just as human as us adults! If, as you say, it is amoral to limit the choices of adults, why is it perfectly fine to limit the choices of children? Please inform me of your reasoning.

I am saying this as a responsible adult who has not ceased giving children the respect they reserve as human beings. Just as babies have the right to live, children of all ages should have rights too.
Whatever I think that children deserve is not relevant. It happens that adults limit children's choices. And it's true that doing this to other adults is disrespectful. This is my opinion.

Yes, but my point is that you think doing it to childern is allowable, but doing it to adults is not. You are making a case that adults should have a choice, but you are doing nothing to promote the choices of childern. If you can accept the fact that is happens to children, why can't you accept the fact that it happens to adults as well?

Yes, but my point is that you think doing it to childern is allowable, but doing it to adults is not. You are making a case that adults should have a choice, but you are doing nothing to promote the choices of childern. If you can accept the fact that is happens to children, why can't you accept the fact that it happens to adults as well?
That would seem to be a topic for another thread. However... it does happen to adults, too. Disrespecting them happens. The most alarming instance I have seen of it lately is the way the current Bush administration treats the American people, deliberately withholding information so they cannot make reasoned choices.

This is a pathetic excuse for anti-abortion. How can you tell people what to do with their own bodies by saying you might be killing a potential genius. Most people who have abortions are unable to support a child, financially...

You don't know that. Actually, a slight majority of abortion patients in the US are married. They often already have children, they just don't want anymore.

You don't know that. Actually, a slight majority of abortion patients in the US are married. They often already have children, they just don't want anymore.
So, being married makes them rich? I think your argument supports the other.

I'll try to keep it material, so:

If all the babies that were aborted had been given the chance to live, what would the effect be on, say, the economy? Millions more in taxes for the fed, more consuming power, etc.

And many, if not most, would have been born in homes that did not want them, and would have been put up for adoption only to end up in a foster home or orphanage and become a burden on the state.

What about the people that would have become researchers and scientists? Who knows what they could have created or discovered - had they not been killed as an 'inconvience'. They could have found something that would have saved your life, but now they cannot.

Ahh, the 'How many George Washingtons?' argument. What about the people that would have become rapists, killers, and theives? Those are statistically much larger groups that nobel prize winners, especially among children who are not wanted by their parents. What about the people that would have grown up hating their lives because their parents didn't love them? What about the people who would have grown up in orphanages as wards (and burdens) of the state? Look around you. The majority of the people in this world (and I would include my self in this statement) do little more than take up space and drain the resources of those around them. We aren't all cancer curers.

What good friends will you never have? Perhaps someone killed your one soulmate. How much are you missing out on? We'll never know - and won't ever know, unless abortion is stopped.

And how many Jeffrey Dahmers are there who are no longer available to kill you in your sleep and eat your liver with fava beans? How many fewer jackasses at the office? How many fewer kids brought up in abject poverty by parents who never wanted them? How much are we missing out on?

Besides, why should anyone have the right to say, arbitrarily, they will not allow their fetus to grow to adulthood? Seems to me, they're saying their possible Einstein or Ghandi is utterly without worth and unimportant to the world. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future (which no one can, and possibly never will), you cannot have that right to say 'I want an abortion'. And even if you could, why would you give up the happiness that comes with a baby?

Because people have the right to screw up their own lives in any way they wish. Whether this means having an unwanted child or aborting it. It is their life after all. What gives YOU the right to arbitrarily decide what is right or wrong in someone you don't even freaking know's life. It seams to me that you are saying that their possible Dahmer, Osama Bin Laden, serial rapist (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20041005072452581C478145), or random lump of cells is more valuable than their own life. Unless you know exactly what will happen in the future, you cannot have the right to say that someone doesn't have the right to make their own choices for their own life. And even if you could, why would you subject someone to the torture that comes from 19 years of raising an unwanted child?

I'm not even going to bother reading the other posts, this is a tired - trying argument. I am a gay pacifist vegetarian. I oppose the death penalty, all wars, (I would run or die, not fight back, if confronted), and abortion. It's annoying that all my liberal cohorts seem to think that abortion is as fundamental a right as any other. Abortion makes sense, but it's not right. Then again, neither is eating meat, owning or creating any sort of weapon, or anything of that sort - not that the majority will outgrow those barbarities any time soon.

It's not that complicated. If you aren't ready to have a kid either don't have sex or do what a friend of mine just did and put the kid up for adoption. You don't have to resort to killing the kid.

Wow. It's nice to know that everything works out that perfectly in your world. Can you teach us to be just like you?

Last I checked, adoption isn't an option for everyone, and abstinence goes against all genetic predisposition.

I'm not even going to bother reading the other posts, this is a tired - trying argument. I am a gay pacifist vegetarian. I oppose the death penalty, all wars, (I would run or die, not fight back, if confronted), and abortion. It's annoying that all my liberal cohorts seem to think that abortion is as fundamental a right as any other. Abortion makes sense, but it's not right.

well said. *clap*

Wow. It's nice to know that everything works out that perfectly in your world. Can you teach us to be just like you?

Last I checked, adoption isn't an option for everyone, and abstinence goes against all genetic predisposition.

Genetic predisposition? That overrrides being responsible about sex?

And I suppose it needs to be pointed out that those are ridiculous arguments that unfortunately pro-choicers use to mock the other side.

A sperm left to itself will simply die (and leave a stain). An egg left to itself will die. Neither will become anything more no matter how long they are supported. A zygote on the other hand is "potential" human life; if cared for and allowed to grow it will become a person. So this whole argument about sperm and eggs, beside being gross, is irrelevant.

A zygote left to itself will also die. Until some point in the third term they are not a viable life any more than the egg and sperm that formed them.

It also isn't an irrelavent argument. If every potential life must be saved then the logic follows that every sperm and egg must be saved as well.

The fact is that you are making an arbitrary decision on when life begins based on your emotions and nothing else.

well said. *clap*

I'm afraid it was a bit lacking in supporting evidence, but all of those I mentioned, pacifism, veganism, etc - are tied in to eachother. one without the other is hypocritical. Being pro life and pro capital-punishment is idiotic. Any one of those states completely compromises your position on the other. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that can stand up against complete pacifism.

Wow. It's nice to know that everything works out that perfectly in your world. Can you teach us to be just like you?

Last I checked, adoption isn't an option for everyone, and abstinence goes against all genetic predisposition.

What's there to not work out perfectly? You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant, unless it is an immaculate conception. It's that damn simple. You don't want to get pregnant? KEEP YOUR DAMN UNDERWEAR ON! Even if the child is a rape baby it should be kept alive and given up for adoption. A miserable life devoid of love is still better than the horrible limbo of unlife that you doom the child to.

Also, yes the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother. The entire point of life is to continue reproducing and propagating that life. If a mother would rather kill a child than sacrifice herself for it, then she is a bad mother.

Abortion is murder. The Unborn baby is a human and should have human rights (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). It is also against Judaeo-Christian law. I am Liberal, but I am against abortion

Well, geez. I was unaware that Judaeo-Christian law even existed, much less was the guiding principle by which all people should live and by which all governments must take their cue.

Really, do you people even understand the levels of your own arrogance?

I'm afraid it was a bit lacking in supporting evidence, but all of those I mentioned, pacifism, veganism, etc - are tied in to eachother. one without the other is hypocritical. Being pro life and pro capital-punishment is idiotic. Any one of those states completely compromises your position on the other. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that can stand up against complete pacifism.

Well, I agree that all of those things are tied together. I'm a straight vegetarian (lax vegan) pacifist. I could see someone being non-pacafist and being a vegetarian, because there are times when armed combat is necessary. I would understand if someone came back from Iraq (or whereever) after taking life in the name of protecting others. If that person was a vegetarian, I wouldn't consider him a hipocrite.

Well, geez. I was unaware that Judaeo-Christian law even existed, much less was the guiding principle by which all people should live and by which all governments must take their cue.

Really, do you people even understand the levels of your own arrogance?

You're pretty high on the arrogance-o-meter yourself, buddy.

I'd love to know where this notion of "right to choose what happens in your own body" comes from.

Last time I checked, taking heroin, commiting suicide, and prostituting your body were all illegal.

Where is the legal precedent for "I can commit a crime if I do it to my own body"?

Commiting suicide isn't illegal. Attempting suicide is. I also believe that drugs, prostitution, and suicide should be legal.

As a sane, law abiding, contributing member of society, I do not need a father or mother figure standing over me and telling me what to do with my life. I have the right to make my own decisions and live with the consequences of my actions.

It's called personal responsibility. It's the same argument a lot of you pro-lifers use. I.E. 'You had sex, you live with the consequences'. Life is full of decisions, everyone has the right to make there own.

Suicide is still homicide. Technically, if you attempted suicide and failed, you could be charged with attempted murder (although I doubt anyone would ever try and charge someone with that).

interestingly in texas the penalty for attempted suicide is death

interestingly in texas the penalty for attempted suicide is death

Texas is funny. When they lethally inject you, don't they clean the needle with alcohol first? After all, you don't want to get sick!

The Old Testament (if you take the whole thing literally) also quite clearly states that killing a fetus is not murder - but is, in fact, an offense worth only a fine paid to the father.

It also says that eating shellfish is an abomination unto the lord. Odd priorities in that thing. I always wonder how people justify basing legal opinions on it.

So, it's safe to assume you don't know that a fetus has developed a brain before it most mother's know they're pregnant? Or the fact that the fetus has a FULLY developed brain in the second trimester(not sure the exact week).

Huh? I have heard stories of women being 7 months pregnant and claiming not to know but I never actually believed them. So your saying that most women are this stupid? Wow, I really need to re-examine my view of women. :rolleyes:

Texas is funny. When they lethally inject you, don't they clean the needle with alcohol first? After all, you don't want to get sick!


Yeah America is a funny place, the cops beat the crap out of you,( no

problem with that if they deserved it) but then put their hand on top of you

as you get in the car, and say watch your head. lol

I am just going to assume no one bothered with my post because my logic was so grand it blew everyone's mind

^_^

More like life, liberty, and the pursuit of land am I right.

what, this one?

When are you all going to get that there is a middle ground here?

Personally, in general, I think abortion should be illegal.

However.....

I also think our adoption systems and child welfare systems need fixed. If they were better, it would be a more appealing option for those times when circumstances prevent the mother from being able to take care of her child on her own correctly.

I think we need to get rid of the resistance to and of birth control, put some money into research to find ones safe for both ladies and gents that doesn't damage them long term, so the amount of unwanted pregancies from those who can't keep the pants zipped is reduced.

A woman forced to be pregnant, by rape or by abusive home, should not have to endure the psychologial and physical tramas of bringing that mans spawn into the world, or forever knowing his dna is mixed with hers....A forever of violation, IMHO.


Finally, if a womans life is at risk, with the child too small to be viable outside her, and no technology to allow it be taken out and finish gestation elsewhere....well sorry guys, she should have the right to choose to save her own life. Some not in the situation could call her selfish, but she still should always have that right.

In my eyes this is kind of an ironic thing. Pro Lifers support the rights of that fetus but do not of the mother.

While I believe it was stupid to have sex without a condom, etc, if you did not want a child, it is their right.

All life is precious? Perhaps, but if a woman came to me and asked for an abortion I would grant her that right, if I was some all mighty ruler.

because after all, without her the baby wouldv'e never been born, without her exact DNA the exact baby would not be the same, and itis her right while it is still in her body for her to do it in a clean way. Past first trimester we can talk. I just don't see the point.

Mhy mother had the choice to kill me or not. She was 39 years old. It presented major risks to her, and my health if I were to live. She obviously chose to have me. It was her RIGHT to have me. I rather not be born at all if she didn't want me. If my own mother did not want me then I wouldn't want to be born in the first place. It would be her right not to want me, and I would accept that. Believe it or not, there are worse things than death pro lifers, much worse.


this one actually.

this one actually.

no no, I like the other one better. :D

Ah, thanks. I am new to the forum so I decided to poke around in this old heated debate.

Hell I forgot who said that to start with. Locke? Silly Thomas Jefferson =P

So I throw it out there: No one wants to commit murder, pro or anti abortion. So at what point is a human a human? At what point does life begin, and what do we base that concept on? And if we don't know, if we can't answer that question, do we have the right to deamnd that women have unwanted pregnancies, and have the right to take an individual's control over their own body away?

Personally. A human isn't 'fully human' until they are old enough and mentally capable enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Life doesn't begin until it can be self sustaining. And no, I do not believe we have the right to make demands of others based on something that is totally opinion.

Ah, thanks. I am new to the forum so I decided to poke around in this old heated debate.

Hell I forgot who said that to start with. Locke? Silly Thomas Jefferson =P

Welcome and good luck. I'm going home now. And this forum isn't nearly as good as Rome: Total War. Later.

Personally. A human isn't 'fully human' until they are old enough and mentally capable enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Life doesn't begin until it can be self sustaining. And no, I do not believe we have the right to make demands of others based on something that is totally opinion.

So... a literally retarded man doesn't have the rgiht to be "fully human"?

That just came to my mind...

Im pro life, gee it just sounds even better.

A post I just saw gave me an idea, what if instead of flushing all these

unwanted 'fetuses' away, technology was developed to incubate

these 'fetuses' to full bloom, then call in the mothers and say heres what you

wanted to kill.

Also have the state raise these kids if their still unwanted, for military use

only, whos going to miss them right?

What's there to not work out perfectly? You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant, unless it is an immaculate conception. It's that damn simple. You don't want to get pregnant? KEEP YOUR DAMN UNDERWEAR ON! Even if the child is a rape baby it should be kept alive and given up for adoption. A miserable life devoid of love is still better than the horrible limbo of unlife that you doom the child to.

and here's that boring argument AGAIN. let me put this in a clearer context for all of you:

Dave breaks his leg while skiing on vacation. he goes into the doctor to have the leg set and put in a cast, but is surprised when the doctor informs him:

"Sorry Dave, but you were the one who chose to go skiing. If you didn't want a broken leg then you should have kept your feet out of those ski boots and on solid ground where God intended them. We're not about to let you have medical care because it's your own fault that you are in this situation."

i don't want to get pregnant, but i most certainly DO want to have sex. having sex is not the same as consenting to be pregnant any more than going skiing is consenting to have your leg broken.

Also, yes the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother. The entire point of life is to continue reproducing and propagating that life. If a mother would rather kill a child than sacrifice herself for it, then she is a bad mother.
the point of YOUR life may be to reproduce, but not all of us are that pathetic. some of us have moved beyond mere animal instinct and have decided to contribute in ways that require the higher brain functions that only humans possess. also, some of us can grasp that natural selection does not favor animals that simply push out the maximal possible number of offspring...

in nature a female will often allow her young to die, or will even kill them herself, and she is NOT a "bad mother" for doing so. reproductive success in nature is NOT defined by who can produce the most babies, but rather by who can raise the most offspring who are reproductively successful themselves. a female who produces 10 offspring but cannot rear them successfully is LESS reproductively fit than a female who produces only 4 offspring but rears them successfully. frequently a female is seen to abandon or kill her own young if her instincts tell her that their existence isn't worth the trade off; if her own reproductive ability and future potential for producing young is going to be seriously compromised, and if the young do not have enough potential to reach reproductive age, she will abandon or kill them and try again next season.

similarly, an intelligent and reproductively successful human female will choose to produce young ONLY when she is relatively certain of her ability to care for and provide for those young. statistics repeatedly confirm higher mortality for children that result from unplanned pregnancies, whether from health complications or from later problems in life (crime, violence, living in poverty, etc.).

humans also tend to measure each other by higher traits than breeding ability, as well, but i suppose we shouldn't bother with that...let's just rank Stephen Hawking as a failure because he's not produced as many children as a "good" human would have.

Im pro life, gee it just sounds even better.

A post I just saw gave me an idea, what if instead of flushing all these

unwanted 'fetuses' away, technology was developed to incubate

these 'fetuses' to full bloom, then call in the mothers and say heres what you

wanted to kill.

Also have the state raise these kids if their still unwanted, for military use

only, whos going to miss them right?
just think what kind of an army they could have raised if they had saved all the embryos that are naturally aborted by women's bodies...that army would have been 10 times larger, if not more!

Already partially dealt with by others, but some points left over...

The main problem is that identical twins are not necessarily identical. We frequently hear that one twin has a mole that the other does not, for example.Moles (at least the versions I'm aware of) aren't a product of the full genetic genome (the same as a toe has the code for a nose in it, just does not express it) but is a (usually) benign mutation in a clump of cells at one point. Moles develops after a person inhabits the full-body-template part of gestation and just 'because', not due to a specific and body-global genetic marker that says "at this point on the face there will be a mole". In some ways, you're lucky. If the chance effects that created the mole were aimed at a slightly different bit of DNA and/or in a slightly different part of the body you could end up with a full cancer.

(Please excuse me if I have the terms wrong, it's a while since I last dealt with this aspect of biology...)



More dramatically, some identical twins are "mirror images" of each other, even though they have the same DNA. In such cases, which are rare, one twin's heart is on their left side (normal) and one twin's heart is on their right side (mirror image). The most famous example of mirror twins are Tweedledee and Tweedledum from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.Firstly, I suspect that this is the same issue that makes 'single' people into mirror images (though I could have it the wrong way round if it is true that a surprising number of apparently non-twinned people may indeed be one of an undiognosed twin-pair, the other being lost in extremely early-stage pregancy without even the knowledge of the mother). Something goes a bit-arry in the "left/right symmetry" marker molecules (or, for that matter, frort/back or top/bottom, it all works out the same when you put the head to the top and face to the front) and a person develops the wrong way-round. And I hipe you were citing Tweedledum and Teweedledee only as illustrative examples, not practicle ones, because they were fictional (although I would admit that Charles Dodgson might have been inspired by real-life examples of his era).

I've tried to rack my brains (though not yet Google) for real-life examples that you can use in future, but without success so far.

In basic revue, (from reading other sites and studies) true identical twins share 100% DNA, but have different teeth marks and finger prints. Some scientists speculate that finger prints come from a tiny bit of DNA that has yet to be discovered.Not sure which ones. I thought it was perfectly obvious that the whorls and such on fingerprints is a natural chaotic process similar (in its own way) to the way frost-ferns form on windows the way that dust on undisturbed plastic surfaces creates strange patterns and that ivy covers house-walls... By dint of not being in exactly the same place in the womb as their twin, having differing pressure-patterns and chemical concentrations in the amniotic fluids and even being in different orientations so that gravitational forces (and intertial/centripetal ones when a mother moves around) encourage different patterns to form. Teeth aren't as obviously 'complex', but just being 'enwombed' at a different angle could minutely affect the placement of the teeth-buds, and by the time teeth start to form and grow through the gums at teething they are two completely separate entities and have probably crawled and bumped into to completely different bits of furniture... No surprise that they are different by now... :)

But that's neither here nor there. Identical twin is a term used by the public as opposed to scientists and doctors (who have a plethera of other terms), but many kids who are thought to be identical twins because of appearance are truely not. We're both right. True identical share 100% of everything. Most "identical" twins however are not identical.Given that siblings will look like each other, it's possible that twins from separate zygotes could indeed look fairly identical, by chance making most of the same decisions in the "DNA Shuffle" that depends upon what chromosome half is in each fertilising sperm and which half each egg contributes (I forget if the 'proteome' intracellular environment is part of this decision). Much as non-identical twins can both be boys, they could both end up with the same eye-colour, hair-colour, body-shape and the like and mistaken for identical, but that just muddies the water. True single-zygote twins are 'identical' in the public and scientific parlance, though 'very very similar non-genetic twins' can of course confuse the public... :)

So... a literally retarded man doesn't have the rgiht to be "fully human"?

That just came to my mind...
in the eyes of the law, no. those with significant mental retardation are never granted full and independent legal rights. they are not able to enter contracts on their own, not able to make critical decisions about their medical care, not able to do a great many things. they usually have guardians or attourneys appointed for them, if their family isn't taking that role for some reason, but they are usually prevented from making many important decisions for themselves.

whether or not they have full human "personhood" is a matter of opinion.

I don't believe "parasite" is an accurate term for a fetus. A parasite is a life-form that invades another to feed off it. A child does not invade.This is, of coure, still a very loaded term, but the placenta (which, if I'm not mistaken, is genetically the same as the embryo) does indeed 'invade' the womb wall. So maybe the womb-wall is designed to tolerate this, but...

Anyway, my personal opinion is that while I wouldn't technically use the word 'parasite', there are definite similarities and where the child is not sought for in the first place.... well, that argument's been done to death. Correct me on my biology, certainly, but the rest has been talked about so much that you're going to get a blank wall if you try to argue the toss about the meaning of the term with me, I'm afraid...

Even if the birth control fails, that doesn't mean that the mother is stuck raising the child. There are many wonderful people out there who will take the baby. The waiting list for adoption is the same as the numbers of feti who are aborted.

There are an estimated 100 million (http://www.myorphanage.org/orphan_children_statistics.html) orphans worldwide. (UNICEF estimates 210). Why aren't all these fictional wonderful people on waiting lists adopting one of the kids that already exist. Could it be because your numbers don't add up?

Huh? I have heard stories of women being 7 months pregnant and claiming not to know but I never actually believed them. So your saying that most women are this stupid? Wow, I really need to re-examine my view of women. :rolleyes:You do hear stories about girls giving birth whilst having a bath, having been totally unaware of their condition (as were her parents). Some may be apocryphal, some might be a twisted version of a girl lucky enough to be able to conceal the pregancy for all the nine months, some may be just very lucky (in some senses of the term) girls who had the kind of unobtrusive pregnancies that most women would dream of (and a basic ignorance/embarressment/lack of experieince of menstral cycles that didn't prompt her to seek the medical advice that would have highlit her 'condition' within the first couple of months).

I don't think any of these issues has any bearing on abortion, though, thy're just medical datum-points on the whole, though I imagine a bit of a shock to the child's mother, father and extended family...

Abstainance. If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, and doesn't trust birth control, don't have sex.

Abstanance isn't a natural response to stimuli. It also isn't just her that is involved in the process of the child. Also, the woman may completely (and wrongly) trust the birth control and be fooled because of her own ignorance, or be pressured into using less effective means by the father.

What you're suggesting is the equivalent of life imprisonment in a federal (dangerous) prison for any female caught speeding.

just think what kind of an army they could have raised if they had saved all the embryos that are naturally aborted by women's bodies...that army would have been 10 times larger, if not more!

The Army of the unwanted, the Grande Armee of the damned, plenty of killing

rage and angst to go around.

They call the government their home, their mother and father as well.

Do what ever it says, and go wherever it tells them too, love whatever it

loves, and kill whoever attacks it.

Would they sentence their 'fetuses' to the same fate, I doupt it.

America has great civil rights. Homeland Security takes away a very small amount of freedom, so little that harldy anyone is affected at all. Would you rather lose a bit of freedom, or have ruthless Islamic terrorists exploding bombs in our major cities? If we don't try to stop them now, 'exploding bombs in our major cities' may one day not be a hyperbole.

Off topic, but..."They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Give me the .02% increased potential (and that's debatable) for terrorists any day. I am going to die no matter what anyone does. I'll be damned if I am not going to live in freedom until then.

"Pro life nutters?" C'mon, Chess Squares. You can come up with a better argument than that. ;) And there are adoption agencies everywhere that will hook the expectant mother up with couples who actually WANT a child but can't have one, and who will pay for all the expenses.

But only if the child matches the race of the parents, is a newborn, is healthy, has no risk of an STD from the mother, the mother isn't an addict, etc. Not everyone meets the criteria for your great white hope in adoption.

The fact is, people are going to have sex. If they don't want a child, then they should try birth control. There are various kinds, so just because one doesn't work doesn't mean another won't. If they don't have benefits, use condoms. Then if their issue is the cost of raising a child, or their more immediate finacial situation, try seeking out an adoptive family, who will often take care of the mother through pregnancy as well. There are tons of agencies who handle this sort of thing. Plus, abortions aren't free, nor should they be.

None of the contraceptive options are foolproof. Abstanance is a pipe-dream. And that adoption agency crap only works if you are white, a non-smoker, a non-addict, clean of any risk of STD, and your baby is healthy so far. I would venture a guess that many young women seeking abortion or trying to decide if adoption is the way to go find themselves running into this wall a lot. Abortion is often the cheaper and more humane way to go.

Abortion should only be used where the mother's life is at risk. Otherwise, either use birth control, abstain, or find someone who wants to raise the child. It is not self-righteous to show there are other options to abortion.

No, it isn't self-righteous to show that there are other options. I certainly would prefer that everyone tried to keep in in their pants, if not used reliable contraceptives correctly, and if they failed would look at adoption or raising the child as a first choice.

However, it is self-righteous to claim that you know better than the person who actually is in the situation about what is better, or what is right or wrong for them. Your own personal decision and the joy you have found in it, to have and raise your own child would have been nullified had you not had the priviedge of making that choice. You may have made lemonade out of your lemons, but not everyone is willing or able to do that.

In my eyes this is kind of an ironic thing. Pro Lifers support the rights of that fetus but do not of the mother.

While I believe it was stupid to have sex without a condom, etc, if you did not want a child, it is their right.

All life is precious? Perhaps, but if a woman came to me and asked for an abortion I would grant her that right, if I was some all mighty ruler.

because after all, without her the baby wouldv'e never been born, without her exact DNA the exact baby would not be the same, and itis her right while it is still in her body for her to do it in a clean way. Past first trimester we can talk. I just don't see the point.

Mhy mother had the choice to kill me or not. She was 39 years old. It presented major risks to her, and my health if I were to live. She obviously chose to have me. It was her RIGHT to have me. I rather not be born at all if she didn't want me. If my own mother did not want me then I wouldn't want to be born in the first place. It would be her right not to want me, and I would accept that. Believe it or not, there are worse things than death pro lifers, much worse.

I respectfully disagree.

My parents had a choice as to whether or not to create me.
Once created, I had a life of my own and was no longer their choice to have or not to have.

If they didn't want me, they should have given me up for adoption.

Why not just make recreational sex illegal and let the pro lifers figure out how to enforce that piece of legislation? I certainly don't have all the answers, and I absolutely do not condone murder (although the definition of that word is subject to debate), but I find it interesting that 99% of all the pro lifers I've ever met also condone capital punishment.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

I got this information from my biology book which was copyrighted in 1997.

Who published your book? Does the book have a name? Please cite your source with something less vague than, 'my biology book'. I can write a bunch of crap into a notepad and call it 'my biology book'.

Originally Posted by DW5
Believe it or not, there are worse things than death pro lifers, much worse.

like what?

i agree with some pro-lifers about the late stage stuff, but all ive gotta say is that a lot of people cant see themselves being entangled in a situation where an early stage abortion would be neccary. think: high school, you get pregnant and you have a choice(which you should) to eithier have the baby and that would be your life. or have an abortion, or give it away and still be out of for a while. imgine being entangled in that situation, many peoples views would change.

The pro-life choice is nice an all, but how many of you actually care about what happens to the child after it's born? I'd guess very few of you. It's true that some pro-life people adopt children, but so do pro-choice. As far as I'm concerned, the pro-choice camp probably has a greater overall respect for life than the pro-life camp. Also, any arguments to the effect of, " If your mom had an abortion then you wouldn't be here," are no good. That's like saying, " If you parents had not had sex, then you wouldn't be here." I mean it's nice that they decided to not abort me after I was concieved, but the only people that would ever know the difference if I had been aborted would be them. My abortion would not have affected the world. It would possibly affect a few people here and there, but not in life changing ways. Maybe you'll say , "What if Einstein had been aborted?" If he had been aborted then we would have missed out on some scientific formulas and one of the major contributors to developing atomic bombs. Not such a big loss if you ask me. Why? Because even if he had never existed, I can almost guarantee everything he discovered would have been discovered by someone else. Maybe you'll say, "What if little Jimmy would discover a cure for cancer?" Well, unless he is also born into a rich family or can get millions in grants and funding, little Jimmy is going to be working for a pharmaceutical company with a whole team of scientists, who have been working on this for many years already. Maybe he would be able to complete the formula and find the cure, but so could someone else that is on the team.

Maybe he would be able to complete the formula and find the cure, but so could someone else that is on the team.

Not if the whole team got aborted.

One thing I can think of that it worse than death is being tortured. Especially if they do it right, if you can call it that, because if they torture you correctly, your chances of dying are pretty slim, but the pain that you feel is extremely high. After a few hours of that, death would probably seem like a very nice option.

I used to be pro choice.

Then I had an abortion.

Biggest regret of my life. And I'm not alone. Many women, if not most, who actually have an abortion end up suffering from post abortive stress disorder, which includes many of the same symptoms as post traumatic stress disorder.

I am not pro life because I can't agree with their stance on all issues. I am simply anti-abortion.

It is not a woman's right to decide what to do with a child that took two people to create. Granted, if she wants to donate a kidney or have her stomach stapled, more power to her. That's a decision that affects only her body. But to terminate a pregnancy - which means to end a pregnancy - and pregnancy is the process from which a child develops - no, that is not a choice. That's terrible to think that it could ever be ...or even has become.

I'm pro choice as far as BEFORE conception. A woman has the right to decide whether she will be sexually active or not. Whether she will use contraception. Whether she will make him wear a condom. Lots of time for choice before the actual pregnancy becomes an issue.

And yes, I know you're gonna bring up rape and incest. I'm against abortion in those cases too. Those are both violent crimes and one violent crime (abortion) isn't going to help another violent crime (rape or incest) at all. It's outrageous to believe it ever could. Adoption is always an option.

But, for those of you who are for abortion in cases of rape or incest (or the famous 'in case of the mother's life'), let me just say that before convienence abortion became legal, abortion for those three reasons were ALWAYS legal and would remain legal. The whole battle these days is whether CONVIENENCE abortion should be made legal.

Hope this explains my position more. Oh yeah, vote for Kerry. We gotta get Bush the hell out of office. Thanks.

So... let me get this straight... you suffered a trauma that was associated with an abortion... therefore no woman should be allowed to have an abortion.

What about the the depression that hits women frequently after giving birth (the term is floating out of reach currently...). Does the fact that some women suffer horribly due to giving birth give me the right to DEMAND that no woman EVER give birth?

And abortions are NEVER convienient. Having gone through one yourself, I can't fathom why you would imagine it could be. Or are all those 'other' women not as human as you are? So inhuman that, even though YOU were traumatised, they can go into a clinic, calmly have an abortion and then go out for icecream.

To touch on some other points (since you'll otherwise use the age-old trick of turning around and claiming I didn't read your whole post):

a) paper abortions for men have already been discussed
b) the embryo/fetus is using the womans resources - she has full legal rights to remove those resources from it's use - much like you can NEVER be forced to donate an organ.

Even if it were to your own child (who only existed due to your actions), and even if it's death resulted.

You would have the CHOICE to refuse.

Just like any woman should have the choice to refuse to donate her womb for the use of an embryo.

Nope. Check the site: www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

Because the other internal organs form slower. The baby isn't completely developed at 12 weeks, but the brain is.

The information on that site is incorrect and from a highly biased (and therefore suspect) source.

Maybe you'll say, "What if little Jimmy would discover a cure for cancer?" Well, unless he is also born into a rich family or can get millions in grants and funding, little Jimmy is going to be working for a pharmaceutical company with a whole team of scientists, who have been working on this for many years already. Maybe he would be able to complete the formula and find the cure, but so could someone else that is on the team.

And what's more, it leads to the possibility that Little Jimmy takes the position in the team that Little Benny would have had, preventing Little Benny having been in the right place at the right time to have that spark of inspiration (or momentary mix-up of samples or having small-talk with a colleague across the corridor or just working harder/smarter/differently) that led to the innovation the imagineer desires result from the hypothetical situation. In fact, the presence or absence of every single person, living or aborted or never even conceived, changes the global dynamic so much that you better just forget the whole "the world is better with $Foo having been born" in this argument, because the myrida of possibilities is incalculably diverse that who knows what it would have been like.

Little Jimmy might just as well have been particularly genetically susceptible to a subtle but ultimately fatal bird-flu that then took hold in the world's population and wiped them out before a cure could be determined. Or he could have had an immune system less susceptible to than the person who would otherwise have been in his position at the time and stopped the (potential) epidemic at Patient 0.

Potentiality != Destined Actuality for all but the simplest of situations. Deal with the probable lifestyle of mother and child, certainly, but don't start suggesting either Einstein or Manson unless balancing out the other...


Sorry. Waffle waffle, blah blah...

One thing I can think of that it worse than death is being tortured. Especially if they do it right, if you can call it that, because if they torture you correctly, your chances of dying are pretty slim, but the pain that you feel is extremely high. After a few hours of that, death would probably seem like a very nice option.

You would be actually surprised at what your body can take, most people

who get tortured are pyshcologically shattered before they are even

touched, therefore with their own terror ruling any resistance they had

beforehand, it usually doesnt take much to push them over the edge, also

alot of people are shocked more by the violence done to them innitially, than

the actual pain itself.

Mind over matter.

Not if the whole team got aborted.Inapplicable unless (in the theoretical reality being discussed) there had been a high-enough abortion rate to deplete the job-queue (compared with the other reality) or remove the pool of philanthropical funders or administraters required...


Or maybe a better team/approach would occur if all the people you are theoretically removing from reality had not been in the positions they are... You better have a pretty good trans-dimensional viewer (ideally hooked up to a video so we can see too) before you can possibly use arguments such as that.

Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to have children. Religiously, the primary reason for sex is to have children. Love is a human construction, and a stupid and fickle way to define something. You can love your boyfriend and have sex with him, but you can't love your own children enough to refrain from murdering them.

Not true. Among several social animals, sexual activity is a way to form bonds and not necessarily procreate. Dolphins, some whales, and some chimps (bonobos) have sexual relationships while attempting not to procreate (they pull out, or perform non-reproductive sex acts).

Whether 'love' is a human construct or not, it still represents one type of bond that is necessary in the functioning of a social group.

and here's that boring argument AGAIN. let me put this in a clearer context for all of you:

Dave breaks his leg while skiing on vacation. he goes into the doctor to have the leg set and put in a cast, but is surprised when the doctor informs him:

"Sorry Dave, but you were the one who chose to go skiing. If you didn't want a broken leg then you should have kept your feet out of those ski boots and on solid ground where God intended them. We're not about to let you have medical care because it's your own fault that you are in this situation."

i don't want to get pregnant, but i most certainly DO want to have sex. having sex is not the same as consenting to be pregnant any more than going skiing is consenting to have your leg broken.

This is not a hard concept. There is no problem with the doctor healing the guy's broken leg. Of course, if the doctor decided it was necessary to murder someone else in order to do so, then we do have a problem. You can't just say it is a trade-off between the wellbeing of a baby and the mother. You are dealing with absolutes and relatives.

I will demonstrate with a handy guide. Imagine a case where the mother is at risk of dying due to a problem with the baby.

NO-ABORTION: CHANCE OF MOTHER DYING: less than 100%
ABORTION: CHANCE OF BABY DYING: 100%

The point is that the baby's (OR ZYGOTE, SHEESH) life, even if it is not more important than the mother's, has still a 100% chance of dying due to an abortion. You want to seal the casket on the life of one person, just to give the other person a chance of staying alive.

The mother can die during the abortion process.
The mother might not die without the abortion.
The child will ALWAYS die during the abortion process.

The way uderstand the word "right" as it is used here in the USA, it is meant to apply to all people equally. (correct me if you think I'm wrong)

You are wrong. There is no such thing as 'equal rights'. All rights are inherently unequal, because not all people are the same, and in any society, the powerful tend to abuse the weak.

The father in of the aborted fetus cannot choose to keep the child.
Niether can the child choose to live instead of being tossed out like a piece of trash without even the dignity of a name.
If the mother decides to keep the baby the father will be held financially responsible for the child for the next 18 years.
The man in this situation has no male equivalent to an abortion even if the rubber broke on a one night stand, he cannot simply say "I made a mistake and cannot afford to be a parent at this point in my life, it would cause me too much inconvienience" and recieve a financial "abortion" He will Pay under threat of jail time even though he did not want the child.
So you see it is not just a matter of saving innocent lives but also one of equal rights for all.


Fine, if he wants to keep the child, he can be the one to increase his body weight by a third over 9 month period, he can be the one on the uncontrolled emotional rollercoaster, he can be the one with a host of minor healt problems for the duration (and some for the rest of his life) and an increased risk of several major ones, he can be the one to go through the 'joy of labor', to possibly lose his livelyhood, to be beholden to a screaming pink leech for at least a year, and legally beholden to care for the child for 18 more.

If you are saying we should make it equal, then by all means. But I would prefer you admit that your analogy is a farse, since the woman is by far taking the majority of risks in this situation and therefore it SHOULD be an unequal level of choice.

Is it inconstistant for the same country that has seat belt laws to have legal abortion??
A woman could be fined for endangering her self by not wearing a seatbelt while on the way to have her baby killled??

Amen! Abolish seatbelt laws. Also, it isn't a baby, it's a fetus get with the 20th century.

Better yet, What if she were caught in the crossfire of a gangland shooting and the baby killed by a stray bullet?
Would it be murder if the mother wanted the baby??
Would it still be murder if the mother was on her way to an abortion clinic to have the life growing inside her terminated??


Yay, more claptrap. In order: the fictional gangbangers would be guilty of assualt, battery, and attempted murder (of the mother); nope, still attempted murder of the mother; and nope. Murder is a conscious act by a conscious person in their own right mind to knowingly terminate the life of a being they believe to also be conscious for reasons other than absolute necessity or the sanctioning of the government. Since it cannot be determined that a fetus is conscious, and it is a fact that at least up until a certain point in development lack the nervous system capable of being conscious it isn't murder no matter how you look at it.

So you see there is no "Right" to choose an abortion
Explanation enouph? or did I lose you in my meandering?

So you see that there is no 'right' for you to dictate anything. Explanation enough? Or did I loose you in logic?

The New Testament teachings of Jesus have largely superceded what was in the OT. I am not 'fundamentalist', merely practicing.

Please show me where Jesus said that killing a fetus was wrong or, more importantly, murder.

If a murderer thinks it's good to kill people in their sleep, it's their right to do so then. Hey, they might just be getting rid of real genocidal maniac! The people don't even get the time to wake up and plead with him. I guess that's ok though. I mean, everyone's got an opionion, and who's to say that theirs carries more weight than the murderer's? It's not like they are arguing with him right now, are they?

No, it is much better not to kill anything until its had a chance to prove your assumptions wrong.

I don't know how anyone can spell this out for you. A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON IT IS A COLLECTION OF CELLS THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME A PERSON. A chimpanzee has the potential to evolve into something more (or more accurately have children more 'advanced') that is not the same thing as them being more advanced.

EDIT: Fixed quote tags

According to Planned Parenthood's own pre-and-post abortion patient surveys, over 80% of all abortions are not health related (their is no situation of potential physical harm to the mother or child), and do not have to do with the product of rape or incest.

In other words, they are elective, just another form of birth control.

Those are the instances of abortion which I oppose. If you don't want a child under those circumstances, give it up, but don't kill it.


You people keep suggesting this like you just wave a magic wand and poof the baby gets a loving family capable of caring for it. Having watched close family members go through both sides of this and knowing the stats for orphanages, I can quite emphatically say that adoption is not an option in even the vast majority (much less all) of abortion cases.

Are you really, honestly saying that any non-pregnant, fertile, sexually active female has a miscarriage every single day?
Must have skipped that paragraph in the chapter on human reproduction during my anatomy and physiology course. I'll try to look it up :confused:

No, they were saying that a woman has the potential to have a miscarriage caused by her own (unknowing) negligence on any given day. I.E. it would force a woman to live a life of constantly walking on egg shells because she could on any given day be pregnant.

Ok I won't read through all these 33 pages (read past another one that was 77 pages once so I think I get the thing).

So I say let there be abortions for everyone who want's them. Sure alot of women gets depressed by having an abortion, but there are also alot of women who gets depressed by having a child (its proved, not sure what its named but it's when they get a feeling that the child doesn't belong to them and that it's something that they don't want anything to do with.).
Alot of women also die or suffer injures during abortions (mostly in third-world countries where they sometimes has to resolve to the method of taking a pointed stick and shove it up their womb. Or if they got a little cash they can go to some dropout from medschool who can fix the thing in a very nonsanitary enviorment), but also alot of women die or suffer injures giving birth.

And honsetly the nonsex argument is just riddicules, think about it, if women don't want any children because they are in the middle of their carrear or they are still at school and stuff like that then it means we men get no sex from them. So there will most likely be a very small number of women for us all to share, and they will mostly be married happily and their husband would castrate us if we got to near (unless we made it all into polygami but then it would still not be that easy to get some of the good stuff.).
So until all men are ready to either become gay or go around jerking all their life we can't demand that women will do the same.

And honestly I don't care if it's murder, executions are also murder but they are still very common and alot of people don't give a damn. And also you can see it as a preemptive strike because it might be a terrorist or a massmurderer you abort (and it might be the scientist that invented a cure against assitch). Also one last thing all humans are born in sin so actually you can say that all babies are evil little buggers that will just sin their whole life.

So now I'm done with my ranting and shitlong post, so come on all you fundamentalist wankers who secretly watch gay porno in your closet (and those of you who aren't fundamentalists also) flame the fuck out of me, and do it good, because I want to see if any of you can be foulmouthed against me and get me to laugh in your puny assults against my person that will most likely make me cry with laughter and make me do responses that will make you choke with anger because I take none of you seriously.

I say as maddox: Im against abortion but for killing babies.





---------------------------------------------------
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Soren Kierkegaard

I will demonstrate with a handy guide. Imagine a case where the mother is at risk of dying due to a problem with the baby.And how about with the 'baby' dying with her?
NO-ABORTION: CHANCE OF MOTHER DYING: less than 100%Plus the chance of the baby dying of less than (but, like the other stat, sufficiently close to for decision purposes) 100%
ABORTION: CHANCE OF BABY DYING: 100%Plus the chance of the mother dying as almost (but not quite) 0%

We're dealing with indefinite numbers, in the above, but unless the chances are weighted specifically one way or another, let's say that the (individual) probability of mother or baby dying in labour is an arbitrary value of 75% each and the mother dying in abortion a (very generous) 25%.

In the event of no abortion, there's 75% * 75% chance of both dying, or 56.25%. That one or the other might die is 37.5%. That both are Ok (or at least not dead) is the remaining 6.25%.

In the event of the abortion, we can take it as given that the child is dead, and with the extremely generous to the Anti-Abortion camp value the risk of death to mother as well is that basic 25%. (In reality much, much lower.) You've decreased the mother's risk to life by 3 (75% non-survival in one case and 25% for the other).

You want to seal the casket on the life of one person, just to give the other person a chance of staying alive.And here is the fundemental problem. On your side of the camp you believe that a potential life that has not experienced life is as entitled to it at the risk of an existing life that has. Most anti-abortionists on here actually appear to be (if I may be so presumptionous) accepting of the fact that, in such circumstances as you describe, the best option may indeed be to save an existing life by termination, though your outlook gets their sympathy.

In fact, your outlook (and that of the less radical anti-choice advocates) still get sympathy from most of the pro-choice camp as well, but over here we don't just consider the "living"/"not living" distinction of mother and baby, but also allow for the consideration of the happiness and non-medical well-being of the pair beyond the point of birth and with reference to how the mother's and new-born child's life progress beyond the birthing process, a time that most 'pro-life' campaigners tend to forget (save for those who are commited to adopting all the unwanted children they can get their hands on or provide full financial support to mother and child...). As well as dealing with such absolute values as life and death, pro-choice advocates includes quality of life into the equation. And an unborn embryo has no realistic concept or perception of quality of life that they might lose it, but one who is born into poverty or a similarly awful situation can suffer and possibly propogate suffering, especially if unwanted and/or badly adopted.

And just so I'm not understood, I do not condone the "use of abortion as birth control" (which is a misnomer in any case, as has been discussed), but it should be open as an option and the mother should have a majority decision (as the major responsible party in the present and future of herself and any child she has) if that is what she decides given all the myriad of factors that any single decision is mired in.

If you read the teachings of Christ, he said the OT is the old way. According to Jesus, we're supposed to be following the new testament.

Wow. Where? I would really like to see him say we should be using a book that wasn't written until years after his death.

I call shenanigans.

I havn't ready any of this thread so I shall not comment on anything anyone else has said
I will simply tell it how it is


Abortion is evil
there is no medical or scientific data showing that a feotus is anything other than a living human being from the moment of conception
women chant in the streets that it is their body and therefore their right to do with it as they please
this is either ignorance or lies
if the feotus was EVER part of the womans body her immune system would reject and kill it as it would any forign cells.
some say that the feotus isn't human be fore a certain point
again ignorance and lies
there is no point before which a feotus can be (medically or scientifically) defined as not human
some say it's ok when the mother was raped
WHY?
is it ok to kill some random person on the street when someone rapes someone else?
how 'bout you would it be ok to kill you for the crimes of your father?
No I don't think so
abortion is murder
as there have been HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of abortions worldwide we are talking about mass murder on a scale none have seen before

so
pro abortionists
explain yourselves

Genetic predisposition? That overrrides being responsible about sex?

No. Genetic predisposition in all lifeforms is to reproduce. In sexually reproductive creatures, genetic impetus drives creatures to procreate. In social creatures of 'high intelligence' it is further reinforced by a drive for sex as an emotional bonding ritual between partners or the pack. Attempting abstinance is abherrent to these predispositions for most people. It doesn't mean individuals are incapable of being responsible about it, it merely means that abstinance goes against the grain for most humans and will never work on a non-individual basis as a method for contraception.

What's there to not work out perfectly? You don't have sex, you don't get pregnant, unless it is an immaculate conception. It's that damn simple. You don't want to get pregnant? KEEP YOUR DAMN UNDERWEAR ON! Even if the child is a rape baby it should be kept alive and given up for adoption. A miserable life devoid of love is still better than the horrible limbo of unlife that you doom the child to.

Also, yes the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother. The entire point of life is to continue reproducing and propagating that life. If a mother would rather kill a child than sacrifice herself for it, then she is a bad mother.

Your second paragraph denies your first. If the entire point of life is to reproduce and propagate the species then the species is incapable of abstaining (or shouldn't be allowed) in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

And for god's sakes, please actually take a look at the adoption process and the number of kids in orphanages/foster homes before you go hawking that baulderdash around.

You're pretty high on the arrogance-o-meter yourself, buddy.

Absolutely. My head is so big I can look down and see the top of it.

So... a literally retarded man doesn't have the rgiht to be "fully human"?

That just came to my mind...

To me, and this is opinion. If he is incapable of understanding the consequences of his own actions (and that is only true of extreme cases of mental handicap), No. This would apply to truly psychotic people, an even (to a certain extent) perfectly healthy children. I still think he has the right to humane treatment (I extend this further down the chain to animals to a lessor extent), and to be respected/protected by law, but if he is mentally incapable of relating his own actions to the results that occurr because of them, he is not fully sapient and therefore not fully "human".

That is not meant to be insulting, I've met and been involved with many people who fit that description, cared a great deal for them, and considered them great influences in my life. I don't think human beings are all that great. Besides, being human also has responsibilities, not just rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DW5
Believe it or not, there are worse things than death pro lifers, much worse.

like what?

A list...

Life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Torture at the hands of an enemy.
The torture or killing of a loved one.
Surviving cancer only to get it again and again.
Severe depression.
Loss of conscious sapience.

I can go on. It's all a matter of opinion or personal priorities, of course. You certainly might prefer one or all of the above to death, but I certainly wouldn't.

The point is that the baby's (OR ZYGOTE, SHEESH) life, even if it is not more important than the mother's, has still a 100% chance of dying due to an abortion. You want to seal the casket on the life of one person, just to give the other person a chance of staying alive.

The mother can die during the abortion process.
The mother might not die without the abortion.
The child will ALWAYS die during the abortion process.

This is not a value system. This is blatant disregard for the importance of individual women beyond their ability to procreate. If a person wishes to endanger their own lives or not, that is their own business. It is no right of yours to make that decision for them.