NationStates Jolt Archive

The 14th, quite clearly.

Since I assume you're referring to section 1, how many courts have ever enforced the 14th upon the federal government?

the 5th is for the federal government, the 14th is for the states.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

Since I assume you're referring to section 1, how many courts have ever enforced the 14th upon the federal government?

the 5th is for the federal government, the 14th is for the states.

from http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V.

You are right, the 14th simply clarified the fact that the 5th amendment also applied to the states and that all citizens of individual states were also citizens of the US.

So the argument would be based on the 5th.

Of course, most civil rights laws fall under the purview of state, rather than federal, jurisdiction anyways.

'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

Due process...Double jeapordy...right to trial....

Really the 5th is no argument against DOMA, the 10th would be, but I'm not too sure the courts want to start taking federal power away after it was them who granted it in the first place (that to make ourselves look good thing they have).

State DOMA's so far have only been challenged against state constitutions (except Mass' 10th), really, they don't stand much chance against the federal constitution.

For goodness sakes! All this heated debate about something that is so clearly murder! Geez, I thought we were somewhat informed here.

Uh... huh.

The heated debate is because other people bother to read the thread and, you know, contribute something.

Rather than flaunt the fact they seemingly can't support their own contention.

And most of us *are* 'somewhat informed'. Some aren't. That's WHY there's a debate.

And I leave you with this: murder is the unlawful killing of a human being against their will. Abortion is NOT illegal, so cannot be murder; the 'human being' status of an embryo or fetus is questionable (and still arguably irrelevent) so abortion cannot be murder; until a zygote/embryo/fetus has developed at the very least a brain and nervous system, it can have no opinon, and hence no 'will', hence abortion is not murder.

So there you go. Abortion =/= 'murder'. Let's see if logic stops any of the anti-abortion players abusing an incorrect term...

For goodness sakes! All this heated debate about something that is so clearly murder! Geez, I thought we were somewhat informed here.Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It isn't 'clearly murder' (edit: as Shaed pointed out), and the arguments for and against this conviction have been bandied about with no (apparent) effect on the opposite camp.

I don't see any resolution to it. It seems nobody can convince you (and others) that early-term elective abortion is not 'murder' and nobody has come up with anything that is anything near convincing to the pro-choice camp that their current opinion is wrong.

This: http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/svt/portail_tice/ethique/zygote.gif


is a human being?!

This: http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/svt/portail_tice/ethique/zygote.gif


is a human being?!

It sure is. Saw several of em driving cars, smoking and voting since everyone gets to do that, being potential adults and all.

It has been held since the Constitution was written (and hence approved by the writers) that the phrase "Congress shall not..." was meant to apply to all legislatures across the country.

A law cannot be passed in a state that violates the US Constitution.

This is actually more in response to Voldavia but I can't find the post you were replying to.

Just so everyone knows, here is the first section of the 14th ammendment.

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

Which has been interpreted on many occasions (and was written with the intent of saying) as meaning that any rights given by the constitution, or prohibited from the federal government are also enforced upon all other forms of government (state, local, etc) and to a lesser extent also include those beuracracies and seperate entities run by the government (like police forces or public schools), and even private institutions (like public colleges) that receive funding from the government.

Any time you read, 'Congress shall not..." in the constitution the same also applies to every other part of government in this country. The only exception so far has been the military, which, to a limited extent, is allowed to suspend or deny certain constitutional rights internally among the military.

A law can be passed that violates this mind you, but all it takes is a single court objection and it will be overruled.

Due process...Double jeapordy...right to trial....

Really the 5th is no argument against DOMA, the 10th would be, but I'm not too sure the courts want to start taking federal power away after it was them who granted it in the first place (that to make ourselves look good thing they have).

State DOMA's so far have only been challenged against state constitutions (except Mass' 10th), really, they don't stand much chance against the federal constitution.

Actually, DOMA would fall to Article 4 of the Constitution. Never mind any of the amendments.

some of you are arguing that you are arguing against an amendment merely because you believe it to be an arguement based soley on religion. while an arguement should not be accepted if the only argument is based on religion, an arguement should also not be discredited if the only arguement against it is religion.

Pithica[/B]]
Okay, greed is the same emotional impetus that encourages people to strive for more and better things in their life. It is the drive that causes people to work harder to get a raise, to save money to have more, and to buy all those products that make the captialist economy run. So yeah, Greed can be quite good. And I feel that there isn't anything necessarily wrong with it.
Next?

But there is.

As for comparing what the average worker out there does to pay the bills,

as a form of greed is a ridiculous analogy, to say the least.

Greed is never good, one mans happiness in this way, usually means someone

in the world is suffering for it.

But there not important, are they.

theres too many people in the world, life is not precious, get over yourself. [/bill hicks]

*gasp gasp* I read ALL 80-some pages of this. @_@ Having said that, the arguments seem to be as follows:

Pro-life:
It's the woman's fault that she got preggers. She must be forced to be a living incubator, then bear a child. We don't give a damn what happens to the kid after it's born. Sure, the world is over-populated, sure it drains natural resouces, sure adoption homes are over-crowded anyway, but THEY MUST GIVE BIRTH!

Pro-choice:
The woman was not at fault. She must have the choice of whether or not she wants to go through with pregnancy, and the risks associated with it. If she doesn't want to go through with it, then she can end it. We would rather kill off an unfeeling fetus than shove unwanted kids into adoption homes that might not ever get adopted.

Guess which side I'm on >_>

some of you are arguing that you are arguing against an amendment merely because you believe it to be an arguement based soley on religion. while an arguement should not be accepted if the only argument is based on religion, an arguement should also not be discredited if the only arguement against it is religion.

The argument against isn't being discredited. We are simply saying that you cannot *legislate* on a soley religion-based argument because (in the US at least) people are free to practice whatever religion they feel is right without having someone else's religion forced upon them. If someone's religion is the only reason they have to force their beliefs on others and such a law gets passed, then the government *is* setting up a state-sponsored religion.

So anti-abortionists are against people having the right to choose, well then what if it were the other way around, how would anti-abortionists feel then: if everytime they got pregnant, they had to abort against their wishes? this is the same as forcing someone who doesnt want a child to have it. There enough people that we worry about overpopulation and here anti-abortionists want to make it so that no one can have an abortion, well what does that do for the environment? What's going to happen to these kids who are born into unloving households? you now have more crime and more messed up people that if you had just let them go.

it's seperation of church and state, and anti-abortionists dont have the right to impose their beliefs on others. if you dont want it dont do it yourself

At the point which a fetus has brain waves it then is a living organism, in my opinion. At that point, to abort it through unnatural methods (basically anything other than a miscarriage) is murder and thus illegal. However, until it has brain waves it is not a living organism. Sorry religious guys but I don't buy the conception argument. I only believe an abortion should happen before it exhibits brain waves but only in the following cases: 1. Rape, 2. Incest, 3. The mother/child's life is at harm, or 4. The child will be born retarded. That is it. As far as birth control goes? No, you should have used contraception or been more careful. Do the act, take the consequences.

At the point which a fetus has brain waves it then is a living organism, in my opinion. At that point, to abort it through unnatural methods (basically anything other than a miscarriage) is murder and thus illegal.

Uh, I think I know what you meant, but an abortion cannot be murder as long as it's performed legally, and it isn't necessarily illegal just because the fetus has brainwaves.

If you meant, "Beyond the point which the fetus develops it's own seperate brain waves I feel that to abort it is immorral, and tantamount to state sponsored genocide, and thus should be made illegal" then you did mean what I think you meant.

I hear alot of pro-life advocates saying that the killing of a fetus is wrong because one is taking a human life. This raises a very valid question: "what is considered human? What sets humans from animals?" AS far as I can see, it's the concept of judgement and human emotion that go [beyond[/i] the instincts within the capacity of an animal. Indeed, when abortionists take that machine to extract the unborn child it shows how the fetus seems to try and escape, or evade the instrument (this an argument often raised when people ask if the fetus is really a human being). What makes you so sure this isn't an animal instinct? After all, doesn't an organism run away/fear an organism of greater size and/or strength? If you say it is a human trait, then by the same logic those animals that are so "less than human" could be considered equal to a human. This would make the vast majority of society immoral. So then, back to where we began, are you taking a truly human life?

So anti-abortionists are against people having the right to choose, well then what if it were the other way around, how would anti-abortionists feel then: if everytime they got pregnant, they had to abort against their wishes? this is the same as forcing someone who doesnt want a child to have it. There enough people that we worry about overpopulation and here anti-abortionists want to make it so that no one can have an abortion, well what does that do for the environment? What's going to happen to these kids who are born into unloving households? you now have more crime and more messed up people that if you had just let them go.

it's seperation of church and state, and anti-abortionists dont have the right to impose their beliefs on others. if you dont want it dont do it yourself

Hmm - so being born into an unloving house is a good reason to kill them. Can I go and get a shotgun and kill a poor kid from the ghetto? Isn't that pretty much the same argument? So it's for the good of them to kill them, is it? "If you don't want it don't do it yourself."? I personally do not (often) feel the strong desire to murder, but since other ones might, I shouldn't ban it.

I'm against murder: how would I feel if, instead of being forbidden from doing murdering, I had to? Uh. Dumb remark. Really. It's not a question of what people want, it's a question of what is RIGHT. Which is what we should now be arguing about.

If you're going to defend it, don't use arguments that can be sprung back on you.

I'm against murder: how would I feel if, instead of being forbidden from doing murdering, I had to? Uh. Dumb remark. Really. It's not a question of what people want, it's a question of what is RIGHT. Which is what we should now be arguing about.

If you're going to defend it, don't use arguments that can be sprung back on you.

It is not a question of what is 'right', it is a question of allowing something that is morally subjective to be arbitrarily decided upon by people who are neither in the situation nor have any direct reaction to the consequences.

You do not have the right to force me to give blood to save your child. You do not have the right to force me to donate my kidney to save your child. You don't have the right to force me to do either in order to save my own. You do not have the right to force a woman to donate her womb to save her own.

While I myself am pro-life, I feel that it would be wrong for me to determine someone else's morality for them.

There are some things that should not be decided for you. What people do to their bodies is not for a governmental institution to decide. The fact is, that by aborting a fetus, a woman has no effect on anyone but herself and the fetus. I am unaffected by her decision. Since I am unaffected, why should I do anything to stop her?

Though I feel what she does is wrong, it is not my place to stop her.

Uh, I think I know what you meant, but an abortion cannot be murder as long as it's performed legally, and it isn't necessarily illegal just because the fetus has brainwaves.

If you meant, "Beyond the point which the fetus develops it's own seperate brain waves I feel that to abort it is immorral, and tantamount to state sponsored genocide, and thus should be made illegal" then you did mean what I think you meant.

Murder is illegal. Death is characterized by the lack of brain waves, therefore providing the definition of life. Therefore if you abort a fetus when it has brainwaves it is murder. Jail time.

Murder is illegal. Death is characterized by the lack of brain waves, therefore providing the definition of life. Therefore if you abort a fetus when it has brainwaves it is murder. Jail time.
At what point does it get brainwaves? Clearly not at fertilization. Clearly not at birth. That's a toughie.

At what point does it get brainwaves? Clearly not at fertilization. Clearly not at birth. That's a toughie.

That's not a toughie. I think it's something like 8 weeks possibly. I am not a doctor so I can't cite for sure but you can measure brain waves. That's not a toughie at all, hell that's one of the clearest defintions out there. Some people also say when it has a heartbeat.

Anything that is not vague and can be measured is not a toughie.

That's not a toughie. I think it's something like 8 weeks possibly. I am not a doctor so I can't cite for sure but you can measure brain waves. That's not a toughie at all, hell that's one of the clearest defintions out there. Some people also say when it has a heartbeat.

Anything that is not vague and can be measured is not a toughie.
So at one second, there are no brainwaves, and then the next second SUDDENLY it has brainwaves?

on a side note, heartbeat is completely irrelevant.

In any case, I believe brainwaves slowly build up to mature levels, there is no defining line.

Well the cortex only develops around 24-26 weeks, so I'm guessing it's around there? I just had to look back through my neuro notes. :p Much later than 8 weeks.

It's 6 weeks, sorry.

6 weeks from conception, when brain waves can be first sensed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

It's about mid-way down

40 days.

http://www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm

That's close to 6 weeks (42 days)

Murder is illegal. Death is characterized by the lack of brain waves, therefore providing the definition of life. Therefore if you abort a fetus when it has brainwaves it is murder. Jail time.

However, removing a sane, terminally ill person from life support isn't necessarily murder.

Murder is illegal. Death is characterized by the lack of brain waves, therefore providing the definition of life. Therefore if you abort a fetus when it has brainwaves it is murder. Jail time.

Guess what. Murder =/= abortion. You know why? Abortion is legal, the fetus has no brain and hence no opinion, and debate exists as to whether it is a human being.

If you abort a fetus in a country where abortion is legal, it cannot, BY DEFINTION, be murder.

Sorry, better luck next time (over-emotive words are fun!)

It's 6 weeks, sorry.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm
It's about mid-way down
http://www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm
That's close to 6 weeks (42 days)

You provided two 'religious' sites as your evidence... try providing an actual medical site.

The earliest I have seen on an actual medical site is 20 weeks, and you know why that is? Because there is no coherent nervous system before that point... and no nervous system means no synaptic activity, and no synaptic activity means no 'brain-waves'.

Either: a) Your sites used errant technology, and are measuring some other form of biological 'feed-back', and accidentally mis-labelling it as 'brain-waves'

or:

b) They are lying.

What they are actually measuring is the beginnings of electrical background 'radiation' in the area that will develop to BECOME a brain... but at that point, is little more than 'seed' tissue... just a mass of replicated cells - with none of the specialisation needed to create a coherent train of neural activity.

That arrives much later:

"The fetus's heart begins to beat, and by about the twentieth week the fetus can kick. Kicking is probably a spasm, too, at least initially, because the fetal cerebral cortex, the center of voluntary brain function, is not yet "wired," its neurons still nonfunctional. (Readings from 20- to 22-week-old premature babies who died at birth show only very feeble EEG signals.) From the twenty-second week to the twenty-fourth week, connections start to be established between the cortex and the thalamus, the part of the brain that translates thoughts into nervous-system commands. Fetal consciousness seems physically "impossible" before these connections form, says Fisk, of the Imperial College School of Medicine."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38c9bf810a70.htm

It's 6 weeks, sorry.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

It's about mid-way down



http://www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm

That's close to 6 weeks (42 days)
wow, totally bunk. try checking through actual medical sources, rather than pulling up random religious sites that will tell you what you want to hear.

However, removing a sane, terminally ill person from life support isn't necessarily murder.

You have to sign a release for that or leave someone in charge to make your own decisions. It classifies really as suicide. If you make the decision to have yourself taken off life support or you leave let's say your wife in charge of a decision for you then it is like you making the decision. Suicide is illegal but in that case the Supreme Court has said it is okay in cases like that, which makes me curious why officials had such a vendetta against Kevorkian (sp).

Heart begins to beat and circulate blood; arm and led buds emerge; brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are established.

Some brain activity by the end of the 6th week

I am wishing I still had my biology book to just scan it but here are two non-religious sites. Most say, like the "religious" ones above around 5 or 6 weeks for most of the central functions to begin (heartbeat & nervous system). So no it wasn't just going to places that support my view, it's a scientific thing, you can't really fudge scientific findings and remain in the realm of truth (thus the nature of them), especially not with this.

Guess what. Murder =/= abortion. You know why? Abortion is legal, the fetus has no brain and hence no opinion, and debate exists as to whether it is a human being.

If you abort a fetus in a country where abortion is legal, it cannot, BY DEFINTION, be murder.

Sorry, better luck next time (over-emotive words are fun!)

Yes at this time abortion is legal and thus it is not murder. However, it should be for the reasons I have stated thus far. It does boil down to morality but non-religious. I'm not a fan of religion and am agnostic but I do believe there is a point where life begins and that is when brain waves begin in coherency and a central nervous system develops.

Abortion is the new 'slavery' issue in that there is no way it's going to change unless something drastic happens. Congress can pass all the bills they want and the President can sign every one of them to ban abortion, especially partial-birth abortion (definition alive at that point) and some liberal supreme court is going to overturn it, that's the nature of the beast. But I don't think there's going to be another civil war any time soon so abortion being a secondary cause is not likely. Chances are it'll stay the status quo for some time now.

I am curious. Why would one be against capital punishment (a criminal who has murdered someone brutally or committed atrocious acts) but allow partial-birth abortion of a fetus before it's even gotten a chance to be a bastard?

I am curious. Why would one be against capital punishment (a criminal who has murdered someone brutally or committed atrocious acts) but allow partial-birth abortion of a fetus before it's even gotten a chance to be a bastard?
because many people believe that our current criminal justice system is too falible for us to use such a final punishment as execution. many of those people also are aware of the FACT that "partial birth abortion" is has not been legally performed on an elective basis in the US for about 20 years, and that "partial birth" abortions are performed only in cases where it is necessary to protect the life of the mother, or in cases where the fetus is already dead.

it's this funny thing called "reality" that many of us tune into. it's not as exciting as fantasy, i'll grant you, but it's got a unique charm of its own.

I am wishing I still had my biology book to just scan it but here are two non-religious sites. Most say, like the "religious" ones above around 5 or 6 weeks for most of the central functions to begin (heartbeat & nervous system). So no it wasn't just going to places that support my view, it's a scientific thing, you can't really fudge scientific findings and remain in the realm of truth (thus the nature of them), especially not with this.
That time could indicate the earliest levels of neural functioning, like brainstem function. In that case, the foetus is basically a vegetable and not conscious. As I've said before, the higher cortical centres, which determine consciousness and selfawareness only develop in weeks 24-26.

I am wishing I still had my biology book to just scan it but here are two non-religious sites. Most say, like the "religious" ones above around 5 or 6 weeks for most of the central functions to begin (heartbeat & nervous system). So no it wasn't just going to places that support my view, it's a scientific thing, you can't really fudge scientific findings and remain in the realm of truth (thus the nature of them), especially not with this.

Yes at this time abortion is legal and thus it is not murder. However, it should be for the reasons I have stated thus far. It does boil down to morality but non-religious. I'm not a fan of religion and am agnostic but I do believe there is a point where life begins and that is when brain waves begin in coherency and a central nervous system develops.

Abortion is the new 'slavery' issue in that there is no way it's going to change unless something drastic happens. Congress can pass all the bills they want and the President can sign every one of them to ban abortion, especially partial-birth abortion (definition alive at that point) and some liberal supreme court is going to overturn it, that's the nature of the beast. But I don't think there's going to be another civil war any time soon so abortion being a secondary cause is not likely. Chances are it'll stay the status quo for some time now.

I am curious. Why would one be against capital punishment (a criminal who has murdered someone brutally or committed atrocious acts) but allow partial-birth abortion of a fetus before it's even gotten a chance to be a bastard?

And yet, although there is the origin of specialisation of nervous system tissue, there is no coherent neural network until at least the 22nd week... hence, no actual brain activity until at least that point, hence no 'brain-waves'.

On the subject of partial birth abortion... red herring! How many actual partial birth abortions are documented? Are you aware that partial birth abortion is usually the result of a dead foetus? The law against partial birth abortion largely passed due to the lack of evidence... the fact that it doesn't really happen, except in rare cases, where the foetus is already dead, or the baby cannot be delivered. But, it's the thin edge of a wedge, isn't it? If the ultra-conservatives can get one (irrelevant) law passed, they have opened up a precedent for more of their anti-abortion laws later, until they have legislated abortion back into illegality.

And, therein lies the problem for those who support the right to choose, even if they don't 'like' the concept of abortion. You have to fight every issue, because every issue you let by is going to come back to weaken your arguments later. So - everytime someone discusses partial-birth, you HAVE to fight it, even if it IS irrelevent. Everytime someone starts to set a 'date' about when they think the 'foetus' is alive, you have to fight it.

For me, brain activity sounds like a good marker of life. That means a coherent order of brain activity, not the occasional flash of neurons. That makes it about 22-24 weeks, or about the same time that a foetus has been recorded as being able to survive a very premature birth.

And, for me, that seems like a good line. If the entity COULD survive apart from the mother, and has the brain activity that we use medically to ascertain whether a patient is 'dead' or not, then it is 'viable'. At that point, it should not be aborted unless it HAS TO BE aborted to save the mother, or because there is something bad 'wrong with it'.

At what point does it get brainwaves? Clearly not at fertilization. Clearly not at birth. That's a toughie.

This could easily be determined prior to an abortion.

Murder is illegal. Death is characterized by the lack of brain waves, therefore providing the definition of life. Therefore if you abort a fetus when it has brainwaves it is murder. Jail time.

Uh, murder is illegal. Abortion is legal. Abortion can therefore not equal murder when performed legally.

It's 6 weeks, sorry.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

It's about mid-way down

http://www.pregnancycare-center.org/Stagesofdevelopment.htm

That's close to 6 weeks (42 days)

Your cite is both questionable and wrong.

A description of the fetus at 20 weeks, when, "the nervous system is starting to function" (http://my.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})

Your cite is both questionable and wrong.

A description of the fetus at 20 weeks, when, "the nervous system is starting to function"
I've tried to say this twice and nobody's listening. :( *wants attention*

I've tried to say this twice and nobody's listening. :( *wants attention*

I'm paying attention. Good work. Well done.

Of course, I posted links to sites disproving the 6 weeks fallacy, also.

But, there are certain persons who have made up their minds, and don't want mere 'facts' getting in the way.

There are none so blind, as those that will not see.

I've tried to say this twice and nobody's listening. :( *wants attention*I am, but then I'm with you on it anyway... <shrug>

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.stronghealth.com/services/womenshealth/maternity/trimesters.cfm
Heart begins to beat and circulate blood; arm and led buds emerge; brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/phil102/tr11-27.htm
Some brain activity by the end of the 6th week


The first cite lacks any level of detail. What they are referring to are the seed tissues that become the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system (called something like the cortex sack, but it's been a while). None of those things start fully functioning until between week 20 and 26.

The second cite, is from the syllabus of a Philosophy 102 course entitled "Contemporary Moral Problems", and is likely there to provide ammo for one side of a debate during the course. So, even though it is secular, it is still questionable. However, it is correct, though worded poorly, beyond the sixth week there are occasional 'neural spasms' that are registered LIKE brainwaves. They are not however the product of a formed and functioning neural system. That doesn't happen until the around or after the 20th week.

I've tried to say this twice and nobody's listening. :( *wants attention*

Good on ya.

Great minds and all that.

Good on ya.

Great minds and all that.

It's interesting to me, that there are a number of informed responders in this thread, who have all calmly reiterated the same point, about the full functioning brain at 20+ weeks, and there have been evidentiary sites posted to support... and yet the 'other side' has clamped it's hands over it's ears (and eyes), and refused to debate the veracity of the 20+ weeks claims, except with hazy gestures of partisan sites.

It's interesting to me, that there are a number of informed responders in this thread, who have all calmly reiterated the same point, about the full functioning brain at 20+ weeks, and there have been evidentiary sites posted to support... and yet the 'other side' has clamped it's hands over it's ears (and eyes), and refused to debate the veracity of the 20+ weeks claims, except with hazy gestures of partisan sites.

I have yet to see a response to any of the requests/points made by the pro-choice side.

1. Definition of life, and human being, that includes a pre ~20th week fetus, that doesn't also include obvious logial fallacies.

2. A law that requires someone to donate an organ/risk life and health, to save the life of another, even ones own child, or a logical justification for the double standard and hypocracy.

3. A statistical explanation for Adoption being used as an alternative that explains why an extimated 100 million (UNICEF estimates 210million) children sit in orphanages, foster homes, or as wards of the state when there are 'so many people' wanting to adopt.

4. An example of abstinance working for people (not a person).

5. A justification for why 'murder' continues to be used despite the fact that abortion doesn't fit the definition.

This is what pro-choice wants you to believe.
http://www.birth.be/Embryo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg

This is what pro-choice wants you to believe.
http://www.birth.be/Embryo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg

That's funny.

The page couldn't be shown.

LMAO.

Maybe it's part of the pro-choice conspiracy? :)

You are wrong, anyway, my friend. Pro-Choice doesn't want you to believe either idea. Pro-Choice wants women to have the RIGHT to decide whether or not to carry a child.

Within the pro-choice 'camp' opinions are divided about what abortion is, what it entails, how 'right' it is... but they ALL AGREE on the freedom of the woman to choose. That is the platform of pro-Choice.

This is what pro-choice wants you to believe.
http://www.birth.be/Embryo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg
I'm not medically trained, but that second picture looks like a near-term foetus that had already died in the womb, to me, in which case that's hardly an elective abortion.


(Removed [SIZE] tags because I favour content over presentation. And even if I did favour presentation, I certainly wouldn't use ridiculous [SIZE]s to emphasise erroneous points...)

This is what pro-choice wants you to believe.
http://www.birth.be/Embryo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg
i think it is very cute that this emotive, uninformed, and irrelevant post followed after a post that suggested "pro-life" individuals try actually responding to the arguments being raised against them. rather than providing an intelligent (or even semi-relavent) response, this poster did exactly what most "pro-life" people do: post random gory pictures as though grossness were some kind of proof of immorality.

This is what pro-choice wants you to believe [SNIP]

The second picture is from a still born that had to be removed to protect the life of the mother.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Jesus Christ that thing had so many tags in it, I just gave up and snipped it out.

I can show you plenty of gory pictures, by the way. You have proved nothing.

This is what pro-lifers wants you to believe.
http://www.ctcn.net/images/pictures/Happy-Family-photo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/childrenslow.jpg

Puts things in perspective, no?

Excellent Hakartopia, it's kung fu that you do...Of course, you forgot all the obligatory [SIZE] tags.

I'm not medically trained, but that second picture looks like a near-term foetus that had already died in the womb, to me, in which case that's hardly an elective abortion.

Of course it's elective! Any woman should die before she ever has an abortion of any kind! Didn't you know that?!

This is what pro-lifers wants you to believe.
http://www.ctcn.net/images/pictures/Happy-Family-photo.gif

BUT

This is the reality.
http://www.valleyskeptic.com/childrenslow.jpg

Puts things in perspective, no?

Yes, it does put things into perspective. The pro-choicers want that second picture to be filled with the carcasses of infants instead of infants who aren't happy.

I thought this forum was for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, not for pro-deathers to bash pro-lifers. We already have enough threads full of that. If it really is a thread for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, then the pro-deathers should sit back and listen to what we have to say.

Yes, it does put things into perspective. The pro-choicers want that second picture to be filled with the carcasses of infants instead of infants who aren't happy.

Pro-choicers want no such thing. They just believe that a woman should have the right to determine whether or not it is time for her to have a child - *before* it becomes an infant.

I thought this forum was for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, not for pro-deathers to bash pro-lifers. We already have enough threads full of that. If it really is a thread for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, then the pro-deathers should sit back and listen to what we have to say.

Pro-deathers would be people who wanted to go around killing people, not people who simply support the choice of human beings to determine their own futures.

Find me a single "pro-deather" on this forum.

Pro-choicers want no such thing. They just believe that a woman should have the right to determine whether or not it is time for her to have a child - *before* it becomes an infant.



Pro-deathers would be people who wanted to go around killing people, not people who simply support the choice of human beings to determine their own futures.

Find me a single "pro-deather" on this forum.

I apologise for my choice of words. I've been arguing this topic for days now, and it gets tedious after a while. I certainly hope there are no "pro-deather"s on this forum.

There is no biological distinction between when a child is inside the womb, and when it is outside, other than the fact that it starts breathing (hopefully) when brought out of the womb.

Besides, I still don't see why pro-choice people are posting on a forum intended for pro-lifers to defend themselves on.

Yes, it does put things into perspective. The pro-choicers want that second picture to be filled with the carcasses of infants instead of infants who aren't happy.

no no, you are confused again. pro-CHOICE people want women to make their own decisions, and most pro-choice people would be happiest if women decided not to have abortions unless medically necessary. now, people like ME want to see the piles of infant carcasses, but i am pro-ABORTION, not pro-death...i don't want post-birth humans to die (necessarily), but i do believe that more than half of the pregnancies that occur in the world every day should be aborted.


I thought this forum was for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, not for pro-deathers to bash pro-lifers. We already have enough threads full of that. If it really is a thread for pro-lifers to defend themeselves, then the pro-deathers should sit back and listen to what we have to say.
nobody is "pro-death," just like nobody is actually "pro-life." those are silly labels, ones that have been debunked on this and other threads many times. get past them or go away...you're boring.

no no, you are confused again. pro-CHOICE people want women to make their own decisions, and most pro-choice people would be happiest if women decided not to have abortions unless medically necessary. now, people like ME want to see the piles of infant carcasses, but i am pro-ABORTION, not pro-death...i don't want post-birth humans to die (necessarily), but i do believe that more than half of the pregnancies that occur in the world every day should be aborted.


nobody is "pro-death," just like nobody is actually "pro-life." those are silly labels, ones that have been debunked on this and other threads many times. get past them or go away...you're boring.

I already responded to this. Timing is everything.

To the pro-life advocates:
It seems as if a lot of your arguments are based around the idea of life beginning at conception, and that in turn is, from what I can tell, rooted mostly in religious beliefs. If this is the case, then you should always keep in mind that not everyone shares your religious beliefs and thus you should always show tolerance, a key tenet of any free society. While the mother may not have any right to abort the child, it is certainly not directly affecting your life, your liberty, or your pursuit of happiness, so what gives you the right to deny others their own choice?

To the pro-choice advocates:
Abortion has become a typical 'quick-fix' response to a perceived inconvenience of life, similar to the 24-hour wedding chapel or the microwave dinner. Considering how far adoption practices have come, don't we all have a duty to the unborn to advocate other solutions first, and discourage abortion if we can? Besides, I can think of no better way to encourage abstinence and safe sex than letting a young woman experience labour pains first-hand.

To both sides:
It is clear that all of the sane people here agree on the core issues of the debate: 1) Abortions should not be used casually as another form of birth control; and 2) Abortions should be available to those in extreme circumstances, such as those whose lives are at risk from continued pregnancy or those who have been made a victim of rape or worse. Perhaps you would all do better to focus on what you can agree on and go from there, rather than exacerbating the differences between the two sides. Don't you think a lot more meaningful change could be created that way?

http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti7.jpg

You don't believe these are pictures of aborted children?
Women have the right or choice to decide if their children should live?
You think these children should die because they would be better off?
You are fools.

http://www.frankossen.com/A_Bucket_full_of_Babies_in_Siriraj_Hospital_-Thonburi_vert..jpg
http://www.frankossen.com/A_Bucket_full_of_Babies_in_Siriraj_Hospital_-Thonburi_vert..jpg

http://www.frankossen.com/Two_aborted_Babies_with_their_Toys_-_Thonburi.jpg
http://www.frankossen.com/Two_aborted_Babies_with_their_Toys_-_Thonburi.jpg

http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti3.jpg
what's the point of that picture?

To the pro-choice advocates:
Abortion has become a typical 'quick-fix' response to a perceived inconvenience of life, similar to the 24-hour wedding chapel or the microwave dinner. Considering how far adoption practices have come, don't we all have a duty to the unborn to advocate other solutions first, and discourage abortion if we can? Besides, I can think of no better way to encourage abstinence and safe sex than letting a young woman experience labour pains first-hand.

lol, what great values! if a girl enjoys sex, make her have a baby! that'll show her!

anybody who views pregnancy or children as punishments has no business being a part of either, and certainly shouldn't be making recommendations about other people's childbearing choices.

Wonderful. So now, because of my unyeilding stance on abortion, I have been called (or at least compared to)

1. A liar

2. A monster

3. Adolf Hitler

4. Someone insane

And they say that people are afraid to voice their opinions nowadays... I wonder why?

I'm not medically trained, but that second picture looks like a near-term foetus that had already died in the womb, to me, in which case that's hardly an elective abortion.
I'm pretty sure that picture was taken from a source on birth defects, so yeah, that is a very late term foetus affected by a teratogen or something, NOT a normal aborted embryo/foetus.

Besides, I can think of no better way to encourage abstinence and safe sex than letting a young woman experience labour pains first-hand.
You realise that the VAST majority of women DO NOT and would not use abortion as a first line contraceptive? And abstinence just doesn't work! Nelson Mandela acknowledged this when he said (I paraphrase here) "Young people, abstain for as longas possible, but when you do have sex, use protection." Myself, I'm on the pill and use condoms most of the time, even though the pill is over 99% effective. Maybe making AFFORDABLE contraception available to women is a better option? Also part of this is the guy's responsibility too. I mean, what if he pressures the woman into letting him not use a condom? So women need to be empowered here as well, and social taboos regarding contraception need to be defused.

Snip...Maybe making AFFORDABLE contraception available to women is a better option?...Snip

Or how about contraceptives that don't have a whole host of horrible horrible side-affects? That won't risk me gaining a whole bunch of weight (like I'm not unhealthy enough without random weight gain), that won't risk my personality totally changing, and that won't risk making me seriously ill.

Oh, and something that doesn't act to kill my sex-drive, dead, would be appreciated too, thanks. You know, since the whole aim is to be able to enjoy sex, and all that jazz.

I can only assume that the reason women are still stuck shuttling from birth control pill to birth control pill, trying to find something that doesn't cause them to morph into an oversensitive blob with no sex-drive, is because... wait, why? Why exactly are we still living like this? It's one thing for the govenment not to subsidise it (a *stupid* thing, but also, technically, 'another' thing), but why are we women meant to go "Ohhh, so we get to suffer to avoid suffering a different way! Neato!"?

I shall also point out that yes, I know many guys don't like condoms. They should find something equally effective that's less annoying than condoms also ('they' being... science... people........ not the random guys in general, who would probably suggest 'positive thinking'...)

Anyway, I should NOT be here ranting. I should be studying, because I have an exam in 13 hours, and then another exam 5 hours after that and I HAVEN'T STUDIED FOR EITHER OF THEM! *breaks down*

*scuttles off to spread insanity else where*

Or how about contraceptives that don't have a whole host of horrible horrible side-affects? That won't risk me gaining a whole bunch of weight (like I'm not unhealthy enough without random weight gain), that won't risk my personality totally changing, and that won't risk making me seriously ill.

Oh, and something that doesn't act to kill my sex-drive, dead, would be appreciated too, thanks. You know, since the whole aim is to be able to enjoy sex, and all that jazz.

I can only assume that the reason women are still stuck shuttling from birth control pill to birth control pill, trying to find something that doesn't cause them to morph into an oversensitive blob with no sex-drive, is because... wait, why? Why exactly are we still living like this? It's one thing for the govenment not to subsidise it (a *stupid* thing, but also, technically, 'another' thing), but why are we women meant to go "Ohhh, so we get to suffer to avoid suffering a different way! Neato!"?

I shall also point out that yes, I know many guys don't like condoms. They should find something equally effective that's less annoying than condoms also ('they' being... science... people........ not the random guys in general, who would probably suggest 'positive thinking'...)
All of that too. I've become a little tubby, although the other side effects havent really affected me. And my skin is nice and clear. :p

There is no biological distinction between when a child is inside the womb, and when it is outside, other than the fact that it starts breathing (hopefully) when brought out of the womb.

There are however, severe biological distinctions between a baby born after 9 months, and a 18-20 week old fetus. The lack of a functioning nervous system being the most blatently obvious. Most pro-choice people, myself included, draw the line of when an elective abortion should occur here. Because it is here where Science says, "It's an organism unto itself."

Besides, I still don't see why pro-choice people are posting on a forum intended for pro-lifers to defend themselves on.

Perhaps you didn't read the 80 some odd pages of ranting lunacy to which we were responding.

A timeline of events:

1. A thread, one of many, was started entitled, "Abortionists, explain yourselves." In it, among others, the pro-choice crowd cited their reasons for why they support the woman's right to choose. The other side of the debate, ignored our arguments and repetatively through the 'immorality' and 'murder' arguments at us.

2. A second thread, in rebuttal to the first, this one, was started. In the 80 pages that have gone before, not one single pro-lifer has given anything more than the same emotive, ad homimen, illogical attacks and the same easily refuted arguments. I am beginning to wonder if anyone on that side of the fence is even capable of forming an intelligent argument.

If you wish to do so, please, two pages or so back, I listed half a dozen or so questions/reasons, that noone on the pro-life side has deigned to respond to. Be the hero and do so, please.

You don't believe these are pictures of aborted children?
Women have the right or choice to decide if their children should live?
You think these children should die because they would be better off?
You are fools.


Yes, they are pictures of fetuses that were aborted in the late term because of a severe risk to the life of their mother, still birth, or dangerous birth defects. They weren't aborted for any other reason legally. You are therefore lying, in that you are attempting to portray them as the result of elective abortions that occur in the first trimester, or shortly into the second. Grow up.

Yes, women have the right to decide whether or not they are willing to donate an organ or blood to save their own child after it is born. Why should they not also have that same right, before it is born? Why is it that you have that right but she does not?

No, If I were to espouse killing for quality of life, I would have to espouse the death of 90+% of the population. I do not however feel that euthanasia is evil, or that abortion is anything more than another tool that can be used poorly or for good. I also am of the opinion that people have the right to make their own decisions in regards to their own lives and their own bodies. That includes the right to make one's own mistakes without some ass 4 states over trying to play daddy and tell you no. I don't tell you what to eat or drink, how to risk your own life, and whether or not you should donate blood or organs (at least, I don't try and legislate those things), it is absurd for me to accept it from you.

Wait, let me get this straight. You post obviously fake (in the since that they aren't what you are trying to portray them as) pictures. You post illogical arguments without evidence to back them up. You resort to ad hominem attacks, and we're the fools? Wow, your grasp of the debate astounds me.

I shall also point out that yes, I know many guys don't like condoms. They should find something equally effective that's less annoying than condoms also ('they' being... science... people........ not the random guys in general, who would probably suggest 'positive thinking'...)



See, the whole condom thing has always bothered me.

It seems that our societies are happy to tolerate men NOT wearing condoms (and that is probably part of the 'evil-church-agenda', that i keep talking about)... so the poor little-things get to 'opt-out' because they 'don't like' how it feels.

Newsflash: The girl will quite possibly NOT LIKE how the next nine-months of gradual swelling and eventual 'popping' are going to make her feel. She might not like what it does to her body, her psychology or her life. She might not be ready to handle a child.

But that's all okay, in our society... because some guys "don't like" condoms.

I guess they didn't really want sex that much, then... otherwise they would surely be willing to put up with the niggling dissatisfaction of an ultra-fine layer of latex.

Bah.

I'm surprised you girls just don't have all us guys 'harvested' and then 'removed'.

Wonderful. So now, because of my unyeilding stance on abortion, I have been called (or at least compared to)
1. A liar
2. A monster
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Someone insane
And they say that people are afraid to voice their opinions nowadays... I wonder why?

Just goes to show how weak their position really is, when they have to resort

to insults.

I support abortion in some cases, but not the open unchecked slather that

has weakened the moral fabric of our society.

The womans choice seems to be overiding all other considerations.

That cant be too healthy.

Throughout history, women, and rightly so, have been portrayed as the

vessel of life.

Now its more like the vessel of death in the west.

The backlash against this low and unquestioned murder going on in western

society is at last starting to really roll.

W getting in again is strong evidence of this, decent people are at last

making a stand.

Why should child and man hating lobbies such as NOW and others be

allowed to continually scream abuse and villification at anyone who simply

disagrees with them?

Whats up, cant you handle somone just simply disagreeing with you?

Your day is up kiddy murderers.

...weakened the moral fabric of our society....
What exactly is a moral fabric?

What exactly is a moral fabric?

Its basically a recognition of what is good for society in the long and short term, and what isnt.

Abortion on the huge scale its presently supported, cannot be good in the

long term, it might be very convienient in the short term, but when the great

careers are over, for both sexes, their going to look around their empty

houses, at all the great technological marvels in their rich

homes, and realise whats really important, and sadly missing.

Pulled out and tossed away like rubbish for the 'joys and marvels' of

consumerism instead.

theres too many people in the world, life is not precious, get over yourself. [/bill hicks]


Its only precious for people like you, when its your own.

Its basically a recognition of what is good for society in the long and short term, and what isnt.

Abortion on the huge scale its presently supported, cannot be good in the

long term, it might be very convienient in the short term, but when the great

careers are over, for both sexes, their going to look around their empty

houses, at all the great technological marvels in their rich

homes, and realise whats really important, and sadly missing.

Pulled out and tossed away like rubbish for the 'joys and marvels' of

consumerism instead.

Ok, so what you're saying is that people are going to regret abortion later in life when they don't have any children?

So dealing with an unplanned pregnancy is better?

If people want kids they should have them, if they don't want kids they shouldn't have them.

I still don't see what this moral fabric is. It seems to be used as a vague summary of the general "good" of society, but usually is applied in cases that have nothing to do with any general good, but rather what is perceived to be "immoral", at the time.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]Ok, so what you're saying is that people are going to regret abortion later in life when they don't have any children?

Yes, the guilt will overwhelm them, dont worry, good ol prozac will help :(


So dealing with an unplanned pregnancy is better?

Well that shows lack of responsibility in the first place, lack of morals.

If people want kids they should have them, if they don't want kids they shouldn't have them.

Then be more careful.


I still don't see what this moral fabric is. It seems to be used as a vague summary of the general "good" of society, but usually is applied in cases that have nothing to do with any general good, but rather what is perceived to be "immoral", at the time.

A society that upholds morality, usually doesnt need to confront problems

such as abortion, depression, drug taking etc as it doesnt create them in the

first place.

As morality has been tossed aside as unimportant, conservative and old

fashioned, our society has gradually turned into a police state, its not just

crims that are been watched now, its everyone.

Don't forget, that equation runs both ways. You're just as likely to abort a criminal as a scientist.
Since i don't agree with killing criminals either, I don't see the validity of this logic.

Look at it this way.

A mother who has a child has complete custody over the child (barring a costody battle with divorced spouse, criminal act, adoption, etc.) That means that she, along with whoever her spouse is/was, make ALL THE DECISIONS for the child.

That means: If a mother's right to make that crucial decision should be taken away, then ALL decisions a mother would make should be taken away. That means all pro-lifers are against minor laws.

I have a question for you...

If the following are true...

1. Life begins at conception, and
2. Abortion is murder

Then, why?

Is abortion after consensual sex wrong, and
Is abortion after rape okay?

Aren't both acts murder?

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

What makes YOU think you can deny a child his right to live???? even IF someone gave indisputable proof that fetuses are not alive until the magically come alive when they are born what gives you the right to deny him his life he will have? If you have an abortion you are wiping out something that is one of a kind. You will NEVER see anyone the same as that child EVER. What gives you the right to deny him the right to live?

Yes, the guilt will overwhelm them, dont worry, good ol prozac will help :(
That's somewhat of a blanket generalization. Maybe they will, maybe they wont regret it. Their choice.

Well that shows lack of responsibility in the first place, lack of morals.
What if the pregnancy results from a ripped condom? Or faulty birth control pills? Or the husband forces his wife to have sex (probably happens more often than we think).

In any case, trying to punish people for a percieved lack of responsibility by making them deal with the pregnancy seems a little draconian.

Then be more careful.
I really have nothing to say to this...I don't believe zygotes are people, so I see early abortions as another form of birth control. We'll never see eye to eye on this.

A society that upholds morality, usually doesnt need to confront problems

such as abortion, depression, drug taking etc as it doesnt create them in the

first place.
Has there EVER been a utopia such as this? Banning gay marriage, abortion, contraception, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, etc., is NOT going to make the problems just go away. They just go underground, out of the public eye. "Immoral Society" does not create these problems, people create these problems, and people will always have these problems. You're arguing for the picture-perfect 50's nuclear family, free from drugs, depression, anger, and all problems of the seeming modern times. Well, that picture-perfect family never existed. All the same problems were there, just under the surface, behind the cheerful smiles and milkmen and newspaper delivery boys, there was back-alley coathanger abortions, alcoholism, suicide, abused house-wives, racism, and murder.

As morality has been tossed aside as unimportant, conservative and old

fashioned, our society has gradually turned into a police state, its not just

crims that are been watched now, its everyone.
Well, I can agree with this, not because of immorality, but because of the so-called Patriot Act.

What makes YOU think you can deny a child his right to live???? even IF someone gave indisputable proof that fetuses are not alive until the magically come alive when they are born what gives you the right to deny him his life he will have? If you have an abortion you are wiping out something that is one of a kind. You will NEVER see anyone the same as that child EVER. What gives you the right to deny him the right to live?

The same thing that lets me refuse to consent to donate an organ to my child, even if they need the organ due to my actions, and even if they die if I refuse to donate the organ.

Now explain why you want women to be the sole exception to this (and why it's only for the short period while they are pregnant).

I have to ask, why should people who don't support fetal murder have to explain themselves while people who want legal murder put us on trial? This doesn't make sense. Murderers, explain yourselves!

I have to ask, why should people who don't support fetal murder have to explain themselves while people who want legal murder put us on trial? This doesn't make sense. Murderers, explain yourselves!

Abortion cannot currently be defined as murder.

This has already been explained multiple times, recently in this thread.

Stop being moronic and read the damn thread if you want to participate in the debate.

I have to ask, why should people who don't support fetal murder have to explain themselves while people who want legal murder put us on trial? This doesn't make sense. Murderers, explain yourselves!

If you didn't catch the explanation one page back. This thread was in direct response to a thread that started with the same hypocritical lunacy you just blathered about.

1. A fetus cannot meet the criteria of life before ~20 weeks into their development. They cannot therefore be killed, much less murdered.

2. Murder is defined by its legality. There is no such thing as legal murder. If a killing is legal it cannot be murder.

3. People who have never directly participated in the illegal killing of a sentient and living human being cannot be called murderers.

If you didn't catch the explanation one page back. This thread was in direct response to a thread that started with the same hypocritical lunacy you just blathered about.

1. A fetus cannot meet the criteria of life before ~20 weeks into their development. They cannot therefore be killed, much less murdered.

2. Murder is defined by its legality. There is no such thing as legal murder. If a killing is legal it cannot be murder.

3. People who have never directly participated in the illegal killing of a sentient and living human being cannot be called murderers.

*falls to knees*

my saviour (I was beginning to think I was the only sane one here)

I agree. Additionally, if abortion ever became illegal, the black market for it would soar. Then you have scared girls paying fortunes for questionable procedures in questionable environments. Increases of infection and death rates.

Abortion is like sex. You can't make people stop having sex, but you can advise them to use a condom. You can't stop abortions but you can advise for adoption. Ultimately it's her choice no matter what anyone has to say about it.

A sperm or an egg cannot survive out side the body, and most certainly cannot develop into a child independent of each other.
Actually, cases have been known where a woman will give birth to a daughter who has developed of a single egg cell without sperm cells' interference. It's rarel, but it happens. I wonder if this means that Jesus was a girl? :D

Well, first off, if a man and a woman are having sex there is ALWAYS a chance that pregnacy can occur.
Only when you're going about it in the 'conventional' way... ;)

Before brainwaves, a fetus is living and has potential sentience.
Any cockroach is more sentient and intelligent than a fetus before brainwaves. Until a fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother (with considerable medical help that's after 25th week, I think), it's just a parasitic lifeform. We all who are here debating this today, happened to be succesfully parasitical of our mothers.

Oh, and I'd like to know how many of the pro-lifers here are women? I find it hard to believe very many could be, by their comments...

Abstainance. If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, and doesn't trust birth control, don't have sex.
So this goes for men, too? If they're not ready to be fathers, they shouldn't have sex?

if you use abortion as a birth control method you should be sterilized
Here's an interesting issue - usually, at least where I come from (not on the same continent with USA, thank ye gods!), sterilization of a woman isn't done until they've had... was it 'five children or six miscarriages' or something like that. I don't want either and I don't want children but I do want sex, so if I get pregnant despite using the birth control in all ways possible, I am _so_ getting an abortion! :P

Abortion is like sex. You can't make people stop having sex, but you can advise them to use a condom. You can't stop abortions but you can advise for adoption. Ultimately it's her choice no matter what anyone has to say about it.
see, and i totally disagree with the idea that advising for adoption is responsible. i believe that having a child with the intent to give it up for adoption is one of the worst acts a human can commit, and advising a female to do that would thus be totally out of line. women should be advised that taking that course is the most selfish choice open to them, and while it is still their choice they should NEVER be encouraged to take such a cowardly and shameful action.

*falls to knees*

my saviour (I was beginning to think I was the only sane one here)

Nah, I was just gone for the weekend.

see, and i totally disagree with the idea that advising for adoption is responsible. i believe that having a child with the intent to give it up for adoption is one of the worst acts a human can commit, and advising a female to do that would thus be totally out of line. women should be advised that taking that course is the most selfish choice open to them, and while it is still their choice they should NEVER be encouraged to take such a cowardly and shameful action.

The words of someone who has been through the whole process first hand.

I have to ask, why should people who don't support fetal murder have to explain themselves while people who want legal murder put us on trial? This doesn't make sense. Murderers, explain yourselves!

Read the name of the thread....


The 'other way' has been done a hundred times.


Now, it's time for those who would remove the 'basic human right' of abortion, to defend their view.

Actually, cases have been known where a woman will give birth to a daughter who has developed of a single egg cell without sperm cells' interference. It's rarel, but it happens. I wonder if this means that Jesus was a girl? :D

Occam's razor says that that girl who had a child without intercoarse is a lier.And we all agree.

Now, it's time for those who would remove the 'basic human right' of abortion, to defend their view.
Did you perhaps mean the 'basic human right' of security of person? Or some other 'basic human right'?

Otherwise we might have to begin a lengthy discussion of just how it is abortion could possibly be justified as a 'basic human right'.

Did you perhaps mean the 'basic human right' of security of person? Or some other 'basic human right'?

Otherwise we might have to begin a lengthy discussion of just how it is abortion could possibly be justified as a 'basic human right'.

Hey - in the last few days I have been told that marriage is a 'basic human right' and that freedom of religion is a 'basic human right'... I figure it's my turn.

Obviously, none of these are actually 'basic human rights', because they only exist within the very generous confines of our western 'civilisation'.

Try explaining to the tiger who is chewing your head, that he is impeding your 'basic human rights'.

I believe in NO 'basic' human rights - except those which a person earns by word or sword, or those 'imposed' by society, through the same means, on grander scale.

Hey - in the last few days I have been told that marriage is a 'basic human right' and that freedom of religion is a 'basic human right'... I figure it's my turn.
Fair enough. :-)

Obviously, none of these are actually 'basic human rights', because they only exist within the very generous confines of our western 'civilisation'.

Try explaining to the tiger who is chewing your head, that he is impeding your 'basic human rights'.

I believe in NO 'basic' human rights - except those which a person earns by word or sword, or those 'imposed' by society, through the same means, on grander scale.
Ooh, curious. I consider human rights to be those recognized by society as being universal to all humans (even those outside the society). To date, for our modern Western civilization, they are very well documented, and enforced by law to become civil rights --from Marquis de Lafayette's 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'.

In what way do you feel they are 'imposed'? Is it because they are enacted to become the foundation of laws?

Right earned by the sword? Might makes a right? Can you explain?

Marriage I would say is a right only in the sense of the freedom to bond with someone of choice --so really it filters down to the right of freedom to be your own person (at an adult age). I suppose abortion could be held up under that flag, too, but I personally feel security of person fits it better.

Fair enough. :-)


Ooh, curious. I consider human rights to be those recognized by society as being universal to all humans (even those outside the society). To date, for our modern Western civilization, they are very well documented, and enforced by law to become civil rights --from Marquis de Lafayette's 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'.

In what way do you feel they are 'imposed'? Is it because they are enacted to become the foundation of laws?

Right earned by the sword? Might makes a right? Can you explain?

Marriage I would say is a right only in the sense of the freedom to bond with someone of choice --so really it filters down to the right of freedom to be your own person (at an adult age). I suppose abortion could be held up under that flag, too, but I personally feel security of person fits it better.

Okay - let's start with the "sword" and the "word" part.

Imagine, for a moment, that you want to form an anarchistic commune (don't ask why, just fancied that example). Now, you want to be free (which you percieve as your 'right') from such things as external government, and all of the attendant red-tape and taxation that goes with it.

So, you set up the Independant Anarchist State of Willamena, and 600 of your buddies and casual-friends decide that they'd like to be Anarchists, too.

Here we have the "IAS of W" proudly standing on a platform of freedom to vote (they choose not to), freedom of speech, freedom to worship, etc. Plus - since they take nothing from the government, they want freedom FROM 'government'. How do they 'get' that right?

Well, in general, they don't. But, if they did, like in the case of Christiania (spelling), an Anarchy gains it's anarchic-ness from either RESISTING the 'regime', or from politicking the 'regime'. Either, they fight for a right, or they negotiate for a right, or they lose the right. Word or Sword.

Re: "Imposed". I say 'imposed' because (and, I guess we don't normally think this way about things we like) we have no CHOICE. Look at America's 5th Amendment - up until that point, although you had the freedom to speak... you had no 'right' not to. The regime that controls us, decides what 'rights' we have. America has decided that, if they think you MIGHT be a terrorist, they can classify you as 'enemy combatant' (whether you are, or not), which removes all of your legal rights... and, there is debate, at the moment, as to whether torture is allowable on 'enemy combatants'.

The point is... my regime decides my rights. America just 'handed' some of that decision making process to the plebescite (in the gay marriage referenda on 11 state ballots) - but the DECISION still rests with the government.

And, if it comes, how will Gay Marriage in the good ol' US of A be won? Either by the 'Pink Power' (my equivalent of Black Power...) movement FIGHTING for those rights, or by Pink Politics managing to 'negotiate' those rights.

Also - at risk of this being the longest post in recorded history - UN Human Rights... well, this is like Geneva Conventions or the Kyoto Protocols... they only apply if you apply them. China, thus far, has a poor history on human rights by UN mandate standards. The US has a poor history on Kyoto Protocol conformation, and also has had serious issues with Geneva Conventions - since the 'enemy combatant' status is basically a way to avoid declaring an individual 'civilian' (and, therefore protected by that part of Geneva Conventions), or Prisoner of War (and, therefore being protected by THAT part of the Conventions).

And, all of our high ideals rely on the acquiescence of others. Like in my 'tiger' situation, above. Tigers have very little concern for Kyoto Protocols or the Geneva Conventions... or the UN Human Rights charter... and, if your 'regime' decides to be a 'tiger' about, for example, Freedom to Worship, then you are back to the Sword or the Word.

Well, my opinion of the world, anyway.

the point is not whether women do or do not have the right of abortion. personally i am against abortion, but i would never deny any one that choice. this is the 21st century if we can allow mindless wars and advocate killing thousands of other lifeforms on a daily basis, than women should be allowed the choice of abortion if they see that as the only viable option in their circumstances.

besides, abortion did not just become an option to women when legislation made the practice legal. many thousands of women have been seriously or died through 'back street abortions' that have been carried out by unqualified individuals. if abortion was banned, surely this practice would resume.

banning abortion would only result in extreme pain and death of many women. thousands of women campaigned for the rights that as 21st century, theoretically equal and independent women now have. we should respect that.

the point is not whether women do or do not have the right of abortion. personally i am against abortion, but i would never deny any one that choice. this is the 21st century if we can allow mindless wars and advocate killing thousands of other lifeforms on a daily basis, than women should be allowed the choice of abortion if they see that as the only viable option in their circumstances.

besides, abortion did not just become an option to women when legislation made the practice legal. many thousands of women have been seriously or died through 'back street abortions' that have been carried out by unqualified individuals. if abortion was banned, surely this practice would resume.

banning abortion would only result in extreme pain and death of many women. thousands of women campaigned for the rights that as 21st century, theoretically equal and independent women now have. we should respect that.

It's been said before, but you retell it beautifully.

Excellent post, Caroline land. Well done... especially for a 'first-post'.

Okay - let's start with the "sword" and the "word" part.

Imagine, for a moment, that you want to form an anarchistic commune (don't ask why, just fancied that example). Now, you want to be free (which you percieve as your 'right') from such things as external government, and all of the attendant red-tape and taxation that goes with it.

So, you set up the Independant Anarchist State of Willamena, and 600 of your buddies and casual-friends decide that they'd like to be Anarchists, too.

Here we have the "IAS of W" proudly standing on a platform of freedom to vote (they choose not to), freedom of speech, freedom to worship, etc. Plus - since they take nothing from the government, they want freedom FROM 'government'. How do they 'get' that right?

Well, in general, they don't. But, if they did, like in the case of Christiania (spelling), an Anarchy gains it's anarchic-ness from either RESISTING the 'regime', or from politicking the 'regime'. Either, they fight for a right, or they negotiate for a right, or they lose the right. Word or Sword.
*wince* Okay, this hypothetical anarchy example is off in left field, though, isn't it? An anarchy, by definition, cannot exist within the borders of another government's nation. If they are within the borders, they are subject to those laws. If they set themselves up an anarchy nation of their own, then they don't have to fight for freedom from voting, freedom from government, etc. because they have it.

On the other hand, if they have a "platform" of freedom of speech, freedom to worship, etc., then they are giving each other those rights. Rights are given simply by recognition (agreement) of those rights, in word or in writing, either by individuals or by government.

Re: "Imposed". I say 'imposed' because (and, I guess we don't normally think this way about things we like) we have no CHOICE. Look at America's 5th Amendment - up until that point, although you had the freedom to speak... you had no 'right' not to. The regime that controls us, decides what 'rights' we have. America has decided that, if they think you MIGHT be a terrorist, they can classify you as 'enemy combatant' (whether you are, or not), which removes all of your legal rights... and, there is debate, at the moment, as to whether torture is allowable on 'enemy combatants'.

The point is... my regime decides my rights. America just 'handed' some of that decision making process to the plebescite (in the gay marriage referenda on 11 state ballots) - but the DECISION still rests with the government.

And, if it comes, how will Gay Marriage in the good ol' US of A be won? Either by the 'Pink Power' (my equivalent of Black Power...) movement FIGHTING for those rights, or by Pink Politics managing to 'negotiate' those rights.
I see your point, though I don't agree with the attitude that holds government as some oppressive beast. It seems in the United States the government "of the people, for the people, and by the people," also openly encourages people to place themselves in a position of opposition to the government (perhaps because they have no parliamentary opposition), and therefore in opposition to the people (as if the government wasn't "us"). Personally, I find it appalling and annoying, perhaps because I work for a parliamentary government. But I digress...

The cry of "Human rights!" is used to uphold one end of an argument dispite government referendums and laws. The State will make a decision about legality and/or morality, but whatever their decision the human right will always fall on the same side of the argument... siding with the gays.

Also - at risk of this being the longest post in recorded history - UN Human Rights... well, this is like Geneva Conventions or the Kyoto Protocols... they only apply if you apply them. China, thus far, has a poor history on human rights by UN mandate standards. The US has a poor history on Kyoto Protocol conformation, and also has had serious issues with Geneva Conventions - since the 'enemy combatant' status is basically a way to avoid declaring an individual 'civilian' (and, therefore protected by that part of Geneva Conventions), or Prisoner of War (and, therefore being protected by THAT part of the Conventions).

And, all of our high ideals rely on the acquiescence of others. Like in my 'tiger' situation, above. Tigers have very little concern for Kyoto Protocols or the Geneva Conventions... or the UN Human Rights charter... and, if your 'regime' decides to be a 'tiger' about, for example, Freedom to Worship, then you are back to the Sword or the Word.

Well, my opinion of the world, anyway.
Not acquiescence, recognition.

You are right; human rights are only real if they are recognized --otherwise, they cease to exist. To the Chinese government, they do not exist for the dissidents fighting for democracy. To the United States government, they do not exist for the 'enemy combatant' prisoners. For the tiger they do not exist for his prey (but then, they couldn't).

Fortunately, those of us not in China, and those of us not under detention in Guantanamo Bay, recognize them for those who are. The tiger example says nothing about human rights, though. Human rights only exist between humans. That a tiger decides to bite someone's head off doesn't deprive them of their human rights. That a government decides to ignore human rights doesn't deprive people of those rights. There are always enough of us to take up the cry of "Human rights!" to defend them in their fights and negotiations. Their fights and negotiations are for civil rights --agreements with the government --but human rights exist apart from those, as pure ideal.

The same thing that lets me refuse to consent to donate an organ to my child, even if they need the organ due to my actions, and even if they die if I refuse to donate the organ.

Now explain why you want women to be the sole exception to this (and why it's only for the short period while they are pregnant).

A child outside the womb that needs an organ usually needs one because of a disease. When the fetus is sucked out of the euterus and grinded into a million pieces it is not a natural death. Your taking away his right to live by directly destroying him. If a woman refuses to give a organ to her child(most mother would do it though out of love for their child. Same as fathers. Like in John Q) she won't be killing him. The disease will be killing him. Also, the organ she donates will be permanently gone from her body. A baby just borrows the woman's euterus for 9 months. babies have been using euteruses since Adam and Eve.

Oh, and I'd like to know how many of the pro-lifers here are women? I find it hard to believe very many could be, by their comments...
A child outside the womb that needs an organ usually needs one because of a disease. When the fetus is sucked out of the euterus and grinded into a million pieces it is not a natural death. Your taking away his right to live by directly destroying him. If a woman refuses to give a organ to her child(most mother would do it though out of love for their child. Same as fathers. Like in John Q) she won't be killing him. The disease will be killing him. Also, the organ she donates will be permanently gone from her body. A baby just borrows the woman's euterus for 9 months. babies have been using euteruses since Adam and Eve.

Watching TV this morning someone from the ABC (Australian ABC, not the other one) made comments that I totally agree with.
Abortion is not something that "male ideologue politicians" should be discussing, it's something between a woman, her partner (if there is one) and her doctor.
It was also said that women DO NOT come to the decision to have a termination easily. Some people have difficulty understanding that. It is a traumatic decision, and a traumatic process, but it's done for sound reasons.

And Pyrad, let me ask you, are you a guy? If so, how old are you?

*wince* Okay, this hypothetical anarchy example is off in left field, though, isn't it? An anarchy, by definition, cannot exist within the borders of another government's nation. If they are within the borders, they are subject to those laws. If they set themselves up an anarchy nation of their own, then they don't have to fight for freedom from voting, freedom from government, etc. because they have it.

On the other hand, if they have a "platform" of freedom of speech, freedom to worship, etc., then they are giving each other those rights. Rights are given simply by recognition (agreement) of those rights, in word or in writing, either by individuals or by government.


Actaully - no - the 'hypothetical' anarchy stuff is about very real situations happening in this very world, right now. Christiania is an actual anarchy, located on some prime real estate just outside of.... can't remember... Holland? It is an anarchic commune, and has been for 30 years-ish - but is about to lose that status, due to what will amount to an enforced relocation by the government... the "Word" has sustained them so far, but it has run out... now the "Sword" is their only defence... and that won't help, as there are less than a thousand of them.

There are also several 'real' anarchies, which have basically maintained their anarchy status by being able to defer aggression, or resist it.


I see your point, though I don't agree with the attitude that holds government as some oppressive beast. It seems in the United States the government "of the people, for the people, and by the people," also openly encourages people to place themselves in a position of opposition to the government (perhaps because they have no parliamentary opposition), and therefore in opposition to the people (as if the government wasn't "us"). Personally, I find it appalling and annoying, perhaps because I work for a parliamentary government. But I digress...

The cry of "Human rights!" is used to uphold one end of an argument dispite government referendums and laws. The State will make a decision about legality and/or morality, but whatever their decision the human right will always fall on the same side of the argument... siding with the gays.


Human rights is just a convenience, though. If any of the obvious, rational arguments could be used to persuade the powers-that-be, it wouldn't be necessary to resort to something as insubstantial as 'human rights'.


Not acquiescence, recognition.

You are right; human rights are only real if they are recognized --otherwise, they cease to exist. To the Chinese government, they do not exist for the dissidents fighting for democracy. To the United States government, they do not exist for the 'enemy combatant' prisoners. For the tiger they do not exist for his prey (but then, they couldn't).

Fortunately, those of us not in China, and those of us not under detention in Guantanamo Bay, recognize them for those who are. The tiger example says nothing about human rights, though. Human rights only exist between humans. That a tiger decides to bite someone's head off doesn't deprive them of their human rights. That a government decides to ignore human rights doesn't deprive people of those rights. There are always enough of us to take up the cry of "Human rights!" to defend them in their fights and negotiations. Their fights and negotiations are for civil rights --agreements with the government --but human rights exist apart from those, as pure ideal.

Interesting... did you realise that the US government could come and pick you up, right now, and hold you as an 'enemy combatant', with no evidence, and no necessity for it, and possibly torture you (there are apparently conflicting 'memoes' about whether torture should be used)?

I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of 'human rights', other than those you fight for or trade for. Chinese students have no 'human rights' because their government denies them... and, the fact that some people half a world away say "oh, that's sad... they really SHOULD have rights, you know", doesn't give those people any rights. The only things that WILL give those people 'rights' are: a) an invasion by a foreign power, or the threat of it (which isn't going to happen, not to China - but, it did in Iraq) or: b) negotiation... for trade (for example).

So, human rights will be earned for those students... by some other nation... but still either by the "Word" or the "Sword".

And, if a thing doesn't exist as a universal rule, then it isn't a universal rule. If 'fundamental human rights' are only recognised by fractions of the population; are determined by politics, religion, geography or epoch; have strength only because accorded strength by other humans... then those are not 'fundamental' human rights.

The only 'fundamental human right' people have, is to survive as long as they can, by whatever means necessary... and any extra 'bonus' 'rights' our governments see fit to allow.

I keep saying this.: if you banned abortions, backstreet ones would resume. You could also say that there are many "backstreet murders" because we haven't legalised it. You can't cut out undesirable abortions completely, just as you can't cut crime comple'tely..

Well, my opinion of the world, anyway.

They say opinions are like assholes, but you must shit roses.

Best...post....EVAH!

They say opinions are like assholes, but you must shit roses.

Best...post....EVAH!

*Blush*

Oh, stop.....

No go on, go on...

No, Stop....

Human rights is just a convenience, though. If any of the obvious, rational arguments could be used to persuade the powers-that-be, it wouldn't be necessary to resort to something as insubstantial as 'human rights'.
Ah, you're arguing practicalities. No fair. Ideals are not very useful for bashing rebels over the head with, but they can enact change by moving the spirit. That is their power. That is their "convenience" (I read "suitable use"). They should be a first resort, not a last.

There I go being idealistic again.

Interesting... did you realise that the US government could come and pick you up, right now, and hold you as an 'enemy combatant', with no evidence, and no necessity for it, and possibly torture you (there are apparently conflicting 'memoes' about whether torture should be used)?
Those would be violations of 1) my civil rights and 2) international human rights enacted as law. But the ideal of human rights is what will move people to hear my case and attempt to free me.

I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of 'human rights', other than those you fight for or trade for. Chinese students have no 'human rights' because their government denies them... and, the fact that some people half a world away say "oh, that's sad... they really SHOULD have rights, you know", doesn't give those people any rights. The only things that WILL give those people 'rights' are: a) an invasion by a foreign power, or the threat of it (which isn't going to happen, not to China - but, it did in Iraq) or: b) negotiation... for trade (for example).
We take the ideal and put it down on paper. Two parties sign it, and it becomes a legal document that can be used to uphold the ideal. The ideal of "human rights" does not vanish because someone ignores what's on the paper or shreds the document, as long as one human is alive to recognize it.

Isn't that great? :-)

What they are fighting for is that piece of paper, a legal agreement between government and the people. Why they are fighting is because they have that ideal of human rights in their heads. They have human rights, now they just need to fight for legality.

So, human rights will be earned for those students... by some other nation... but still either by the "Word" or the "Sword".
I grant you, the concepts are intertwined. The ideal is not practically useful against the might of a tyrannical government without legality to support it.

And, if a thing doesn't exist as a universal rule, then it isn't a universal rule. If 'fundamental human rights' are only recognised by fractions of the population; are determined by politics, religion, geography or epoch; have strength only because accorded strength by other humans... then those are not 'fundamental' human rights.

The only 'fundamental human right' people have, is to survive as long as they can, by whatever means necessary... and any extra 'bonus' 'rights' our governments see fit to allow.
Also right. However, they are universally recognized, here on Earth, by virtue of having been adopted unanimously in the forum of the United Nations.

I don't want to get into a discussion about how the UN's hands are tied left and right. I just want to point out that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' was made to apply to all humans on this planet, through recognition of the ideals in the document, and through ratification of the document as an agreement by member nations.

Abortion cannot currently be defined as murder.
This has already been explained multiple times, recently in this thread.
Stop being moronic and read the damn thread if you want to participate in the debate.

In other words, agree with us and what we say, and dont you dare question

it either, yes...

great debater arent you Shaed.

Not.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]That's somewhat of a blanket generalization. Maybe they will, maybe they wont regret it. Their choice.

If they regret it then at least they are admitting to themselves that they

made a terrible mistake, if not, then I doupt that there much of a human

being.



What if the pregnancy results from a ripped condom?

So next time, wear two.


Or faulty birth control pills?

If these pills are known to be faulty sometimes, then you shouldnt be placing

much faith in them to begin with.


Or the husband forces his wife to have sex (probably happens more often than we think).

Passion is a hard thing to control, but if the woman resists hard enough most

guys will stop.


In any case, trying to punish people for a percieved lack of responsibility by making them deal with the pregnancy seems a little draconian.

Yeah well, if people wont question their accountability in this important area,

they must be pulled into line to do so then.



I really have nothing to say to this...I don't believe zygotes are people, so I see early abortions as another form of birth control. We'll never see eye to eye on this.

Agreed.

Zygotes are just as human as you and I are, were you really any less human

for only being less a thousandth of what you are now?

Has there EVER been a utopia such as this? Banning gay marriage, abortion, contraception, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, etc., is NOT going to make the problems just go away.

They are the problems but.



They just go underground, out of the public eye.


True, but even this is only allowed to exist, because of corruption in the law.


"Immoral Society" does not create these problems, people create these problems,


Immoral people.


You're arguing for the picture-perfect 50's nuclear family, free from drugs, depression, anger, and all problems of the seeming modern times.

You make it sound like a bad thing.



Well, that picture-perfect family never existed. All the same problems were there, just under the surface, behind the cheerful smiles and milkmen and newspaper delivery boys, there was back-alley coathanger abortions, alcoholism, suicide, abused house-wives, racism, and murder.

Well if it never existed why do people who hate it, continually refer to it as

something conservatives like myself long for.

The people of the fiftys had just come through the most devastating period

of time yet known to man, they were probably happy just to exist, mow the

lawn, chat to the neighbor etc because they knew how lucky they were.

Their kids, the baby boom generation, became a different story, I think they

are at the heart of what is wrong with todays modern western society.

Well, I can agree with this, not because of immorality, but because of the so-
called Patriot Act.

That hasnt been around for that long.

And would you prefer your government made no effort in tracking terrorism in

your country, and just let it happen like they did with 9/11?

What if the pregnancy results from a ripped condom?
So next time, wear two.
LOL. You sound like my mother.

"Mom! I fell down a flight of stairs and broke my both legs and my collar bone!"

"Well, next time watch your step."

Inherent in this arguement is that most pro-lifers would not allow easy access to same day contraceptives. Instead they just continue to whine about abortion without allowing alternatives. Ergo I am pro-choice under protest.

LOL. You sound like my mother.

"Mom! I fell down a flight of stairs and broke my both legs and my collar bone!"

"Well, next time watch your step."

Good advice.

When any of you know what it's like to seriously contemplate giving everything you have and everything you might ever possibly have, to the baby of a thoughtless, juvenile boy, speak up now. And, when any of you seriously know what it is like to subjcate all of your hopes and dreams to the desires of your husband and your children - let me know. At that very time, your opinions will have weight. Right now,they have no weight at all.

When any of you know what it's like to seriously contemplate giving everything you have and everything you might ever possibly have, to the baby of a thoughtless, juvenile boy, speak up now. And, when any of you seriously know what it is like to subjcate all of your hopes and dreams to the desires of your husband and your children - let me know. At that very time, your opinions will have weight. Right now,they have no weight at all.


Dont cast all the blame at men, women are just as much at fault, for any

messy relationships.

1) how is the pro-life stance NOT anti-choice? they wish to forbid women from making the choice to abort.
2) the problem with your stance is that you are only looking at it from the pro-life side; to me, the life of the fetus is completely irrelevant and beside the point, and the ONLY important issue is the choice of the mother. you can feel differently, but if you try to claim that the issue can ONLY be approached the way you describe then you are, frankly, wrong.

1) I believe the choice was made at the point of having unprotected sex. Catholic vs Protestant aside, most sex is had by choice, and most abortions, unless I am mistaken, are to end pregnancies that occurred from sex by choice. The matter of pregnancy due to rape is another matter entirely, and I am open to discussing that as an exception, but let's deal with the majority cases first.

2) At what point does the life of the child become relevent? If the only relevent issue is the desire of the mother to have children, then many women who are in prison now for killing their children are being held unjustly.
Then there is the whole matter of parental rights for the father. Pregnancy is not, for the most part, a one-person condition.

This is a complex issue, and it calls for complex thought. Reducing it to two bullet points will not solve the dillemma. However, we have a collection of intelligent people from a wide variety of backgrounds, so perhaps we can make a little headway here.

When any of you know what it's like to seriously contemplate giving everything you have and everything you might ever possibly have, to the baby of a thoughtless, juvenile boy, speak up now. And, when any of you seriously know what it is like to subjcate all of your hopes and dreams to the desires of your husband and your children - let me know. At that very time, your opinions will have weight. Right now,they have no weight at all.

OK. I am the father of the baby of a thoughtless juvenile boy. He is now 14, his mother and I have been together since just a few months before his birth. I have abandoned any thought I ever had regarding what could have been, and built a life around providing for my child, my wife, and the other child we had together. Additionally, I became a foster parent so that I could take care of other children who's fathers were as thoughtless and juvenile as I was.

Now that my opinion has some weight, I say again, we made a choice to have unprotected sex. That was a choice. I support anyone's right to make that choice. The fact that I was young and stupid, and perhaps intoxicated at the time of the choice, did not give me the right to have the boy executed.

A woman's right to choose is fine, and should be protected. A woman's right to change her mind is another matter entirely, and should not be the Holy of Holies of American jurisprudence.

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.


That doesn't mean anything. Look at mitosis and meiosis; this is how gametes (sex cells) are created. DNA is recombined, so even if you could fertilize egg with egg, you wouldn't come up with a carbon copy of the mother. The DNA argument is WEAK. Do better.

:p

Inherent in this arguement is that most pro-lifers would not allow easy access to same day contraceptives. Instead they just continue to whine about abortion without allowing alternatives. Ergo I am pro-choice under protest.

I suppose you're right there. I also don't agree with selling cold beer at gas stations when you are trying to prevent drunk driving.

People may have spontaneous sex, but that doesn't mean that they aren't planning to have sex. Ask any single guy if he plans to get laid in the next month, and most will tell you they do. I would be willing to wager that it is the same with most women. Most women don't have a problem with preparatory contraception, why should men?

Think of it this way, you pro-choicers wouldnt be alive right now to support abortion if you were aborted regardless at any stage. Only time i will condone an abortion is if the woman was raped by her father and the odds of her AND the baby dying at 99.9%, even then i would try to save the baby by a premature seisection and try and keep it alive with incubator and medical technology. Every life is precious, its not our right to choose who lives and who dies.

Hold on, let me get this straight. For an abortion to occur, you would require that not only the woman be raped, but raped by her father (I assume this is because to you neither rape nor incest are enough in and of themselves). THEN, you would have the girl carry this bundle of guilt and sin around and bear it to fruition, with the one exception that both she AND the baby have statistically no chance of survival. So I'm perfectly clear on this, is this because you want illegitimate, hated children borne by women who obviously haven't suffered enough that they were raped, or can't afford medical insurance, or are afraid for their lives of approaching a women's health clinic for her checkup because of the pro-life protestors at the door calling her a murderer? Or is it for some other reason?

Abortion turns my stomach, but so does the rising population of unadopted children bouncing from foster home to foster home with no role model, familial love or guidance. As an adoptee myself, I know: for every Einstein that might have been aborted, there are four foster children seething in bitterness and loathing that they weren't aborted. No, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion.

FInally, I'd like to address the idea that an abortion may be killing the future savior of the world (insert role model here). According to the Judeo-Christian tradition, God knows all. God knows everything that has ever happened and ever will happen. Thus, before the dawn of Time, God knew whether Suzie Sweetcheeks was going to abort her child. As God is not a God of futility, He wouldn't imbue the little congregation of cells with a soul, because He knows that soul is coming directly back to heaven, having not had the chance to accomplish what it was s/he was created to do. There are plenty of babies being conceived and born every minute of every day. God will imbue one of those with the soul of the future Einstein/Mozart/King.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.


It's simple. We're smarter than you. Now stop typing and get back to flipping burgers you slacker. Welfare is next.

1) I believe the choice was made at the point of having unprotected sex. Catholic vs Protestant aside, most sex is had by choice, and most abortions, unless I am mistaken, are to end pregnancies that occurred from sex by choice. The matter of pregnancy due to rape is another matter entirely, and I am open to discussing that as an exception, but let's deal with the majority cases first.

so choosing to engage in unprotected sex is the same as consenting to be impregnated? that's like saying that deciding to go down the tripple diamond slope is consenting to have your legs broken, and if you break your legs you don't have the right to get treated by a medical professional.


2) At what point does the life of the child become relevent? If the only relevent issue is the desire of the mother to have children, then many women who are in prison now for killing their children are being held unjustly.
Then there is the whole matter of parental rights for the father. Pregnancy is not, for the most part, a one-person condition.

at NO point does a fetus, baby, child, or adult have the right to co-opt the body of another human for their own maintenance. no living human has the right to use the body of another against that person's wishes. therefore, a woman ALWAYS has the right to have a fetus removed from her body, no matter what stage of gestation it is at.

again you are looking at it from the wrong perspective; it isn't about killing or not killing a "child," it's about the basic human rights of the woman in question. she gets to have the sovereignty of her body, period. now, once a baby is delivered it is no longer attached to the female body, so she doesn't have any right to end its life.


This is a complex issue, and it calls for complex thought. Reducing it to two bullet points will not solve the dillemma. However, we have a collection of intelligent people from a wide variety of backgrounds, so perhaps we can make a little headway here.
actually, i don't think it's complicated in the slightest. there is one simple, basic, fundamental right that i believe all humans should be guaranteed, and in view of that right there is no reason to deny the right to abortion.

so choosing to engage in unprotected sex is the same as consenting to be impregnated? that's like saying that deciding to go down the tripple diamond slope is consenting to have your legs broken, and if you break your legs you don't have the right to get treated by a medical professional.


I don't know if that analogy is sound. Getting an abortion would be closer to skiing down a black diamond slope, breaking your leg, getting medical attention, and then forcing some one else to pay the bill because you didn't "consent to break your leg". If you ski down a dangerous slope, be prepared and take responsibility for your actions. If someone ELSE breaks your leg, or if you can't possibly hope to pay your bill, then that's a different story.

at NO point does a fetus, baby, child, or adult have the right to co-opt the body of another human for their own maintenance. no living human has the right to use the body of another against that person's wishes. therefore, a woman ALWAYS has the right to have a fetus removed from her body, no matter what stage of gestation it is at.

again you are looking at it from the wrong perspective; it isn't about killing or not killing a "child," it's about the basic human rights of the woman in question. she gets to have the sovereignty of her body, period. now, once a baby is delivered it is no longer attached to the female body, so she doesn't have any right to end its life.

Yet here you refuse to look at the most fundemental parts of previous pro-life posters. Having sex on the mother's parts was almost certainly by choice. The part that wasn't is a different issue. She made the choice to compromise part of her "sovereignty of her body" when she allowed the the inseminating male to have intercourse with her. By doing so she also understood that there is always a risk of becoming pregnant, and there is no such thing as being completely safe without abstinence. And by doing so, she has accepted that her bodily right may be compromised again with a child.

If you say she hasn't, then it can only mean one other option: She is using abortion as an escape route. It means this women has was irresponsible and definitely should not have the option to end or deny a life, depending on your viewpoint. An abortion is a HUGE choice, a choice that should be excercised only by the responsible, and more importantly, the ones who need it the most: The victims of rape, or those mothers whose lives are threatened. That is what abortion should be for- Not an escape route. A way to excuse irresponsibility.

And furthermore- ITS NOT ALL THE WOMEN. Sometimes a girl gets pregnant, and the abortion isn't her choice. It's the dad. The dad who "isn't ready" to have a kid. The dad who "can't support the kid." The dad who is A DEADBEAT and should not be having sex, because believe it or not, heterosexual sex causes children! The dad pushes for this abortion, and she goes and does it to please him. Pro-Choice for the women? Hardly.

As far as I'm concerned, abortion is for rape cases and where the mothers life is in danger ONLY. Other than that, it can be left for a parenting judge to decide. Abortion goes much further than immorality issues, it goes to irresponsibility.

Ok, while not pro-life AP does have some concerns with abortion...
To be brief:

Is a fetus alive, Biologically? To be considered alive a being must be able to:

(a)Have order; Yes
(b)Growth and develoment; Yes
(c)Reproduction; No
(d)Energy utilization; Yes
(e)response to the environment; Yes
(f)evolutionary adaptation; carries out cycle

Some would say that a fetus is incapable of reproduction and thus not a living organisms. However, for consistency, initiatives protecting endangered species protect their offspring prior to reaching full form (tadpoles, caterpillars) and the use of chemicals to intentionally inhibit animal fetal development, indicating that it is accepted that the ability for future reproductio is weighted equally. Also, rejecting the classification of being alive to individuals incapable of reproduction would be inconsistent, unless we are to consider them not alive and thus not deserving of rights. Studies indicate fetuses are responsive to environmental factors (hormone levels, stress..etc), and have the ability to maintain cellular homeostasis, and complex homeostasis as the need develops. Overall point, it is a living organism.

So, if a fetus is alive, is it a human being?
Does it contain the homosapien genetic code, yes.
Does it replicate that genetic code, yes.
Does it transcribe that genetic code, yes.

Well, if it is the product of humans engaged in the reproductive cycle, and contains their genetic coding, replicates, and transcribes it... what else could it be?

This leads to abortion being a value judgment on two counts depending on philosophical ideologies: 1) Do we distinguish between the taking of the life of a person from that of a human being, which leads to when is a human being a person, and/or 2) If a spiritual component to life exists-when does it materialize.

AP, believes that laws, as written do not distinguish between persons and human beings, and protect both equally, and that if a spiritual essence exists independant of the physical manifestation of a being during and past the existence of the physical being, than it comes into existence at the moment of fertilization-when a human being comes into being (genetically and biologically)

So, the question becomes when is ending the life of another human being justified?

Well, AP believes the only time the taking of the life of another is when the existence of one being poses an imminent threat to the life of another.(discussed more in UN forum)

A right is an endowment which, when conducted by one, does not intrude on the rights of another. And exists so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

So, does a woman truely have the right to choose?
There is a strong argument to say no.

First, is the killing of another being justified under the circumstances? (see previous post)
If yes, then it is the woman's right to choose as her life is in danger by bringing the pregnancy to term.

Second, irrespective of a need for justification, does that choice only affect the woman? And thus solely her right?

Some would argue that since pregnancy and abortion invade her physical person it is her choice whether the pregnancy is brought to term or not.

This also is not a strong argument. To say that since it is her person she has the right to choose means that actually bringing the pregnancy to term only affects the woman as well. For this to be true-no man should be considered in any way to owe emotional or fiduciary responsibility to the woman or upbringing of the child-even if married, single, or divorced. This, currently is not the case. But could be a subconscious consequence of abortion rights-leading to men feeling it is alright to abandon wives or the mothers of their children (i.e justifies their providing no support).

Does rape justify abortion?
Well, does the assault and battery of one being justify her taking the life of another?
AP thinks not, as the third being is not a party conducting the original assault and battery.

But what about emotional distress brought about by bringing the pregnancy to term?

This creates an entitlement to kill another based on their unintentional infliction of emotional distress, is that justified? The emotional distress of being raped will always exist, bringing the pregnancy to term may increase or decrease this stress: there are case studies supporting both conclusions, so it goes back to the entitlement question.

Consent is better discussed in the UN Forum.

Pro life indicates a right not to die, to date, no AP citizen considers itself to be immortal.

Good points pooka.

Passion is a hard thing to control, but if the woman resists hard enough most

guys will stop.

It's called rape honey, don't try to sugarcoat it.

Why should it be the woman's job to "resist hard enough?" If either party doesn't want sex the other should drop it. End of story.

When any of you know what it's like to seriously contemplate giving everything you have and everything you might ever possibly have, to the baby of a thoughtless, juvenile boy, speak up now. And, when any of you seriously know what it is like to subjcate all of your hopes and dreams to the desires of your husband and your children - let me know. At that very time, your opinions will have weight. Right now,they have no weight at all.

Goes both ways.

Does that mean, if the mother wants to keep the child, but the father does not, he should be exempt from child support?

I suppose you're right there. I also don't agree with selling cold beer at gas stations when you are trying to prevent drunk driving.

People may have spontaneous sex, but that doesn't mean that they aren't planning to have sex. Ask any single guy if he plans to get laid in the next month, and most will tell you they do. I would be willing to wager that it is the same with most women. Most women don't have a problem with preparatory contraception, why should men?

The most reliable birth control for women that is most easily available is the pill, but that takes up to a month to come into effect and there are indications that constantly staying on such a state of adjusted hormones is not good. The best is the morning after pill, but of course the religious right won't allow it onto the free market.

The most reliable birth control for women that is most easily available is the pill, but that takes up to a month to come into effect and there are indications that constantly staying on such a state of adjusted hormones is not good. The best is the morning after pill, but of course the religious right won't allow it onto the free market.

It's on the market.

Originally Posted by Armed Bookworms
The most reliable birth control for women that is most easily available is the pill, but that takes up to a month to come into effect and there are indications that constantly staying on such a state of adjusted hormones is not good. The best is the morning after pill, but of course the religious right won't allow it onto the free market.
I know RU486 isn't available her in Australia, not sure about the others. And there are implants that are more effective than the combined pill.
The morning after pill isn't really practical if you're having regular sex though, it's more of an emergency type thing.
And as for the hormones, it can be bad for some women, but most return to normal levels fairly quickly. And progressively lower doses of hormones are being used anyway

I don't know if that analogy is sound. Getting an abortion would be closer to skiing down a black diamond slope, breaking your leg, getting medical attention, and then forcing some one else to pay the bill because you didn't "consent to break your leg". If you ski down a dangerous slope, be prepared and take responsibility for your actions.
again, if you CHOOSE to ski down the slope, and you break your leg, do we tell you that you have to "take responsibility" by not getting medical treatment?

the other problem you seem to have is that you are claiming that choosing abortion isn't a way to take responsibility. personally, i believe that the ONLY responsible way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy is abortion, but what i believe is responsible is quite different from the concept of "taking responsibility." you seem to think that the natural and necessary consequence of being pregnant is having a baby, when it simply isn't; a woman can choose to deal with a pregnancy in any number of ways, all of which are ways of taking responsibility (except for going into denial and pretending she isn't pregnant until the baby drops out on its own). whether or not you personally like her choice doesn't change the fact that a woman who chooses to abort IS facing the consequences of her actions...she had sex, the consequence was pregnancy. she's dealing with that consequence in the way she believes is right.

It gets to the fundamental problem with the Abortion debate, namely that neither side is talking to the other. One side is Pro-Choice, the other, Pro-Life. This in essence distills two different ways of looking at the debate; that being said, it is of course incorrect to say that those against abortion are "anti-choice" or those for abortion are "anti-life". To say that pro-lifers simply want to deny people a choice then is absolutel incorrect, and the issue will never be resolved or properly debated if this type of demagogery continues. Its essentially a fundamentlly different way of looking at the question of abortion; not as one of the choice of the mother but as one regarding the life of the fetus.

I just have to say. GOOD POINT. 10/10 post.

The responsibility is pregnancy, childbirth and the child.
Abortion is absolving both parties of any and all responsibility.
It eleminates the consequence of sex, it is not a consequence.

It's on the market.
By perscription.

AP, believes that laws, as written do not distinguish between persons and human beings, and protect both equally, and that if a spiritual essence exists independant of the physical manifestation of a being during and past the existence of the physical being, than it comes into existence at the moment of fertilization-when a human being comes into being (genetically and biologically)
Laws are written by a State to keep the people in order. Laws therefore are written for the people who can govern their own actions and are mobile to some extent, in other words those who can have some interactive effect upon other people: 1) citizens, 2) their dependants, and 3) visitors to the State. Unborn people are considered part of the mother-citizen until they are born, when they become her dependants.

Laws of the State have nothing to do with "spiritual essence". The State deals with units, with bodies, with numbers. An infant isn't a number until it is born, until it becomes separated from it's mother-number-unit and can be treated as a unique number-unit of its own.

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?

What is aborted is not a egg and sperm combined in a cell, or a bunch of cells. It's a developing baby by that time.

By perscription.

As is the birth control pill.

And RU 486, they are all prescription.

A woman's right to choose is fine, and should be protected. A woman's right to change her mind is another matter entirely, and should not be the Holy of Holies of American jurisprudence.
That's the strongest pro-life argument I have heard yet. And my counter would be that the choices don't stop just because the consequences are upon us. Choice-and-consequence is a never-ending flow. The person who makes a choice, with full knowledge of the possible outcomes, has as much right to make another choice when the outcome that presents itself was not the desired one.

The spriritual aspect was apart from the law statement.

The main contention is that a fetus is by the biological definition of life, and by its genetics (replication, translation..etc.), a living human being. This provides motive for altering a constitution restricting laws, due to lack of knowledge of biology and genetics when written, or that the writers never considered such an act given the culture of their time. The law does not distinguish between Human beings and Persons. Thus a fetus could then be considered a dependant and with rights. And requiring justification greater than it is my body, therefore it is my choice with respect to abortion.

That's the strongest pro-life argument I have heard yet. And my counter would be that the choices don't stop just because the consequences are upon us. Choice-and-consequence is a never-ending flow. The person who makes a choice, with full knowledge of the possible outcomes, has as much right to make another choice when the outcome that presents itself was not the desired one.

The problem with this logic is it also would allow mothers to kill there baby at a few weeks old as they dont like the outcome of their choices - which is baby crying in the middle of the night. When you have sex, male or female you should be aware that even if you are using contraception there is still a say 2% chance you will get pregnant and by choosing to have sex you are acknowleging this might happen and should be willing to deal with the concequences - a life starts to grow inside the woman. By the time you find out you are pregnant from a pregnancy test, it's too late to decide you arn't willing to deal with this concequence - if you wern't willing you shouldn't have had sex. I will accept that the pill and morning after pill causes the body not to accept 'cells', however, by the time an abortion happens there is a lot more than cells inside the woman, there is a developing person.

Passion is a hard thing to control, but if the woman resists hard enough most guys will stop.

Why is it the woman's responsibility to resist passion? If abstinance as a method for birth control is as easy as you make it out to be, why can the guy not be held responsible for it?

Zygotes are just as human as you and I are, were you really any less human for only being less a thousandth of what you are now?

Yes, just as I would be less human if I lost all mental faculty or if my heart or another critical organ ceased to function. I cannot define 'human' or even imagine a logical definition that doesn't include "thinking" and "breathing", two words that cannot be applied to a zygote.

If you have a definition that includes zygotes and isn't irrational, please share it with the rest of the class. If you cannot come up with one, please stop insisting that they fit mine or that of all historical science and philosophy.

1) I believe the choice was made at the point of having unprotected sex. Catholic vs Protestant aside, most sex is had by choice, and most abortions, unless I am mistaken, are to end pregnancies that occurred from sex by choice. The matter of pregnancy due to rape is another matter entirely, and I am open to discussing that as an exception, but let's deal with the majority cases first.

Ah but anyone with even a cursory understanding of biology, psychology, and or animal husbandry can tell you that the impetus for sex is about a lot more than simple procreation. In social animals like humans, the drive is as much, if not more, about the emotional bonds that go along with it. The drive to make onself closer with the members of one's tribe cannot be ignored, and sex/mating goes along with that.

Consent/choice to have sex often has nothing to do with procreation, even and especially among those that know better. I certainly have sex with my wife all the time, and it isn't to procreate.

Not all unwanted pregnancies occur because of lack of protection. Some times protection is faulty.

2) At what point does the life of the child become relevent? If the only relevent issue is the desire of the mother to have children, then many women who are in prison now for killing their children are being held unjustly.
Then there is the whole matter of parental rights for the father. Pregnancy is not, for the most part, a one-person condition.

I believe that the life of the child becomes relevent to the desires of the mother when it can be defined as a life (~20th week). Until that point, the life argument holds no sway, because the zygote/embryo doesn't qualify for the distinction.

Further. Until a set of laws is introduced, or at the very least encouraged, by the so-called 'pro-life' movement, which will make it legally required for individuals to donate blood organs to protect the lives of others one cannot justify the 'protect the life of the child' argument. It is hypocritical.

Right now, if someone needs an organ or blood/tissue that I have to survive, I am under no legal impetus to provide it. I lack that legal impetus even if they are my own child. I lack that requirement even if they need the blood/organ due to reasons of my own negligence (I.E. your 'they made the mistake' argument is invalid). And I even lack that legal compunction when I purposely cause the injury that created the requirement.

Your side of the debate would need to provide a logical explanation of the disparity that only occurs when it is a pregnant woman before the 'life' argument can be considered a valid one.

This is a complex issue, and it calls for complex thought. Reducing it to two bullet points will not solve the dillemma. However, we have a collection of intelligent people from a wide variety of backgrounds, so perhaps we can make a little headway here.

It certainly is complex. I have asked the question above, as well as many others, multiple times in this and other threads on the same subject. I have yet to hear an answer for them. Perhaps you would be so kind to do so, so that headway can be made in the discussion.

Why is it the woman's responsibility to resist passion? If abstinance as a method for birth control is as easy as you make it out to be, why can the guy not be held responsible for it?



Yes, just as I would be less human if I lost all mental faculty or if my heart or another critical organ ceased to function. I cannot define 'human' or even imagine a logical definition that doesn't include "thinking" and "breathing", two words that cannot be applied to a zygote.

If you have a definition that includes zygotes and isn't irrational, please share it with the rest of the class. If you cannot come up with one, please stop insisting that they fit mine or that of all historical science and philosophy.

I hate to bring facts into this discussion but the human heart is beating at 6 weeks pregnant.

The problem with this logic is it also would allow mothers to kill there baby at a few weeks old as they dont like the outcome of their choices - which is baby crying in the middle of the night. When you have sex, male or female you should be aware that even if you are using contraception there is still a say 2% chance you will get pregnant and by choosing to have sex you are acknowleging this might happen and should be willing to deal with the concequences - a life starts to grow inside the woman. By the time you find out you are pregnant from a pregnancy test, it's too late to decide you arn't willing to deal with this concequence - if you wern't willing you shouldn't have had sex. I will accept that the pill and morning after pill causes the body not to accept 'cells', however, by the time an abortion happens there is a lot more than cells inside the woman, there is a developing person.
It doesn't "allow" just anything, as the choice (as with any choice) has to be made within the context of the society, which includes laws, morals, etc. My point was that the choices and decisions don't end just because one faces a consequence.

The responsibility is pregnancy, childbirth and the child.
Abortion is absolving both parties of any and all responsibility.
It eleminates the consequence of sex, it is not a consequence.

Wait, I thought all life was 'precious' and children doubly so?

Or are they a punishment for some perposterous notion of 'sin'?

It is quite simple, really. A fetus, from the moment of conception, has its own DNA, separate from its mother's or father's. That makes it a person, and therefore, illegal to kill.

Can it vote? ;)

I hate to bring facts into this discussion but the human heart is beating at 6 weeks pregnant.

And this has what, exactly, to do with the price of tea in china or the words to which you were responding? I never claimed it's heart didn't beat beyond a certain point in its development. I claimed it couldn't be considered alive until it met all the criteria for being so, which it doesn't meet until ~20th week.

Answer my question, please. Rise above your philosophy's tendency to vomit up emotive and off topic responses to direct questions.

The responsibility is pregnancy, childbirth and the child.
Abortion is absolving both parties of any and all responsibility.
It eleminates the consequence of sex, it is not a consequence.
con - to come after
sequence - in an order

Consequences are the possibilities that succeed an event; in other words, each event opens up a new host of possibilities and opportunities. Each possibility requires a choice and a decision ...which is an event ...which creates new possibilities.

Welcome to "now".

What if the pregnancy results from a ripped condom?So next time, wear two.But what about this time? You're not adressing the issue of how you consider it best to deal with something that has happened.

Or faulty birth control pills?If these pills are known to be faulty sometimes, then you shouldnt be placing much faith in them to begin with.A seatbelt may have <...plucks figures out of thin air...> 95% chance of avoiding injury in a car accident. An full compliment of air-bags might give you 97.5% chance of avoiding an injury, driving at no more than 5mph might give you a 99.5% chance of avoiding injury (if not road-rage from someone else) and altogether they give you a (hypothetical) 99.999375% chance of avoiding injury. By your argument, you'd never even approach a vehicle, never mind do anything else. Birth control pills are significantly effective, when combined with other precautions (including many forms of 'being active while abstaining') protection is almost complete, but there's always a chance and then what?


Or the husband forces his wife to have sex (probably happens more often than we think).Passion is a hard thing to control, but if the woman resists hard enough most guys will stop.That does not deserve a response.

In any case, trying to punish people for a percieved lack of responsibility by making them deal with the pregnancy seems a little draconian.Yeah well, if people wont question their accountability in this important area, they must be pulled into line to do so then.Excuse me, could you please not breath so much? Don't you know that you're producing about 1kg [edit: forgot to say... of Carbon-dioxide] a day?

I really have nothing to say to this...I don't believe zygotes are people, so I see early abortions as another form of birth control. We'll never see eye to eye on this.Agreed.

Zygotes are just as human as you and I are, were you really any less human for only being less a thousandth of what you are now?Yes I was less human. I'm with Chodolo on that one, so presume we two have the same agreement abouyt disagreement?


Has there EVER been a utopia such as this? Banning gay marriage, abortion, contraception, drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, etc., is NOT going to make the problems just go away.They are the problems but.They just go underground, out of the public eye.True, but even this is only allowed to exist, because of corruption in the law.Only in a Big Brother state. Corruption is not an issue where 'the authorities' have no control that stifles Human Rights to personal privacy. In any society where you are allowed to go your own way, make your own decisions (and mistakes) and aren't guided by the Thought Police, you may commit crimes without any corruption having occured.

"Immoral Society" does not create these problems, people create these problems,Immoral people.By a standard. But what if it's not an accepted national standard? You might well think it immoral to queue-jump, others that it is merely impolite, others don't mind at all when it's a needy person doing so. And I'm willing to bet that everyone observing that behaviour has sought to bend the social rule on queuing to their own ends, at some time or other. That doesn't make a queue of immoral people (and definitely does not create an immoral queue). Though I will defend the rights of everyone in that queue to be as outraged as they might see fit to be, I wouldn't advocate the death penalty for any apprehended queue-jumpers, and certainly not the entire queue 'because they have queue-jumping tendencies'.

You're arguing for the picture-perfect 50's nuclear family, free from drugs, depression, anger, and all problems of the seeming modern times.You make it sound like a bad thing.Inflexible, certainly. Are you going to ban divorce? Marriage except between childhood sweethearts? Legally enforce happy marriages, 2.4 children, eating all meals at the table boys' rooms painted blue, girls' painted pink (or acceptable alternatives), etc... Family values are good, but if a family doesn't get on together in the schema I just posited then what then? Drugs, the illegal ones, are... well... illegal, but how about prescription drugs used illegally/unprescripted? Good luck trying to legislate against being depressed, especially if your Nuclear Family bill gets through and you stifle people in a Pleasantville situation. There'd be plent of people angry at you, but I bet you can pass a law that prevents them from getting utterly sick of you? I'd love to hear how you're going to do this.

Well, that picture-perfect family never existed. All the same problems were there, just under the surface, behind the cheerful smiles and milkmen and newspaper delivery boys, there was back-alley coathanger abortions, alcoholism, suicide, abused house-wives, racism, and murder.Well if it never existed why do people who hate it, continually refer to it as something conservatives like myself long for.Because (and please excuse the generalisation) conservatives long to restore all the 'best bits' that they can remember. Yes, there were happy families, yes there were various modes of 'morality' that remain acceptible, yes there were examples of perfect kids and perfect parents and perfect pets and perfect houses, but not necessarily at the same time. It's amazing what can be seen through a rose-tinted kaleidoscope focussed upon the dim, distant and fuzzy past, picking out the good bits and mixing and matching with good bits from other eras to cover up the scars and then the messy joins.

Charles Dickens is said to have introduced the context of the "White Christmas" to the world due to having lived through seven of the worst winters in recorded history (or a not dissimilar number), though that's something I've actually got on my pending 'to check up on' research list. Note the 'worst' winters. Winters so bad that dozens, scores, many gross of matchstick-girls froze to death, yet the jollity of the snow and the season has been passed on down to us. Oh, we'd love a White Christmas again, here in the UK. Except that when it happens the commuters will be cursing it, the old people will be freezing to death in it, businesses will be ruing the costs of it. If we truly went back to the Dickensian era, just about no-one would be able to travel anywhere, the houses would become at once colder, harder to heat and draughtier, so that not just the occasional old person with a financial problem with their energy bills would be slipping through the system's checks and balances and dying and 95% of modern businesses wouldn't be able to operate at full capacity. Conservatism (full-blown capital 'C' with illustrative accompanyment on the manuscript's border) is the same sort of thing. 'Wasn't it nice when everything was nice', eh? Except eveything wasn't, only the good bits that you remember. At other times you'd forget all those and become depressed at all the bad things. (Except you can't, because it's not allowed to become depressed, is it?)

The people of the fiftys had just come through the most devastating period of time yet known to man, they were probably happy just to exist, mow the lawn, chat to the neighbor etc because they knew how lucky they were.I challenge you, now living the life of the 00s, to be happy in the 50s. The people of the 50s were indeed happy (for some value of 'happy') to be in the 50s, but that's because it wasn't the 40s. Or the 30s, or the 20s. A nice era to pass through, but I wouldn't like to live there, and I suspect that neither would you. (I'm confiscating all material pertaining to future sports events, stocks and share performance and the like, before you ask...)

Their kids, the baby boom generation, became a different story, I think they are at the heart of what is wrong with todays modern western society.The 00s' problems are because of the 90s. The 90s' problems resulted from the 80s. The 80s' issues arose from the 70s... The 2010s will have problems that are (primarily) caused by events in the 00s, the decade after that (should anyone be aroud to name it) will exist in a state that can be 'blamed' on its predecessor. At the same time, the advances of the 80s led to the wonders of the 90s, will lead to all the things seen and yet to come in the 00s, which may lead on, in marvelous ways, to the splendid nature of the 2010s, and the future may well be as wonderous as the present seems to those of the past. Blaming the modern world on the baby-boom generation is certainly possible, but they can also be thanked for the many wondrous possibilities of today.

I've heard it said, and don't disagree, that the creation of the 'teenager' (during the period we're talking about) helped to break up the stable and unflinching stability of prior generations, but dig deeper and you'll find that even this 'gold standard' of society was a recent construct, deplored by those of earlier eras, and I believe the phrase 'horses for courses' can be aptly inserted at this point. I'm a child of the 70s (unfortunately, I sometimes say to myself, only a child... my teenage years were predominantly 80s-bound) but I know of many things, good and bad, from prior eras that I would take or leave, the same with things from the intervening period up until today. Molding all the goods bits from even just one decade into a comprehensive whole, without gaps and issues, is impossible. It is also not possible to fully excise the bad bits from a decade and 'fill in' with idealisations (however real they may have been in their own context, and most weren't even nearly as real as it appears you would wish).>

And would you prefer your government made no effort in tracking terrorism in your country, and just let it happen like they did with 9/11?I don't know if you have an equivalent to the '30-year rule', or whatever it is, but I I can say, right off, that absolutely no-one outside of the closest circles of advisers (and perhaps not even then) is going to be able to accurately assess what has and has not been done in the name of prevention of terrorism until such time as the appropriate records surface in the public domain. And, again, perhaps not even then. This is all massively off-topic, of course, and I've lost the context of all these arguments, but this must mean something to you or you wouldn't have brought it up, in the same post as the on-topic issues of 'responsibility' and 'fault' in contraceptive attempts... Or whatever you'd classify it as.

This is real simple. One of my closest friends was almost aborted. And he's a heckofa nice guy.

Ah, you're arguing practicalities. No fair. Ideals are not very useful for bashing rebels over the head with, but they can enact change by moving the spirit. That is their power. That is their "convenience" (I read "suitable use"). They should be a first resort, not a last.

There I go being idealistic again.


It's not about being non-idealistic - it's about being realistic. There's a quote, I can't even remember who said it... about "Of course a small group of concerned individuals can change the world. It's the only thing that ever HAS"... or words to that effect... and I agree with the sentiment - but, the world isn't, fundamentally, really any different. Still, groups of idealists try to imagine utopian societies... then every other society turns round and says "NO FAIR, they have good stuff"... then they bomb them, kill them, invade them, and take all their good stuff. History repeats itself.


Those would be violations of 1) my civil rights and 2) international human rights enacted as law. But the ideal of human rights is what will move people to hear my case and attempt to free me.


And yet, those things are things that the USA HAS done in the space of the last few years. See, the US has said that it doesn't recognise the RIGHTS of the UN to legislate about the US... and the 'enemy combatant' status renders you outside of the Geneva Conventions. The only way that you could be 'defended' is by your OWN nation negotiating (the Word), or threatening the oppressor (the Sword).

Human rights RELY on compliance. And, where not everyone is willing to grant the smae status to all persons voluntarily, it also relies on, at the very least, an acquiesence.


We take the ideal and put it down on paper. Two parties sign it, and it becomes a legal document that can be used to uphold the ideal. The ideal of "human rights" does not vanish because someone ignores what's on the paper or shreds the document, as long as one human is alive to recognize it.

Isn't that great? :-)

What they are fighting for is that piece of paper, a legal agreement between government and the people. Why they are fighting is because they have that ideal of human rights in their heads. They have human rights, now they just need to fight for legality.

I grant you, the concepts are intertwined. The ideal is not practically useful against the might of a tyrannical government without legality to support it.


Also - the idea of one human being left alive, and still having human rights, is comical... the only rights that person would have, are those they could enforce for themselves, against a world every bit as unfriendly, savage and predatory as the one we live in now.


Also right. However, they are universally recognized, here on Earth, by virtue of having been adopted unanimously in the forum of the United Nations.

I don't want to get into a discussion about how the UN's hands are tied left and right. I just want to point out that the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' was made to apply to all humans on this planet, through recognition of the ideals in the document, and through ratification of the document as an agreement by member nations.

Not universal, though. Not EVERYONE belongs to the UN... and not everyone recognises the authority of the UN.

They are a group of idealists, yes - and their ideals carry all the force that their negotiation and military might can support.

Why is murder wrong? What makes it so in a human society? In the wild, animals kill each other all the time in order to survive, with no remorse.

So why is murder wrong? Each human wants a right to have life, true, but other than this, why? We place value upon human life because religious docterines tell us to.

So albeit. Let the church, synagoge, hall, whatever, decree to its members that abortion is wrong because their God says so.

But stay from the State. The State is not supposed to side with the Church.

I'm pro-choice. Give us the freedom to make our own decisions. Besides, if abortion becomes illegal, who's going to put in all the social welfare programs needed in order to support children who are unwanted by their parents? The government will have a whole society of repressed/abused children on their hands in 18 years pounding on their doors to wake up and look at the mess they've caused.

Why is murder wrong? What makes it so in a human society? In the wild, animals kill each other all the time in order to survive, with no remorse.

So why is murder wrong? Each human wants a right to have life, true, but other than this, why? We place value upon human life because religious docterines tell us to.

So albeit. Let the church, synagoge, hall, whatever, decree to its members that abortion is wrong because their God says so.

But stay from the State. The State is not supposed to side with the Church.

I'm pro-choice. Give us the freedom to make our own decisions. Besides, if abortion becomes illegal, who's going to put in all the social welfare programs needed in order to support children who are unwanted by their parents? The government will have a whole society of repressed/abused children on their hands in 18 years pounding on their doors to wake up and look at the mess they've caused.

So if someone wants to kill you it should be their right to do so?

This is real simple. One of my closest friends was almost aborted. And he's a heckofa nice guy.Without wanting to sound too frivolous (tempted to say "Good for him, good for you, good for me, good for everybody!" but, without this rider, it looks unduly insulting) it seems to have turned out alright for him (and you, by association), but one swallow does not a Porn Star^W^Wsummer make.

It's also hard to compare him with the teenage thug who would have burgled your house the other week to get enough money to assuage the violent step-father who had been lumbered with him when his mother had ODed in an attempt to escape a life where she'd lost all opportunity due to her teenage pregnancy... Except that this guy (who might well have been nicer in other circumstances) doesn't exist because his mother had an early-term abortion, maintained the decent lifestyle she had heretofor been living in, at her middle-class parents, and had gone onto medical college and become destined to contributed to the cure for some ailment that you may very well have at the moment. It's a hypothetical situation. I'm not wishing either a burgalry or a disease upon you, I'm not wishing an unpleasant life upon anybody, I'm not wishing teenage pregnancy upon anyone, I'd rather that the whole thing turned out nice for everyone, but the chances are that some bad things will happen and some good things will happen, and while we cannot predct the course of the future (at least not to that level) we must allow ourselves to consider that a single solution (in this case, abortion) is neither a Panacea nor an Pandora's Box.

Neither ban it nor make it compulsory. Let the best resources and best information be made available in each case and, prior to there actually being a conscious human, let us not be afraid (or outlawed) in considering (I repeat: considering) the option of abortion. Then, having made that decision, acted upon it as required and let time go by, let us deal with the future as it arises and in whatever form it may take, with or without the individual who has/would have arisen from the presentient mass of cells we were considering the fate of.

It is said "Judge not, lest you be judged", but it is by prior judgements that we arrive at today. Judge fairly, judge well, judge yourself before others and do it all for a better future for the many, not just to provide a future to something that doesn't even have a present.

(Words are insufficient to properly convey the twisty-turny reality I'm trying to impress upon you, so I'm now bracing myself to be grossly misinterpreted by some people.)

Ok, while not pro-life AP does have some concerns with abortion...
To be brief:

Is a fetus alive, Biologically? To be considered alive a being must be able to:

(a)Have order; Yes
(b)Growth and develoment; Yes
(c)Reproduction; No
(d)Energy utilization; Yes
(e)response to the environment; Yes
(f)evolutionary adaptation; carries out cycle



Actually - a form of 'respiration' and the ability to 'feed and exrete' are also considered life characteristic (biologically speaking) - a foetus starts with neither - since all those processes are initially carried out by the mother, and 'related' to the foetus. By those markers, the foetus isn't actually alive until after birth.

Even if you allow the 'capacity' to breathe or feed, a foetus isn't alive by THOSE markers until about 6 months.

Finally, your point (e) is incorrect, up until about 20+ weeks. A pre-20 week foetus doesn't have the neural capacity to respond to it's environment in any real sense - since it has an incomplete nervous system, and no true brain activity, or even 'real' reflex systems.

It's not about being non-idealistic - it's about being realistic.
LOL; when you define reality as being only of the material world (as most people, who are materialists, do these days), what's the difference? :-)

There's a quote, I can't even remember who said it... about "Of course a small group of concerned individuals can change the world. It's the only thing that ever HAS"... or words to that effect... and I agree with the sentiment - but, the world isn't, fundamentally, really any different. Still, groups of idealists try to imagine utopian societies... then every other society turns round and says "NO FAIR, they have good stuff"... then they bomb them, kill them, invade them, and take all their good stuff. History repeats itself.
Last I heard, that quote was made by Woody Harrelson, but he might have been quoting others.

The point is to realise that, in this case, ideals motivate people, whereas practicalities are what they are motivated to achieve. Both necessary for a complete picture of reality.

And yet, those things are things that the USA HAS done in the space of the last few years. See, the US has said that it doesn't recognise the RIGHTS of the UN to legislate about the US... and the 'enemy combatant' status renders you outside of the Geneva Conventions. The only way that you could be 'defended' is by your OWN nation negotiating (the Word), or threatening the oppressor (the Sword).
I've no doubt the U.S. has violated agreements and procedures regarding human rights. And frankly, the U.N. doesn't legislate, but that's another issue... Whether or not I am defended at all, by Word or by Sword, I do not abandon my human rights and can carry that cry to my grave, because I recognize them. The ideal may not do me any good, but it still exists, in my heart and in my mind.

Human rights RELY on compliance. And, where not everyone is willing to grant the smae status to all persons voluntarily, it also relies on, at the very least, an acquiesence.
You're referring to the agreement, not the ideal.

Also - the idea of one human being left alive, and still having human rights, is comical...
No, no... not having. One human left alive and still recognizing human rights for all.

the only rights that person would have, are those they could enforce for themselves, against a world every bit as unfriendly, savage and predatory as the one we live in now.
Probably, but then you're referring back to the agreement. Different context.
EDIT: The agreement is enforcable; the ideal isn't. It doesn't have to be.

Not universal, though. Not EVERYONE belongs to the UN... and not everyone recognises the authority of the UN.

They are a group of idealists, yes - and their ideals carry all the force that their negotiation and military might can support.
The UN does not have a military might. It's a body of nations.

The problem with this logic is it also would allow mothers to kill there baby at a few weeks old as they dont like the outcome of their choices - which is baby crying in the middle of the night. When you have sex, male or female you should be aware that even if you are using contraception there is still a say 2% chance you will get pregnant and by choosing to have sex you are acknowleging this might happen and should be willing to deal with the concequences - a life starts to grow inside the woman. By the time you find out you are pregnant from a pregnancy test, it's too late to decide you arn't willing to deal with this concequence - if you wern't willing you shouldn't have had sex. I will accept that the pill and morning after pill causes the body not to accept 'cells', however, by the time an abortion happens there is a lot more than cells inside the woman, there is a developing person.

This argument is faulty.

A person can CHOOSE to have a baby... that doesn't mean they ever will... they might be infertile, or just might never meet a person they want a child WITH.

A person can CHOOSE to have sex - but that doesn't equate with wanting a baby - that equates with a biological imperative (perhaps designed to RESULT in babies) which, in and of itself, is all about consummation of passion, and has no connection to the eventual pregnancy EXCEPT that it can cause conception.

And, while the 'church' tries to refuse people the right to masturbate, or to engage in other 'non-conceptive' sex practices (including homosexuality - but that's a different story) - this means people are being offered only one option as to how to release their sexual frustrations. Which is wrong.

Paul said it was better to marry than to burn - he knew that people wanted sex, and that a 'recognised' release is better than no 'release'. He didn't say that that was to produce children... just that it was better to have sex in marriage than outside... because people are always going to have sex.

Also - if the churches and governments actually wanted to reduce the number of abortions... they could help women have sterilisation treatments, rather than oppose them.

LOL; when you define reality as being only of the material world (as most people, who are materialists, do these days), what's the difference? :-)


Because I HAVE ideals - but they are not real. I am an idealist, but also a realist... I do not confuse the two.


Last I heard, that quote was made by Woody Harrelson, but he might have been quoting others.

The point is to realise that, in this case, ideals motivate people, whereas practicalities are what they are motivated to achieve. Both necessary for a complete picture of reality.


Woody Harrelson must have been quoting... I seem to recall it being a fairly old quote.


I've no doubt the U.S. has violated agreements and procedures regarding human rights. And frankly, the U.N. doesn't legislate, but that's another issue... Whether or not I am defended at all, by Word or by Sword, I do not abandon my human rights and can carry that cry to my grave, because I recognize them. The ideal may not do me any good, but it still exists, in my heart and in my mind.

You're referring to the agreement, not the ideal.
No, no... not having. One human left alive and still recognizing human rights for all.
Probably, but then you're referring back to the agreement. Different context.
EDIT: The agreement is enforcable; the ideal isn't. It doesn't have to be.


And my argument is that there are no 'rights' to Human rights - UNLESS they are recognised. The ideal is all well and good, but irrelevent. The ideal of human rights is not the same as whether or not there ARE human Rrights, or whether or not we HAVE human rights.

Ideally, we could breathe under water. Realistically - you can try, but it will be a short experiment.


The UN does not have a military might. It's a body of nations.

Exactly. So - the recognistion of human rights as universal - already flawed due to lack of universality - also lacks the 'Sword', and, apparently - the Word isn't doing them much good at the moment, either.

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.

Except that a fetus is already a person, whereas eggs and sperm are not.

Except that a fetus is already a person, whereas eggs and sperm are not.
ooooh, i get it...we all should just ignore biology, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and the moral codes that define human interaction, and simply take your word for it! now i see how this game is played!

Because I HAVE ideals - but they are not real. I am an idealist, but also a realist... I do not confuse the two.
Yes, you do. You look at the paper document as if it was the right. It's not --it's just an agreement.

And my argument is that there are no 'rights' to Human rights - UNLESS they are recognised. The ideal is all well and good, but irrelevent. The ideal of human rights is not the same as whether or not there ARE human Rrights, or whether or not we HAVE human rights.

Ideally, we could breathe under water. Realistically - you can try, but it will be a short experiment.
I'm not following you. What does idealising that the human body breathe underwater demonstrate? I agree with you --there are no human rights unless they are recognized. I disagree that there are ever no rights to human rights, unless all humans are ignorant of human rights, or dead.

The ideal is not irrelevant. It *is* the "right", and we who are aware of it all have it.

I see where you're coming from. You ignore the ideal in favour of a piece of legal paper, which is typically materialistic (no offense).

again, if you CHOOSE to ski down the slope, and you break your leg, do we tell you that you have to "take responsibility" by not getting medical treatment?

the other problem you seem to have is that you are claiming that choosing abortion isn't a way to take responsibility. personally, i believe that the ONLY responsible way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy is abortion, but what i believe is responsible is quite different from the concept of "taking responsibility." you seem to think that the natural and necessary consequence of being pregnant is having a baby, when it simply isn't; a woman can choose to deal with a pregnancy in any number of ways, all of which are ways of taking responsibility (except for going into denial and pretending she isn't pregnant until the baby drops out on its own). whether or not you personally like her choice doesn't change the fact that a woman who chooses to abort IS facing the consequences of her actions...she had sex, the consequence was pregnancy. she's dealing with that consequence in the way she believes is right.

Well, you've said very little which I would claim to be untrue. Abortion is a form of taking responsibility in a way, but it's not just about the mother. What I meant by my analogy is this: abortion shifts the consequences to another. Namely, the child. I don't want abortion to be illegal - it is indeed a choice. But I find it to be a selfish choice. A women unprepared for pregnancy shouldn't have sex. The same goes for men, of course.

[QUOTE=Pithica]Why is it the woman's responsibility to resist passion? If abstinance as a method for birth control is as easy as you make it out to be, why can the guy not be held responsible for it?


Women should make it clear from the start if they want to have sex or not,

either go through with it, or make it clear from the beginning you dont want

to, any halfway stuff is not on.



Yes, just as I would be less human if I lost all mental faculty or if my heart or another critical organ ceased to function.

Thats rubbish.



I cannot define 'human' or even imagine a logical definition that doesn't include "thinking" and "breathing", two words that cannot be applied to a zygote.

How about 'developing'.


If you have a definition that includes zygotes and isn't irrational, please share it with the rest of the class. If you cannot come up with one, please stop insisting that they fit mine or that of all historical science and philosophy.

A humans body begins with conception and ends

completely with death, and as you feel free to insist this isnt the case, then

I will exercise my right to say it is, so please dont bring intellectual

snobbery into a debate.

Regardless of how much study you have done in biology, when it comes

down to questions of when does a human being begin, you dont really know.

Actually - a form of 'respiration' and the ability to 'feed and exrete' are also considered life characteristic (biologically speaking) - a foetus starts with neither - since all those processes are initially carried out by the mother, and 'related' to the foetus. By those markers, the foetus isn't actually alive until after birth.

Even if you allow the 'capacity' to breathe or feed, a foetus isn't alive by THOSE markers until about 6 months.

Finally, your point (e) is incorrect, up until about 20+ weeks. A pre-20 week foetus doesn't have the neural capacity to respond to it's environment in any real sense - since it has an incomplete nervous system, and no true brain activity, or even 'real' reflex systems.

Not true. They can move apendages well before then.

[QUOTE=E B Guvegrra]But what about this time? You're not adressing the issue of how you consider it best to deal with something that has happened.


How about accepting responsibility for your actions here instead, for a nice

change?


A seatbelt may have <...plucks figures out of thin air...> 95% chance of avoiding injury in a car accident. An full compliment of air-bags might give you 97.5% chance of avoiding an injury, driving at no more than 5mph might give you a 99.5% chance of avoiding injury (if not road-rage from someone else) and altogether they give you a (hypothetical) 99.999375% chance of avoiding injury. By your argument, you'd never even approach a vehicle, never mind do anything else. Birth control pills are significantly effective, when combined with other precautions (including many forms of 'being active while abstaining') protection is almost complete, but there's always a chance and then what?

Like I said, its mainly about accepting responsibility, not avoiding the whole

act.

There are alot of variables in the annalogy you put up, that you have not as

much influence over, as you do in practicing safe sex.


Yes I was less human. I'm with Chodolo on that one, so presume we two have the same agreement abouyt disagreement?

What if you loose half your body in an accident, and survive on life support

machines for the rest of your life, are you less human for being this way?


Only in a Big Brother state.

PC.

Corruption is not an issue where 'the authorities' have no control that stifles Human Rights to personal privacy. In any society where you are allowed to go your own way, make your own decisions (and mistakes) and aren't guided by the Thought Police, you may commit crimes without any corruption having occured.

So by your reasoning, I can just go murder someone if they tick me off.



By a standard. But what if it's not an accepted national standard? You might well think it immoral to queue-jump, others that it is merely impolite, others don't mind at all when it's a needy person doing so.

A lot of variables here, there is no law or penalty for que jumping, as this

would indeed bring about a big brother like state as you mentioned above.

This is where social manners are necessary and should be encouraged,

politeness is a necessary lubricant for a society to get along with each other,

particularly if this society is overcrowded.

All the 'rage' as its called happening in western citys today, is a result of

this 'social lubrication called manners being gradually eroded by unhealthy

ways of interacting, not being addressed properly in schools or at home,

which is a result of a huge lack of or even non existant discipline, which was

provided by the father.

I believe this 'rage' is a direct result of immorality, which lack of politeness is

also a huge consequence of.

[QUOTE]
Women should make it clear from the start if they want to have sex or not,

either go through with it, or make it clear from the beginning you dont want

to, any halfway stuff is not on.

So then what happens if a woman gets raped? Are you claiming she is still responsible for getting pregnant?
[QUOTE]
A humans body begins with conception

You know, several women miscarry, many before they even know they're pregnant. If life begins at conception, are those women guilty of murder? Wait, they didn't mean to do it; change the charge to manslaughter.

A child outside the womb that needs an organ usually needs one because of a disease. When the fetus is sucked out of the euterus and grinded into a million pieces it is not a natural death. Your taking away his right to live by directly destroying him. If a woman refuses to give a organ to her child(most mother would do it though out of love for their child. Same as fathers. Like in John Q) she won't be killing him. The disease will be killing him. Also, the organ she donates will be permanently gone from her body. A baby just borrows the woman's euterus for 9 months. babies have been using euteruses since Adam and Eve.

If a mother cuts out the organ of her child, she cannot be forced to donate her own.

If she lets her child play with a knife, and it ruptures it's organ, she cannot be forced to donate her own.

Also, in every other case, the point at which you cannot remove consent is when the organ (or blood) enters another person. Guess what? A woman's womb never enters the infant... that simply means she can remove consent to continue donating it at any time.

Many women *won't* have abortions, choosing other options, just like many women *won't* refuse to donate their organ to their child. But the legal state of civilised countries allows anyone, in any situation, to refuse to donate an organ to another.

And that is how it should remain.

I'd never donate my lemon meringue. Unless the person asking was homeless and hadn't eaten for longer than I had. Okay, so I'm ready to share.

In other words, agree with us and what we say, and dont you dare question

it either, yes...

great debater arent you Shaed.

Not.

Ugh, I'd spent too much time in this debate as it was. While I was rather... less than eloquent, it was due to the fact I'd been making the same damn point over and over and over and over, and people just keep ignoring it (or not reading the damn thread).

Hell, I shouldn't even be here now, since I'm all head-ache-y and lacking-of-sleep and loosing blood (stupid menstrual cycle. grrr). I just can't stay away from this debate for some reason. Probably because I'm trying to avoid all the art projects I'm working on currently.

Bloodloss is such a turn-on.

....snip
at NO point does a fetus, baby, child, or adult have the right to co-opt the body of another human for their own maintenance. no living human has the right to use the body of another against that person's wishes. therefore, a woman ALWAYS has the right to have a fetus removed from her body, no matter what stage of gestation it is at.

again you are looking at it from the wrong perspective; it isn't about killing or not killing a "child," it's about the basic human rights of the woman in question. she gets to have the sovereignty of her body, period. now, once a baby is delivered it is no longer attached to the female body, so she doesn't have any right to end its life.
...snip

Yay, my point made readible and logical.

What *would* I do without all the people smarter than me?

Concentrate on your homework instead?

Concentrate on your homework instead?

MwaHahAhaHahAhaHahAha! I have no homework! My exams, they are ended!


Now I just have the twenty or so art projects I've started, which lurk in the background, haunting me.

Oh shit, the comic has broken out of the cellar! Flee while you still ca---

*backs away slowly*

A humans body begins with conception and ends

completely with death, and as you feel free to insist this isnt the case, then

I will exercise my right to say it is, so please dont bring intellectual

snobbery into a debate.

Regardless of how much study you have done in biology, when it comes

down to questions of when does a human being begin, you dont really know.
So, after they're dead they're no longer human? Why does it matter to Christians how we bury them, then?

No, it is not about sovereignty over one's body, especially in cases where one consented to the risk of their body being impregnated. It is about justification for the cessation of life. A parasite is considered a living being, a fetus meets the biological qualifications for life, as such it is a living parasite. However, genetics make it a human being, thus it is a living human being. Also, it is not sustaining itself on the host so as to reproduce, terminate, and populate a new host. It is sustaining itself until it is able to vacate the body. Its presence is limited, not indefinite until terminated or removed.

As a parasitic living human being it is a dependant, and worthy of a duty to be free from harm without justification. Just as an infant is a living human being, dependant on others for survival, and is owed that duty. The difference between the rights of those beeing born or not born is not one based on soundness or validity, or sovereignty over ones body, it is based on changerable documents. There is no other difference with respect to its biological and genetic classification as a living human being dependant upon a parent than such documents.

So, it is not about sovereignty over the body, it is about justification for the taking of a life owed a duty as a dependant. If it is a known danger to the life of its host mother, termination of the pregnancy is justified. If it is done out of convenience or regret for ones consensual actions, it is not justified. This is because it blames a third party for actions it was not a party to, vis a vis, if the pregnancy is gone so to is the inconvenience and the reason for regretting ones actions, and thus terminates its life.

It is about the soveriegnty of life to not be terminated without justification. It is Not about hiding behind a veil of personal sovereignty to be rid of the consequences of ones actions. Cleaning the slate of one life by ending another.

No, it is not about sovereignty over one's body, especially in cases where one consented to the risk of their body being impregnated. It is about justification for the cessation of life. A parasite is considered a living being, a fetus meets the biological qualifications for life, as such it is a living parasite. However, genetics make it a human being, thus it is a living human being. Also, it is not sustaining itself on the host so as to reproduce, terminate, and populate a new host. It is sustaining itself until it is able to vacate the body. Its presence is limited, not indefinite until terminated or removed.

As a parasitic living human being it is a dependant, and worthy of a duty to be free from harm without justification. Just as an infant is a living human being, dependant on others for survival, and is owed that duty. The difference between the rights of those beeing born or not born is not one based on soundness or validity, or sovereignty over ones body, it is based on changerable documents. There is no other difference with respect to its biological and genetic classification as a living human being dependant upon a parent than such documents.

So, it is not about sovereignty over the body, it is about justification for the taking of a life owed a duty as a dependant. If it is a known danger to the life of its host mother, termination of the pregnancy is justified. If it is done out of convenience or regret for ones consensual actions, it is not justified. This is because it blames a third party for actions it was not a party to, vis a vis, if the pregnancy is gone so to is the inconvenience and the reason for regretting ones actions, and thus terminates its life.

It is about the soveriegnty of life to not be terminated without justification. It is Not about hiding behind a veil of personal sovereignty to be rid of the consequences of ones actions. Cleaning the slate of one life by ending another.

So how come I can legally terminate as many lives as I want (through a lack of donation), regardless of whether they need the organs because of my actions?

If another indisputabley human person needs my organs, they can't just take them. Even if they need them because *I* did something to make them need them. Even if I at one point *consented* to giving them to them.

When I remove consent for my organs to be used, as long as they are not already inside the other person, the consent is removed. The organ (or blood) remains my property, and no one else has any right to it.

Why does a fetus, according to your picture, deserve MORE rights than an adult human being (not the mother, I mean more than all the other people who need donations but can't demand consent, or override a lack of consent)?

Also, I would like to point out that abortion can be a consequence of your actions - it results from unwanted pregnancies. It is taking responsiblity for previous actions.

Women who get abortions don't 'blame the third party'. The fact that you presume they do speaks volumes about your understanding a) of women and b) of the psychological impact of abortion.

As a parasitic living human being it is a dependant, and worthy of a duty to be free from harm without justification. Just as an infant is a living human being, dependant on others for survival, and is owed that duty.
"A dependant" is a term that refers to someone who, at some point, exists independent of the person they are depending upon. A dependant is "contingent on another; a person who relies on another person for support (especially financial support)" and the child can only do that when it is an "other" from the person who supports them.

The child is not a parasite; a parasite is a separate species from its host. It is an "other". A parasite is a dependant. A child is not. Until that umbilical cord is cut, it is a part of its mother.

But what about this time? You're not adressing the issue of how you consider it best to deal with something that has happened.How about accepting responsibility for your actions here instead, for a nice change?Something's gone circular in this argument. You're asked what happens if someone responsibly takes precautions which fail, you say "be more careful next time", I ask how this affects the current situation and you say "be responsible". Which they were being (or thought they were).


A seatbelt may have <...plucks figures out of thin air...> 95% chance of avoiding injury in a car accident. An full compliment of air-bags might give you 97.5% chance of avoiding an injury, driving at no more than 5mph might give you a 99.5% chance of avoiding injury (if not road-rage from someone else) and altogether they give you a (hypothetical) 99.999375% chance of avoiding injury. By your argument, you'd never even approach a vehicle, never mind do anything else. Birth control pills are significantly effective, when combined with other precautions (including many forms of 'being active while abstaining') protection is almost complete, but there's always a chance and then what?Like I said, its mainly about accepting responsibility, not avoiding the whole act.

There are alot of variables in the annalogy you put up, that you have not as much influence over, as you do in practicing safe sex.It's a demonstrative analogy, and you do have influence. You wear a seat belt, you wear a condom. You have airbags, you use the pill. You drive at 5mph, you restrict yourself to non-penetrative sex. Even with all those precautions, you could still crash and die, it is still possible to initiate a pregnancy. (While it's extremely unlikely, in both cases, it is possible. Your earlier reasoning suggested you wouldn't even approach a car, by extension of analogy, which is Ok if you don't like cars or don't believe you should be allowed to drive for some reason, but is a stupid waste if the reasoning is that there's an extremely low chance of dying.)


Yes I was less human. I'm with Chodolo on that one, so presume we two have the same agreement abouyt disagreement?What if you loose half your body in an accident, and survive on life support machines for the rest of your life, are you less human for being this way?Depends which half. If I lose my limbs and enough of my torso's internal organs to require life-support but am consscious, I'm definitely human (I may not like it, but i am a thinking human, and hey! maybe they can rebuild me, maybe they have the technology!), but if I do not have my brain-stem and/or significant amounts of the cognitive parts of the brain, then I'm a lump of meat with human DNA, no matter how much my heart and lungs and liver and kidneys work. A lump of meat which can be sustained indefinitely, but there's really no way I'm still alive. (My cells, yes. 'I', as in my 'being', or perhaps even 'soul' if you want to use that word, am no longer alive.)

Only in a Big Brother state.PC.Que? "This is only allowed to exist because of the corruption of the law", you say, with regards to practices (forced into illegality) going underground. I say that it can only involve corruption of the law if guidence and oversight by the law is intimately involved in every practice by a person, otherwise it is purely illegal actions by people, below the normal and natural radar of the law, which is why it is underground. (An 'open secret' ignored by the lawmakers/lawkeepers might involve corruption, but a fully-fledged, proper underground illegal activity is just illegal.)

Corruption is not an issue where 'the authorities' have no control that stifles Human Rights to personal privacy. In any society where you are allowed to go your own way, make your own decisions (and mistakes) and aren't guided by the Thought Police, you may commit crimes without any corruption having occured.So by your reasoning, I can just go murder someone if they tick me off.You are perfectly able to. The act of committing that murder is a crime (since murder is a crime/the crime of such a killing is murder), but there's no corruption. Corruption would occur if you involved a policeman/official in a crime, e.g. paid for their absence/innatentiveness or even for information that they could provide to aid in your crime. Your killing of someone does not constitute corruption, it merely consititutes the standard illegality of murder.

Similarly, being assisted in some way (actively or passively) by an official of the law or government in non-illegal acts is not corruption in the eyes of the law, though you may have issues in breaking sub-legal rules and regulations if that's what your combined actions/ommissions result in.

"Immoral people".
By a standard. But what if it's not an accepted national standard? You might well think it immoral to queue-jump, others that it is merely impolite, others don't mind at all when it's a needy person doing so.A lot of variables here, there is no law or penalty for que jumping, as this would indeed bring about a big brother like state as you mentioned above. This is where social manners are necessary and should be encouraged, politeness is a necessary lubricant for a society to get along with each other, particularly if this society is overcrowded. All the 'rage' as its called happening in western citys today, is a result of this 'social lubrication called manners being gradually eroded by unhealthy ways of interacting, not being addressed properly in schools or at home, which is a result of a huge lack of or even non existant discipline, which was provided by the father.I used queue-jumping as a 'neutral' analogy, to seprate immorality from illegality. A lot of 'immoral' things are illegal. A lot of illegal things are 'immoral'. Some illegal things are not 'immoral' and some 'immoral' things are not illegal. What really confuses the issue is that 'immoral' is subjective, whereas illegal is (at least among the population of a particular jurisdiction) objective. Most things can be classified as illegal or not illegal in a certain situation (case-law being built up around any fuzzy edges) whether or not the people subject to those laws agree whether they should be, but immorality is a movable feast ad different for absolutely every one of us.


Consider the practicing of homosexuality (even some heterosexual sex acts) the use of soft-drugs like cannabis, the refusal to repay money on faulty goods, the taking of jointly-owned household goods when moving out of a relationship. The applicable laws will have something definite to say about each and every one of these, but the 'moral' opinion is going to be different for everyone, regardless of their status in law.

I believe this 'rage' is a direct result of immorality, which lack of politeness is also a huge consequence ofI would not stack anything upon immorality as a firm base. Rage would be best derived from circumstances and complex interactions. With different people, different results, whatever their opinion of immorality.

What's more, identical morals do not guarantee identical results. Imagine two fathers, both with daughters below the age of consent. Both have identical morals, in that they would feel justified in killing a man who took advantage of their daughter. In both cases, the daughter fixates upon an authorative figure, a mere teenage crush that is not reciprocated in kind. One father may perceive the situation as involving a preditative paedophile and take vengeance, the other may understand the situation in context and resolve the situation amicably while the innocent 3rd-party is still reeling from the realisation of what the father may be thinking and planning to do... Rage, in this case, is based on what information, reason and interaction has occurred, and while morals may be the driving force behind each father (one for retribution, the other for resolution) the degree of morality is not a factor in the differences.

Yay, my point made readible and logical.

What *would* I do without all the people smarter than me?If you find you don't need them, for a while, can I have them? :)

Women should make it clear from the start if they want to have sex or not, either go through with it, or make it clear from the beginning you dont want to, any halfway stuff is not on.

You didn't answer my question. If abstinance is so easy, why are you forcing all the responsibility on the woman? Why must she say no?


Thats rubbish.

How? Sapience and the qualities of life (beating heart, breathing lungs) have been the criteria for defining humanity in every culture and every philosophy throughout history. How is it suddenly rubbish just because you claim it is so?


How about 'developing'.

Yes, developping into a human. But potentiality does not equate to actuality.


A humans body begins with conception and ends completely with death, and as you feel free to insist this isnt the case, then I will exercise my right to say it is, so please dont bring intellectual snobbery into a debate.

Regardless of how much study you have done in biology, when it comes down to questions of when does a human being begin, you dont really know.

A human's body begins at the big bang (because that's when the energy and matter it is made from was created) and ends completely with the big crunch (or whatever end of the universe theory turns out to be true). I don't give two shits about the body. I asked you when it's life began. I ask you to give me a definition of life, and especially human life that is internally consistent, logical, includes a fetus, and does not include a severed toe or any other such nonsense.

Until you can do so, we must default to the current scientific definition (which meets the other criteria above), which doesn't include a fetus until it has a functioning nervous system ~20th week. I have a definition that makes sense and is internally consistent (with the added bonuses of being simple and backed by millinea of tradition), I am free to make all the answers about human life I choose to.

If you have a better/different definition/answer, share it with the group. Don't make emotive arguments on no other basis than your claims of truth.

It isn't snobbery to ask for some consistency and logic in your debate. It is a request for the bare minimum requirements for debate.

Not true. They can move apendages well before then.

Muscle spasms during growth does not equate to controlled reaction.

I'd never donate my lemon meringue. Unless the person asking was homeless and hadn't eaten for longer than I had. Okay, so I'm ready to share.


Mmmmm....lemon meringue.

Not true. They can move apendages well before then.

First: just because something moves, doesn't mean it wants to, or is intentional. A nervous 'tick' is caused by a neural misfire... it is not any indication of sentiency, or related in any way to brain-biology/physics or state of consciousness.

Second: Response to stimuli was the key element - if there isn't even a reflex arc, and there is certainly no conscious movement (since no formed brain circuitry) then there is no true response to stimulus - any more than corn waving in the wind is a true 'response to stimulus'.

Your are distinguishing between persons and human beings. A fetus is still a human being. It does not, as an infant does not all, and young children do not depending upon age, poses the qualities of personhood.

A response to stimuli need not be a reflex. An infant does not posess such a quality as well. A response to stimuli is how the organism responds to its environment. A fetus does respond to changes in a womans uterus as it develops. The uterus is its environment, it responds to it. See effects of stress on a fetus. Fetal responses to chemicals... etc.

Corn moving is a forced response. Corn responding to a lack of water, and wilting, is a response to environmental changes, or growing more quickly in resoponse to being exposed to fertilizer. Fetal movement of appendages is sign of a developing nervous system. Infants also have no control over movement.

Willi,

AP considers it a dependant as it has the same characteristics of a dependant. Being that it is a living human being, it should be entitled to the same duty. AP is looking at the dependance factor, not the connective aspect, which is superflous to the main point of the definition.


Others,

There is a difference between being a human being, and being a human person. Please note this. A pregnancy is different from organ doning become it is not a permanent acquisition of those organs. They are not being removed. and never returned. They are still in operation for the mother, and for a short period of time, support the fetus. It is not usurping her of her bodily organs. Removal of organs is considered a mortal battery. What you propose leaves one of two without organs, pregnancy does not. Bottom line, organ donors are not an adequate analogy to pregnancy.

Whether or not it is a direct blame is irrelevant. By terminating the life of another because it was not desired, is absolving oneself of responsibility, and transferring consequence onto the life of another. The difference, inconvenience from a consensual act is discontinued, and results in the loss of life to another human being. If sex was consensual, and pregnancy does not pose a threat to the life of the mother. Then abortion is not justified.

To interject: Using two condoms is much worse than using one, as it makes them more likely to break.

Your are distinguishing between persons and human beings. A fetus is still a human being. It does not, as an infant does not all, and young children do not depending upon age, poses the qualities of personhood.

A response to stimuli need not be a reflex. An infant does not posess such a quality as well. A response to stimuli is how the organism responds to its environment. A fetus does respond to changes in a womans uterus as it develops. The uterus is its environment, it responds to it. See effects of stress on a fetus. Fetal responses to chemicals... etc.

Corn moving is a forced response. Corn responding to a lack of water, and wilting, is a response to environmental changes, or growing more quickly in resoponse to being exposed to fertilizer. Fetal movement of appendages is sign of a developing nervous system. Infants also have no control over movement.

A 'response to stimuli', as required to define life, must be either a reflex, or some other, more 'deliberate' neural interaction. Infants DO have control over movement, you are, I am afraid, wrong. What they DO NOT have is ACCURATE control over movement, but that is a very different thing... a newly delivered baby can grip... through reflex, and a fairly young baby can 'reach' for something, by conscious exertion.

A foetus, less than 20(ish) weeks has NO neural network operating. There is no complete reflex arc 'hardware', and no hardware to process stimuli. Therefore, it is not 'alive' by at least ONE measurement.

And, you cannot use body chemistry and chemical responses to justify 'response to stimuli'.... is Chlorine alive? It reacts 'to' other chemicals - thereby responding to stimulus, yes?

There is some 'movement' of limbs as nerves form... this is true... but it is short-circuit. It is spontaneous discharge of 'static' energy... no more an indication of thought or response than the fuzzy static discharge on my monitor screen.

Willi,

AP considers it a dependant as it has the same characteristics of a dependant. Being that it is a living human being, it should be entitled to the same duty. AP is looking at the dependance factor, not the connective aspect, which is superflous to the main point of the definition.


Others,

There is a difference between being a human being, and being a human person. Please note this. A pregnancy is different from organ doning become it is not a permanent acquisition of those organs. They are not being removed. and never returned. They are still in operation for the mother, and for a short period of time, support the fetus. It is not usurping her of her bodily organs. Removal of organs is considered a mortal battery. What you propose leaves one of two without organs, pregnancy does not. Bottom line, organ donors are not an adequate analogy to pregnancy.

Whether or not it is a direct blame is irrelevant. By terminating the life of another because it was not desired, is absolving oneself of responsibility, and transferring consequence onto the life of another. The difference, inconvenience from a consensual act is discontinued, and results in the loss of life to another human being. If sex was consensual, and pregnancy does not pose a threat to the life of the mother. Then abortion is not justified.

Wrong. There is a difference between consensual INTERCOURSE and consensual PREGNANCY.

The woman has to make that decision - whether SHE is justified in removing that potential life.... or whether she would be justified in KEEPING it!

It cannot be a loss of life, until a life occurs to be lost. Abort before the foetus reaches a point of 'life', and there is no harm.

If you find you don't need them, for a while, can I have them? :)

Well, you'd be better off asking them.

No wait! I'll trade you; my smart people for a set of decent coloured pencils.

And caffeine tablets... I've given up Coke Cola, and am slowly going insane here.

To interject: Using two condoms is much worse than using one, as it makes them more likely to break.

Really? Why's that? Is it only with certain types of condoms?

(*prepares to take notes*)

Really? Why's that? Is it only with certain types of condoms?

Not sure, I guess it's something to do with friction. I just read it on the pack. :p

Really? Why's that? Is it only with certain types of condoms?

(*prepares to take notes*)
it really is true, and for pretty much all kinds of condoms. even if condoms are lubricated, the latex of each condom will come into contact with the other, and they will abrade one another. if you've ever just held latex material you know what i mean; it kind of sticks to itself, and if you try to slide it against itself it kind of catches a little bit. this interaction will stretch and weaken each condom, and increase the likelihood that each will have tears or breaks. ribbed condoms, as you would guess, are most likely to show this, but ALL condoms will suffer from this problem.

it really is true, and for pretty much all kinds of condoms. even if condoms are lubricated, the latex of each condom will come into contact with the other, and they will abrade one another. if you've ever just held latex material you know what i mean; it kind of sticks to itself, and if you try to slide it against itself it kind of catches a little bit. this interaction will stretch and weaken each condom, and increase the likelihood that each will have tears or breaks. ribbed condoms, as you would guess, are most likely to show this, but ALL condoms will suffer from this problem.

It's the same as the reason why condoms are lubricated in the first place... two 'membranes' (be they soft tissue or latex) will have a degree of cohesion between them - hence they lubricate condoms... now, if you look at two latex membranes, each 'anchored' at only one point, and each contacting a different 'tissue' membrane, there are going to be two 'external' friction coefficients, and one 'internal' friction coefficient, between the condoms.

At the risk of being gross... it's kind of like the idea of having condomless sex with no lubrication... natural or otherwise.... and the effect that would have on the soft-tissue membranes of the individuals....

Grave,

Previously disccused when a fetus reaches life, technically (bilogically and genitcally), it begins after conception and the first cell has formed. Engaging in intercourse is where the potential for life exists.

If you engage in intercourse you do not choose whether or not that results in pregnancy-you can however, take precautions to lower the risk of that occuring-to prevent fertilizaion. That no choice exists whether one becomes pregnant or not after fertilization occurs and a cell is formed, pregnancy is not a matter of consent.

That pregnancy is the incubation of life, society can bestow rights or a duty of care to that life. If society does so, abortion can be restricted, and those desiring to do so can be required to provide justification that warrants the termination of the life of another.

To clarify use of the term cell.

It is a developing, living, human being. Applying the qualifications for life dictated by biology, and identification of an organism based on genetics. More than a dictionary has been used to posture this stance.

(This comment not directed at Grave, but those in the habit of basing and analyzing arguments using terms as described in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the Bible.)

Grave,

Previously disccused when a fetus reaches life, technically (bilogically and genitcally), it begins after conception and the first cell has formed. Engaging in intercourse is where the potential for life exists.

If you engage in intercourse you do not choose whether or not that results in pregnancy-you can however, take precautions to lower the risk of that occuring-to prevent fertilizaion. That no choice exists whether one becomes pregnant or not after fertilization occurs and a cell is formed, pregnancy is not a matter of consent.

That pregnancy is the incubation of life, society can bestow rights or a duty of care to that life. If society does so, abortion can be restricted, and those desiring to do so can be required to provide justification that warrants the termination of the life of another.

I totally disagree, I am afraid.

See - after the first cell is formed... that's not a good time to refer to as a definition of life... because that cell is still just a cell, and, fully a third of these early cell-forms bypass the uterus completely.

A better time to choose would be the implantation stage - but even that has it's draw-backs... since the implanted 'egg' cannot feed, etc... immediately - further processes are required, such as the formation of a placenta... a 'feeding and waste-elimination' mechanism.

Of course, the problem with that is, that a placenta is, clearly, not a life-form - so what is it that characterises the foetus as different from the placenta? Both are 'human' tissue, both are 'growing'... one of them is vaguely 'baby-shaped'... but so is a foetal-fish, so you can't use 'form' as your characteristic of division.

They share the same genetic code, they both carry out pretty much the same requirements of 'life'... and they both fail to 'respond to stimuli' in anything but a most basic toxicity fashion.

The real difference occurs with the formation of neural paths. At THAT point, the foetus can do something that sets it aside... that could arguably make it 'more of a life-form' than the placenta - it can 'respond' to stimuli.

So - the formation of the functioning neural pathway is the LOGICAL start of 'life'.

(Regarding consensual pregnancy: A man and a woman TRYING to have a baby are an example of consensual pregnancy. A couple trying to have sex, isn't an example of consensual pregnancy.)

So - if there were to be a ban on abortion, based on the sanctity of 'life', there is no reason for that ban to extend any earlier than about 20-24 weeks. Before that cut-off point, it is not about a 'life', it is about cells that MIGHT become a life.

Of course, the christian right in america ARGUES life, but means that they believe their holy book condemns abortion. If they ever have the honesty to admit that, I will gain a whole lot more respect for their case.

I will still disagree, but at least I will respect their platform.

To clarify use of the term cell.

It is a developing, living, human being. Applying the qualifications for life dictated by biology, and identification of an organism based on genetics. More than a dictionary has been used to posture this stance.

(This comment not directed at Grave, but those in the habit of basing and analyzing arguments using terms as described in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and the Bible.)

See, that's the thing, though.

For a large amount of the time, a foetus DOESN'T fulfil the requirements for 'life' that biology postulates.

The EARLIEST point at which the foetus begins to approach the biological definition of a true 'life form', is at about 20-24 weeks.

A 'response to stimuli', as required to define life, must be either a reflex, or some other, more 'deliberate' neural interaction.

Throughout pregnancy there is interaction between the developing organism and its environment. Implantation is a response to the surrounding environment. It is a function of the fertilized cell, and strangely enough, does not always occur in the womb. if interested see studies such as: Abdominal pregnancy with implantation of fertilized egg into the liverAkush Ginekol (Mosk). 1952 Sep-Oct;7(5):90. Deformalities can be a response to chemical influences.

Neural interaction is not a requisite. Single celled organism responses are chemical, not neural. Chemical reactions in response to stimuli, are responses. A chemical does not qualify due to the other factors.

And caffeine tablets... I've given up Coke Cola, and am slowly going insane here.
I tried giving up Coke; it's not easy. :-(
Do caffeine tabs help?

Just noticed other respoonses Grave, am currently reviewing.

Like where you are going and will re-evaluate stance before submittting a respone.

Tip of tongue: significant nutrients to the developing mammalian preimplantation embryo are carbohydrates and amino acids, which serve not only to provide energy but also to maintain embryo function by preventing cellular stress. (Also used for cellular division if unsure of where I am going)

Do not agree with this however: A man and a woman TRYING to have a baby are an example of consensual pregnancy. A couple trying to have sex, isn't an example of consensual pregnancy.

AP's take: Engaging in intercourse is the acceptance of the risk of pregnancy occuring. Consequences of actions, resulting from consent to the risk, are not consensual issues.

Throughout pregnancy there is interaction between the developing organism and its environment. Implantation is a response to the surrounding environment. It is a function of the fertilized cell, and strangely enough, does not always occur in the womb. if interested see studies such as: Abdominal pregnancy with implantation of fertilized egg into the liverAkush Ginekol (Mosk). 1952 Sep-Oct;7(5):90. Deformalities can be a response to chemical influences.

Neural interaction is not a requisite. Single celled organism responses are chemical, not neural. Chemical reactions in response to stimuli, are responses. A chemical does not qualify due to the other factors.

In a complex 'animal' organism, I would argue that neural response is the requisite interaction. Sure, a virus responds to non-neural stimulus, but that isn't a 'true' reaction to stimulus... and it is one of the reasons why there is STILL debate about whether a virus truly qualifies as life.

In mono-cellular life, organelles perform certain (what I guess you could call) patrolling functions - but still, the reaction to stimulus is a chemical/physical reaction, albeit augmented by organelle processes.

Are you now trying to argue that a just-fertilised foetus is the 'same' type of life as an amoeba? No - well, then the point is irrelevent.

We ARE a more complex creature. We require more complex function, and more complex definition.

You say "Chemical reactions in response to stimuli, are responses. A chemical does not qualify due to the other factors"... and it is a good job you tacked the last bit on... since, a bimetallic strip is a clear example of a 'response to stimulus' that has nothing to do with actual 'responsiveness' or 'life'.

My argument is, the amoeba is basically a complex bimetallic strip... and, since we are not amoeba (at least, I'm not) - one has to assume that we do not fit the 'amoebic requirements for life' checklist.

Do not agree with this however: A man and a woman TRYING to have a baby are an example of consensual pregnancy. A couple trying to have sex, isn't an example of consensual pregnancy.

AP's take: Engaging in intercourse is the acceptance of the risk of pregnancy occuring. Consequences of actions, resulting from consent to the risk, are not consensual issues.

that's it, though. our hardware makes us want sex. It doesn't make us want pregnancy.

Our software may want sex AND may want pregnancy OR may not want pregnancy... but our hardware is still geared up for sex.

Engaging in intercourse is often a hard enough feat, on it's own... due to the wonders of human interaction... and pregnancy is unlikely to be the chief determining factor in the decision. Not to say that it is impossible to be careful... but that is very much about software controlling the hardware... and not everyone has the same software.

In my utopian vision, the government slips sterilising agents into the water supply, and you drink that all your life. The agent can be reversed with a chemical, but the chemical is ONLY provided when the criteria for parenthood are met... like stability, psychological fitness, etc.

Gets rid of a whole load of the modern problems.

Like your utopia. Brave New Worldish...

Good observation of why I tacked that on...

You outlined where our difference lends itself to a value split: We ARE a more complex creature. We require more complex function, and more complex definition.

The qualifications are designed to be universal. Its application can be become more complex as we develop. However, it still applies at our most basic state of development. This is logical, as the qualifications of life apply to a developing human being at all stages of its life cycle.

If I am to adopt your train of thought I would no longer consider a tadpole to be a living frog. It would be seperate and distinct. Thus, attempts to prevent takings of endagered frogs would entail the loophole of killing tadpoles. To be successful, AP's ESA entails preventing a taking at any stage of the life cycle. So, for consistency, where the qualifications for life apply to a human being, at any stage of development, it is considered a alive, and entitled to reights or duties pertaining to it being a living, developing human being.

I am still going to look more into your other responses. As they represent comparisons, placenta v. embryo, that have not previously been considered. Main contention would be that the embryo is alive and capable of growth and development leading to independant functionality. But will take time to develop further.

In my utopian vision, the government slips sterilising agents into the water supply, and you drink that all your life. The agent can be reversed with a chemical, but the chemical is ONLY provided when the criteria for parenthood are met... like stability, psychological fitness, etc.

Gets rid of a whole load of the modern problems.
see, and i wouldn't even make there be standards for getting the antidote, i would just make it so that you have to go down to city hall and sign a form to get it. that way there is a paper trail to prove that you intentionally got the antidote, and you can't later claim that you were tricked into getting pregnant or any such thing. making people go out of their way to get the antidote, even if there is no test or standards associated with getting it, will get rid of 90% of the problem because there will be no more "oops" babies. i don't like the idea of the government deciding who can and cannot have kids, but i love the idea of making sure that nobody ever gets pregnant by accident.

If I am to adopt your train of thought I would no longer consider a tadpole to be a living frog.

no, a tadpole would be like a human child. still a "frog" in the way that a child is still a human. a frog egg would be the equivalent of a human fetus.


Thus, attempts to prevent takings of endagered frogs would entail the loophole of killing tadpoles.

in the US, at least, regulations on protection of endangered species always has to include a special caveat for offspring that aren't gestated inside the body of the female; protecting condors, for example, required specific provisos regarding their eggs.


To be successful, AP's ESA entails preventing a taking at any stage of the life cycle. So, for consistency, where the qualifications for life apply to a human being, at any stage of development, it is considered a alive, and entitled to reights or duties pertaining to it being a living, developing human being.

you just talked yourself in a loop. first you must establish and define what a human being is, otherwise that statement means nothing. if all living human tissue with unique DNA is a human being then a tumor is a human being and should be granted all the rights and privaledges thereof.

No loop, read previous posts.

A tadpole is unable to survive outside of its watery environment. As a fetus is unable to survive outside of a womb. A child is able to survive and develop in the same environment as its parent.

That caveats exist to protect the life cycle of other animals, but not for human ones, is the inconsistency AP wishes to avoid.

Hi (Me druk Dane... english is not my native language) :-)

Who is not PRO life?!

But does it make you able to judge what is wrong and right?

Don´t use the bible as a moral standard! That might be a sin!

Think before you tell me what you are "Thinking"!? You might be wrong!!

Most of you make a good a point about why it is a good idear to perserve and protect life.

-Do you follow it yourself? Is death pelnalty a good idear? Are you thinking the war in Iraq is... justified? Are you against gun control? Do you think a good MORAL is better than EDUCATION, when are educating young people teenagers about SEX?

To think you are RIGHT takes no BRAIN... to admit you might be wrong takes courage... and BRAIN!

my opinion on this is that abbortion should only be allowed in 1st trimester, if the women was raped or if her life is in danger. that way they have plenty of time to decide if they want an abbortion, and they can also be saved if they find out later that the women may die from the pregnancy...

The Main Point of AP is justification with respect to abortion as a fetus is arguably a living human being. Justification is a great concept to think about when drunk. It allows for consistency between not allowing abortion without justification, and allowing the death penalty with justification.

To re-analyze ones ideas in light of counterarguments is a form of concession, however, re-presenting the idea with modification is not denial of being wrong. It is attempting to concretely discern whether or not one is ultimately wrong or right.

How can someone who claimes to be pro-life, and thus wants to protect all life, be the same person who dismisses stem cell research which would save the lives of many at the cost of none? And why is it that those who seem to be the most pro-life are the ones who send innocent kids off to die in wars?

I tried giving up Coke; it's not easy. :-(
Do caffeine tabs help?

I don't know. I'm assuming that my cravings are for the caffeine, although it might be for the sugar, or even the teeny, tiny amount of alcohol in Coke.

Luckily I'm on holidays now, so I don't need caffeine to keep me awake through school anymore (yay for being able to sleep in!)

Like your utopia. Brave New Worldish...

Good observation of why I tacked that on...

You outlined where our difference lends itself to a value split: We ARE a more complex creature. We require more complex function, and more complex definition.

The qualifications are designed to be universal. Its application can be become more complex as we develop. However, it still applies at our most basic state of development. This is logical, as the qualifications of life apply to a developing human being at all stages of its life cycle.

If I am to adopt your train of thought I would no longer consider a tadpole to be a living frog. It would be seperate and distinct. Thus, attempts to prevent takings of endagered frogs would entail the loophole of killing tadpoles. To be successful, AP's ESA entails preventing a taking at any stage of the life cycle. So, for consistency, where the qualifications for life apply to a human being, at any stage of development, it is considered a alive, and entitled to reights or duties pertaining to it being a living, developing human being.

I am still going to look more into your other responses. As they represent comparisons, placenta v. embryo, that have not previously been considered. Main contention would be that the embryo is alive and capable of growth and development leading to independant functionality. But will take time to develop further.

I don't see it that way... the way I figure it, the foetal 'cell' is like the frog-spawn, is like a bird's egg, is like an apple seed. You could harvest all of those things to try to ensure the continuance of the species - but none of those things is a living example of the species. The chick, the tadpole, the infant, and the sapling are the 'young' of the species, and, arguably, a definite marker of where life IS... although not necessarily where it starts.

I don't think you can use different criteria of 'alive' for one species, so as to argue that you have a life-form earlier rather than later. If we were amoebic, I would accept the first 'cell' as a valid example... because that would be definitive of what constitutes our existence. We are far beyond a uni-cellular form, however, so - while the same requirement exists (i.e. response to stimulus) - a much more complex criterion needs to be acheived to meet that requirement.

And, the qualifications of life AREN'T universal... that's part of the problem, perhaps. A plant is not required to show the same 'complexity' of movement that a member of the animal kingdom needs to demonstrate, and how do you really describe respiration in a mono-cellular creature? The goal posts of the definition have to shift to accomodate the complexity of the organism - and our 'organism' requires a complexity that is best, and first, matched, at about 20-24 weeks. Before that point, it is tissue, of human genetic structure, to be sure, but not 'a' human.

see, and i wouldn't even make there be standards for getting the antidote, i would just make it so that you have to go down to city hall and sign a form to get it. that way there is a paper trail to prove that you intentionally got the antidote, and you can't later claim that you were tricked into getting pregnant or any such thing. making people go out of their way to get the antidote, even if there is no test or standards associated with getting it, will get rid of 90% of the problem because there will be no more "oops" babies. i don't like the idea of the government deciding who can and cannot have kids, but i love the idea of making sure that nobody ever gets pregnant by accident.

I also am wary of too much government control... but, I'm being kind of realistic... the government already HAS way too much control..

Anyway, the reason I suggested the testing... some people want children. But, the 'want' passes (and, yes, in your model, they have left a paper trail, but we are still left with an unwanted kid) or they 'want' a child, but are fundamentally unsuited to care for one.

I'm not saying it should be the "history of kings and queens", complex math, and grammar comprehension... or that you should have to have certain political or religious values... but I would like to see the process (for want of a better word) regulated! You have to take a test to drive a car, or own a gun... because of risks of harm, and assessment of suitability. I just think, in my little Utopia, there... why take extra chances?

People could freely have all the sex they want with no fear of pregnancy (although, of course, disease is still an issue), and there are vanishingly small amounts of unwanted children, or crazy parents killing the kids they never should have had.

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

1. What Constitution gives incompetant females the "Right" to kill. In the US, "Rights" are documented, NOT ONLY DESIRED BY ACLU/DemoCraps.

What Constitution gives incompetant females the "Right" to kill.
Oh boy... You're lucky I'm far away from you and I just ate some chocolate...
Do you understand the medical notion of competence? Because THAT'S the only notion of competence someone has to fulfil to have a medical procedure carried out.
Basically it comes down to them being able to understand information supplied by the healthcare provider and make an informed decision free of coercion.
That deals with the competent part.

And I'm sure in many cases iI'm sure the partner of the pregnant woman has a say in it too. Although I do believe it's her ultimate decision. And besides, I'm sure if men had uteruses they'd have terminations too...
What gives YOU the right to ruin the life of a competent female?

And whether it's killing is up for debate.

Oh boy... You're lucky I'm far away from you and I just ate some chocolate...
Do you understand the medical notion of competence? Because THAT'S the only notion of competence someone has to fulfil to have a medical procedure carried out.
Basically it comes down to them being able to understand information supplied by the healthcare provider and make an informed decision free of coercion.
That deals with the competent part.

And I'm sure in many cases iI'm sure the partner of the pregnant woman has a say in it too. Although I do believe it's her ultimate decision. And besides, I'm sure if men had uteruses they'd have terminations too...
What gives YOU the right to ruin the life of a competent female?

And whether it's killing is up for debate.

It's not a debate. It's "who has 5 votes on the Supreme Court NEXT YEAR".

It's not a debate. It's "who has 5 votes on the Supreme Court NEXT YEAR".

Ugh.

Neural interaction is not a requisite. Single celled organism responses are chemical, not neural. Chemical reactions in response to stimuli, are responses. A chemical does not qualify due to the other factors.

Then, by your qualifications. A flame is alive. A placenta is a seperate living organism. So is a severed toe.

Your definition of what constitutes the qualities of life is not internally consistent with reality.

Then, by your qualifications. A flame is alive. A placenta is a seperate living organism. So is a severed toe.

Your definition of what constitutes the qualities of life is not internally consistent with reality.

Ahhh... I think the question here is 'whose reality'?

After all, socipaths frequently imagine that they are the only 'real' person, with real emotions and so forth, and often are completely devoid of empathy.

I see many people here who seem completely 100% incapable of showing empathy ("Why yes, I WOULD force my 12 year old daughter to carry my brother's child, even if her life would be at risk if she had to give birth... why, is there something wrong with that?").

This whole debate makes my mind ache.

The Main Point of AP is justification with respect to abortion as a fetus is arguably a living human being. Justification is a great concept to think about when drunk. It allows for consistency between not allowing abortion without justification, and allowing the death penalty with justification.

To re-analyze ones ideas in light of counterarguments is a form of concession, however, re-presenting the idea with modification is not denial of being wrong. It is attempting to concretely discern whether or not one is ultimately wrong or right.

On a personal note, you're making an excellent argument on the 'life' side of the debate. I still disagree with you in regards to the qualities of life, as I do not believe your definition is internally consistent, and I find it both a moral and a legal quagmire for one to consider a single cell (or clump) to have the same (or even any) rights as a fully formed human.

It would be nice though, if you could also answer the question in regards to the 'organ/tissue donation' part of the debate. Because even if you turned out to be completely right on the above argument, we have still yet to hear an answer to that question from the anti-abortion side. In case it was missed, it goes:

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

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

On a personal note, you're making an excellent argument on the 'life' side of the debate. I still disagree with you in regards to the qualities of life, as I do not believe your definition is internally consistent, and I find it both a moral and a legal quagmire for one to consider a single cell (or clump) to have the same (or even any) rights as a fully formed human.

It would be nice though, if you could also answer the question in regards to the 'organ/tissue donation' part of the debate. Because even if you turned out to be completely right on the above argument, we have still yet to hear an answer to that question from the anti-abortion side. In case it was missed, it goes:

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

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

It's not that complicated, and the "Red" states have about had it with your irrelevant, psuedo-intellectual, uninformed, unscientific, psychobabble. The old Liberal Supreme Court allowed unrestricted abortion, and the soon-to-be new Supreme Court will add some needed restrictions. Irresponsible people can always go to France, Germany, Canada, or Mexico to atone. "The Right of Abortion" is not mentioned in the US Constitution, and is therefore prohibited.

It's not that complicated, and the "Red" states have about had it with your irrelevant, psuedo-intellectual, uninformed, unscientific, psychobabble. The old Liberal Supreme Court allowed unrestricted abortion, and the soon-to-be new Supreme Court will add some needed restrictions. Irresponsible people can always go to France, Germany, Canada, or Mexico to atone. "The Right of Abortion" is not mentioned in the US Constitution, and is therefore prohibited.
BlindLiberals, you are the best support for the pro-choice position we have had all thread...somebody presents reasoned, logical points, and you respond with vitriol and random attempts to use the word "liberal" as an insult. what was presented to you was completely relavent, informed, scientific, and was based on the Constitution of the United States that you claim to be so concerned with. i would suggest you take a deep breath, step back, and look at the issue with a clearer head...i realize this is an emotional topic, but we won't get anywhere if people let their feelings cloud their judgment and their thinking.

It's not that complicated, and the "Red" states have about had it with your irrelevant, psuedo-intellectual, uninformed, unscientific, psychobabble. The old Liberal Supreme Court allowed unrestricted abortion, and the soon-to-be new Supreme Court will add some needed restrictions. Irresponsible people can always go to France, Germany, Canada, or Mexico to atone. "The Right of Abortion" is not mentioned in the US Constitution, and is therefore prohibited.

Thing one: I live in a Red state. Thing two: I was once a political activist on the pro-life side. Maybe I am just to simple to see it, but when I heard the argument espoused above, I was unable to come up with an answer for it. That lack of reasoning got me to think, and re-think, and I have come to the conclusion I am at today. If you have a response, please, do me and everyone else here a favor and answer the question.

So far, every response to it has been one of emotive bile. If all you can do is vomit up poor excuses for insults to me, then I am afraid that you lose.

BlindLiberals, you are the best support for the pro-choice position we have had all thread...somebody presents reasoned, logical points, and you respond with vitriol and random attempts to use the word "liberal" as an insult. what was presented to you was completely relavent, informed, scientific, and was based on the Constitution of the United States that you claim to be so concerned with. i would suggest you take a deep breath, step back, and look at the issue with a clearer head...i realize this is an emotional topic, but we won't get anywhere if people let their feelings cloud their judgment and their thinking.

"We" are about to get somewhere. When your "Free-Moral-Equal-Rightness" is reversed by the next Supreme Court, you liverals will be screaming like stuck pigs; and your savior, the ACLU, will have been disbanded. [P.S. I expect one of your crybabies to challenge my spelling; instead of responding to content.]

What content? You mean the hypocracy of crying out "activist judges" whenever they side for something you disagree with; yet your current, pleading raging against the dying of the light in the hopes that they will change something for you? :rolleyes:

That isn't content. It's a cry for psychiatric help.

Answer the freaking question. Explain the dichotomy inherent in your viewpoint. For once, be a rational adult about the debate.

It would be nice though, if you could also answer the question in regards to the 'organ/tissue donation' part of the debate. Because even if you turned out to be completely right on the above argument, we have still yet to hear an answer to that question from the anti-abortion side. In case it was missed, it goes:

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

If abortion were made illegal, it would be the one, and only exception to this rule. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a logical and founded reasoning for the exception and I would really like to hear one.
This "side" is really founded in the laws of the land --one land --based on the human right of security of person. One argument against it could be found in the laws and morals of a different land. But since the argument seems primarily to deal with abortion in the United States and nowhere else, such arguments would not contribute meaningfully to the thread at all. So either way, you're not likely to hear them.

The old Liberal Supreme Court allowed unrestricted abortion, and the soon-to-be new Supreme Court will add some needed restrictions.

Unrestricted abortion has never been allowed by the Supreme Court.

You know, you really should *try* to carry on an intelligent conversation.

Irresponsible people can always go to France, Germany, Canada, or Mexico to atone. "The Right of Abortion" is not mentioned in the US Constitution, and is therefore prohibited.

"The Right of Planting Oak Trees" is not mentioned in the US Constitution, and is therefore prohibited.

Don't be silly.

On a personal note, you're making an excellent argument on the 'life' side of the debate. I still disagree with you in regards to the qualities of life, as I do not believe your definition is internally consistent, and I find it both a moral and a legal quagmire for one to consider a single cell (or clump) to have the same (or even any) rights as a fully formed human.



I just want to take a second out, to second what Pithica said, here:

Anti Pharisaism - I commend you, for consistent excellent posts - resourced, thought-out, and coherent. Indeed, rarities for either side of the debate - and, unfortunately, much more so for the pro-life camp.

Thank you for restoring my faith in the capacity for debate.

:)

i think us pro-choicers have had to explain outselves plenty over the past week. it's your turn.

while it's all well and good that you don't have abortions yourselves, what makes you think you can deny others the right?

Simple.
No matter what stage a baby is at, it is still a human being. Murder is against the law. Killing a fellow human being is defined as muderer.

Unless the mother was raped, or the mother and/or the baby will die in the birthing process, Abortion is plain old wrong.

I don't know what turn this has taken b/c i don't feel like reading 1000 posts but Why I am pro-life is because I know from research that not only does abortion kill a human life but it does horrible damage to the mother that can lead to other health complications that may kill her. So when I say I am pro-life, I am pro-life for both the mother and the child.

The government is obligated to protect all its people from death or harm or whatever so they are obligated, in my opinon, to make abortion at any stage illegal

Oh boy... You're lucky I'm far away from you and I just ate some chocolate...
Do you understand the medical notion of competence? Because THAT'S the only notion of competence someone has to fulfil to have a medical procedure carried out.
Basically it comes down to them being able to understand information supplied by the healthcare provider and make an informed decision free of coercion.
That deals with the competent part.

And I'm sure in many cases iI'm sure the partner of the pregnant woman has a say in it too. Although I do believe it's her ultimate decision. And besides, I'm sure if men had uteruses they'd have terminations too...
What gives YOU the right to ruin the life of a competent female?

And whether it's killing is up for debate.

She is the one who CHOSE to take the risk of becoming pregnant!

Then, by your qualifications. A flame is alive. A placenta is a seperate living organism. So is a severed toe.

Your definition of what constitutes the qualities of life is not internally consistent with reality.


Please read previous posts. It is internally consistent. Treating the result of conception as an orgainism, qualifying it as alive based on biological qualifications, and basing its identity as being a human being on its genetics, and use of those genetics (repication, transcription) (abbreviated version). From that standpoint, I would not qualify a placenta or an appendage, or flame as alive.

Still internally processing whether standards of life should apply during all phases of the human life cycle, from single celled organism engaging in cellular division, or to set it at a point where it posesses all of the functioning organs of a complex human being.

Am not imposing rights but rather, a duty of care, which is different.

Please read previous posts. It is internally consistent. Treating the result of conception as an orgainism, qualifying it as alive based on biological qualifications, and basing its identity as being a human being on its genetics, and use of those genetics (repication, transcription) (abbreviated version). From that standpoint, I would not qualify a placenta or an appendage, or flame as alive.

The result of conception does not meet all of the biological qualifications to be an organism.

Simple.
No matter what stage a baby is at, it is still a human being. Murder is against the law. Killing a fellow human being is defined as muderer.

Unless the mother was raped, or the mother and/or the baby will die in the birthing process, Abortion is plain old wrong.
As I have asked countless times, how can the abortion clinic prove beyond reasonable doubt whether or not one woman's pregnancy was the result of rape? If you will make allowances for rape, then you must admit to yourself that some people will lie and get an abortion anyways. Besides, how is a foetus concieved in rape different than a foetus concieved otherwise?

:
Originally Posted by Pithica
On a personal note, you're making an excellent argument on the 'life' side of the debate. I still disagree with you in regards to the qualities of life, as I do not believe your definition is internally consistent, and I find it both a moral and a legal quagmire for one to consider a single cell (or clump) to have the same (or even any) rights as a fully formed human.





I just want to take a second out, to second what Pithica said, here:

Anti Pharisaism - I commend you, for consistent excellent posts - resourced, thought-out, and coherent. Indeed, rarities for either side of the debate - and, unfortunately, much more so for the pro-life camp.

Thank you for restoring my faith in the capacity for debate.

Thank you to both of you as well. It is good to engage in such discussions as it evolves beyond what someone thinks is morally right, and stays routed in tangible concepts, and debates their application.

I refuse to just say something is alive and entitled to rights or duty of care, if I can not explain it in a consistent, and coherent method, that is based on the same standards as those with whom I am discussing the issue. If it means I am stepping out of my comfort zone, and accepting that I may be wrong, then so be it.

Frustrating are the discussions where those who agree with you for a different reason outcast you because your belief system is not the same as their's. Especially when their belief system is one that is based on tolerance, and forgiveness.

Equally frustrating, are those, from both sides, who make an unsupprted statement, and then dodge out of the discussion.

I am of the belief that life, though in part a moral value judgment, should not be completely explained as such.

All murder is killing not all killing is murder.

From a legal perspective, if a fetus is to be owed a duty of care, that duty would exist, even if the result of rape.

This is because if it was entitled to such a duty, terminating it would be unjustified, as it is not responsible for the battery and emotional distress incurred from its creation. Under such a scenario, termination would only be permittted if it posed a known threat to the existence of the mother. So the right would not be completely elliminated, but severely restricted.

Pithica Yesterday, 11:07 AM As a human being, I have the rights (at least in my country, and in every other one I have ever heard of), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if it is my wife, parent, best friend, and even most especially my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

Sorry, thought I had addressed this, if not here than in another thread where similar point was made.

Donation is the complete loss of those organs. Your use is being denied, and another’s use of them granted, permanently. A fundamental difference between them being used to support progeny for a specific time period, that does not deny one the use of her organs.

Now, when one commits a negligent or intentional criminal act or tort, they should be accountable. Should their organs be compatible, then perhaps they should be donated. Morally, this could be considered justified. In your example, the difference is a forced complete usurpation of the organ. This is not discomfort for a period of time, but inflicting a mortal wound on one, for the mortal wound he has committed to another. However, it is different than abortion, as you could be in the position of comparing the relative value of two lives, i.e what you propose could result in the court deciding which life should be lost, whereas abortion is for the survival of all beings involved, if the woman is endangered abortion is justified. Under the aforementioned description, the court, based on its definition of mortal wounds (losses of appendiges/organs, and death ) would be handing out sentences paramount to death in all cases, and certain in some.

Sorry, thought I had addressed this, if not here than in another thread where similar point was made.

Donation is the complete loss of those organs. Your use is being denied, and another’s use of them granted, permanently. A fundamental difference between them being used to support progeny for a specific time period, that does not deny one the use of her organs.

Now, when one commits a negligent or intentional criminal act or tort, they should be accountable. Should their organs be compatible, then perhaps they should be donated. Morally, this could be considered justified. In your example, the difference is a forced complete usurpation of the organ. This is not discomfort for a period of time, but inflicting a mortal wound on one, for the mortal wound he has committed to another. However, it is different than abortion, as you could be in the position of comparing the relative value of two lives, i.e what you propose could result in the court deciding which life should be lost, whereas abortion is for the survival of all beings involved, if the woman is endangered abortion is justified. Under the aforementioned description, the court, based on its definition of mortal wounds (losses of appendiges/organs, and death ) would be handing out sentences paramount to death in all cases, and certain in some.

Actually, the consent for donation only become irreversible when the organ/blood enters another person. Up to that point, consent can be removed. If the organ/blood never enters the infant, the argument would be that consent can be removed at any time, not that it is not a donation.

And if another person is USING my organ, I consider that a donation of my organ. It is indisputibly MY organ, and that leads to one of two scenarios:

The infant meets the requirements to be classed a separate organism, and so is no longer a part of the mother (in this case, me... *shudders*). She is able to remove consent, because no other person should be allowed to use another human's organs against their will (whether the organs are 'taken' or not, they are still being co-opted for another's gain - I can't demand to be plugged into your liver for nine months now, can I?). The infant is not her, and so cannot use her organs without her consent.

Or

The infant does not meet the requirements to be classed as a separate organism, and counts as either a non-sentinent growth (similar to a cancer or cyst) and can be removed via surgery, or is considered an organelle of the mother's (similar to an appendix) and can be removed through surgery.

Since almost all elective abortions occur before the child can be classed a separate organism, the issue isn't very pressing. After it becomes an separate being, it's already currently protected, unless it (or the mother) has a disease/disorder that would make child-birth a dangerous prospect.

Simple.
No matter what stage a baby is at, it is still a human being. Murder is against the law. Killing a fellow human being is defined as muderer.

Unless the mother was raped, or the mother and/or the baby will die in the birthing process, Abortion is plain old wrong.

Do you not hear the hypocracy in your own statement? "Killing a person is murder, unless their father was in some way horrible, then it's okay."

One, your first sentence has no supporting evidence, and goes against differentiations in the law as it regards to rights of an individual. Two, your second sentence is dead on, murder is defined by its legality. Three, your third sentence contradicts the second, as there are multiple ways to kill your fellow human beings without it being defined or considered to be murder (I.E. soldiers, cops, self-defense, sanctioned executions, etc.)

I don't know what turn this has taken b/c i don't feel like reading 1000 posts but Why I am pro-life is because I know from research that not only does abortion kill a human life but it does horrible damage to the mother that can lead to other health complications that may kill her. So when I say I am pro-life, I am pro-life for both the mother and the child.

One, what research?

News flash! A 'normal' and 'healthy' pregnancy carried to term can lead to health complications that may kill the mother. In fact, last time I checked (and I will have to dig up my cites for this), the odds were about dead even in regards to the risks of birth v abortion for the mother.

The government is obligated to protect all its people from death or harm or whatever so they are obligated, in my opinon, to make abortion at any stage illegal

No it isn't. If it was sanctioned executions would never take place and prisons would be made 'safe'. Criminals are part of "all its people" too.

Aside: for the record, I am personally not against capital punishment, I am just trying to illustrate how your point is based on false pretenses.

Please read previous posts. It is internally consistent. Treating the result of conception as an orgainism, qualifying it as alive based on biological qualifications, and basing its identity as being a human being on its genetics, and use of those genetics (repication, transcription) (abbreviated version). From that standpoint, I would not qualify a placenta or an appendage, or flame as alive.

My point is that if you are including the zygote from the first cell forward in your definition of life, then you are adjusting the qulifications in such a way as to also include things that current science would consider patently ludicrous. If kept in the right conditions (much the same way a zygote has to be) a severed toe meets the same criteria for being an organism. It resperates, cells divide, it responds to simuli (chemically), etc. It also meet your qualifications for being a human being: it has human genetics and uses those genetics for replications and transcriptions.

Still internally processing whether standards of life should apply during all phases of the human life cycle, from single celled organism engaging in cellular division, or to set it at a point where it posesses all of the functioning organs of a complex human being.

Am not imposing rights but rather, a duty of care, which is different.

If you are suggesting that the 'right to life' or the 'right of personhood' should be applied to zygotes from the moment of conception onward then you are imposing rights that are currently unrecognized. Second, you are also opening the door for a slew of legal issues in regards to negligence of the mother, as the vast majority of zygotes at this stage die on their own, and many die as a direct result of the actions of the mother before she knows she is pregnant.

Women can be pregnant any day of the year. If single celled embryos have the same 'right to life' that a currently recognized person does (from the point of birth) then any actions she takes at any point in time could result in a manslaughter charge due to her own negligence. Heck, not taking folic acid on a regular basis would be criminal negligence by those standards.

In fact, last time I checked (and I will have to dig up my cites for this), the odds were about dead even in regards to the risks of birth v abortion for the mother.
Even better, when I checked, abortions are SAFER than birth.

Sorry, thought I had addressed this, if not here than in another thread where similar point was made.

If you did here and I missed it, I really apologize. I have been begging and pleading for an answer, any answer for so long I was beginning to wonder if I was just imagining that I posted it.

Donation is the complete loss of those organs. Your use is being denied, and another’s use of them granted, permanently. A fundamental difference between them being used to support progeny for a specific time period, that does not deny one the use of her organs.

A more direct comparison than that of organ donation (which is a permanent loss of tissue) would be that of a direct partial blood transfusion. These are especially rare now-adays, but they are still something that is done medically from time to time (most commonly in combat or other dire situations). If you are sitting in a bed with half your blood and are in need of a transfusion, and the doctors ask me (or I volunteer) to do an immediate donation and halfway through them removing the blood, I balk and yank the needle from my arm (or demand that they do it) even if you die as a direct result of that action I am under no legal compuction or risk of penalty.

This is the right of personhood, I am never under an obligation (legally, morally is a whole 'nother can of worms) to forfeit my own rights to another. Not even, if I caused the injury that caused the requirement for that relinquishment.

Now, when one commits a negligent or intentional criminal act or tort, they should be accountable. Should their organs be compatible, then perhaps they should be donated. Morally, this could be considered justified. In your example, the difference is a forced complete usurpation of the organ. This is not discomfort for a period of time, but inflicting a mortal wound on one, for the mortal wound he has committed to another. However, it is different than abortion, as you could be in the position of comparing the relative value of two lives, i.e what you propose could result in the court deciding which life should be lost, whereas abortion is for the survival of all beings involved, if the woman is endangered abortion is justified. Under the aforementioned description, the court, based on its definition of mortal wounds (losses of appendiges/organs, and death ) would be handing out sentences paramount to death in all cases, and certain in some.

Accountable, yes. Heald responsible, certainly. Punished, why not. Legally Obligated, an emphatic No!

This isn't the dark ages. We do not except the 'eye for an eye' legal methodology. The world does not divide into cases of black and white. Beyond the obvious capacity for error on the part of the court, the constant moral and legal quagmire that would result from courts having to decide if someone was "wrong enough" to require from them an organ or tissue donation as part of their punishment.

Could you imagine the horror that would result the first time someone had to give their eyes or liver, only to be later determined innocent? Justified morally or not, we are not capable of justifying the situation legally.

Donation is the complete loss of those organs. Your use is being denied, and another’s use of them granted, permanently. A fundamental difference between them being used to support progeny for a specific time period, that does not deny one the use of her organs.
Thank you!

An organ being used for what it is intended is not a "donation".