NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't blame women, per se... But I leave men out of the discussion because according to laws sympathetic to YOUR point of view, the man gets no say in the decision-making process of abortion. If I sleep with a woman and get her pregnant, and she chooses to abort I, as the father, have *NO* legal recourse to prevent it. Don't try to paint me as a sexist, please.

No, that's a miserable example. The biological purpose for eating is to nourish and energize the body. Choking is an aberration and is a natural accident. On the other hand, the biological purpose for sex is to achieve pregnancy. Therefore is that is the result, then biologically speaking, the couplation was successful. It's apples and oranges, friend.

I'm not trying to paint you as anything, friend.

If your comments portray you as a sexist, I might suggest you consider the implications of your thoughts.

Why SHOULD you have any say over a woman's uterus? Because you contributed sperm? Oh yes, and we all know how incredibly difficult that is... and how much of a torture it can be to do so.

The ONLY time a man should have say over the contents of a woman's uterus, is where she CANNOT make that decision for herself.

Or, of course, if you create a 'pre-sex' contract that states you both intend, and plan, children as a result... but even that would only be a legal protection, not necessarily a 'moral' one.

Regarding: eating v's sex. You are confusing "causes" with "effects".

You don't eat 'to energise the body'... you eat because your biology tells you to... by making you 'feel hungry'. Fortunately, this leads your body to ingest healthful substances, and the body becomes fueled... but that is the 'effect' or the 'feeling hungry' cause. Choking is also an effect of the 'feeling hungry' cause - but not a desirable one.

People have sex because their biology tells them to... by making you 'hungry'. Fortunately for the species, this leads your body to exchange replication-material, and women have the capacity to bring it to term... but that one the 'effect' of the 'hungry libido' cause. Pregnancy is ONE effect of this cause - and not necessarily the MOST desirable one.

I don't blame women, per se... But I leave men out of the discussion because according to laws sympathetic to YOUR point of view, the man gets no say in the decision-making process of abortion. If I sleep with a woman and get her pregnant, and she chooses to abort I, as the father, have *NO* legal recourse to prevent it.

I'm really, really sorry that slavery isn't legal. Should we make it legal so that you can feel better about having sex?

In the first place, Christianity did not invent marriage. To suggest that it has only existed for as long as Christianity is erroneous. Secondly, to assert an understanding of undocumented human history prior to the time of written record is taking a liberty. You've done both in this pararaph.

In the first place, I never suggested that Christianity invented marriage. I suggested that Christian hangups about premarital sex only exist within the framework of the Christian definition of marriage, and that this is not universal, nor a very old tradition. Secondly, there is no such thing as 'undocumented' human history, fossils count, as do cave paintings and other artifacts. We know with releative certainty the types of social structures that we have lived in since the dawning of our species. I can assure you, that modern western legal/religious marriage was never universal, and isn't to this day.

I disagree. There are certain baseline moral and ethical concepts that are universal. Murder, incest, pedophilia, theft and assault are all considered universally wrong. Cultures that practice such things as a matter of normal daily life are considered primitive and inferior.

Consider them primitive and inferior all you want to, their existence negates your statement. If a moral concept were 'universal' there wouldn't be a culture that didn't disagree with you. There is no objective morality, you say so yourself in this very paragraph, accept it and move on.

You are quite right to point out the examples and issues you did, and indeed pregnancy can result in complications that can threaten the life of the mother. Under such circumstances I do believe that an abortion can be justified. However, that still doesn't mean that pregnancy is ALWAYS an IMMEDIATE threat.

Since the complications can occur without warning in a pregnancy deamed 'healthy' and 'normal' by a qualified and well informed physician, then Yes, the threat is ALWAYS present, and ALWAYS IMMEDIATE.

SOME pregnancies result in a POTENTIAL threat. I have 3 kids myself and at no point during any of the pregnancies was my wife's life in any danger. On the other hand, my mom actually DID have complications on more than one occasion where action was necessary. There's a huge difference.

Incorrect, some pregnancies result in a potential INJURY. ALL pregnancies constitute a THREAT. That threat is there at all stages of pregnancy and can manifest as injury without warning.

No you haven't got me there. I am aware of the cause of miscarriages, and in such a scenario the natural barriers that prevent the immune system from attacking the baby failed for whatever reason. The amniotic sac and the separation of circulatory systems within the placenta are all natural safeguards to maintain the baby's life. This is why it's natural. A mother's body takes more action to preserve the life of its unborn child than to expel it.

You said, "A normal biological process is not, by definition, a real and immediate threat to life. If it were, the woman's immune system would seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite." The mothers immune system does exactly that. A seperate process initiated by the fetus attempts to counteract her immune system's natural reaction. That doesn't change the fact that her immune system recognizes the danger and attempts to alleviate it.

I disagree that it is immaterial to the legalities. Remember, that baby didn't just spontaneously appear in the uterus and begin leeching. Pregnancy is a direct result or a decision that has ALREADY been made.

(Just a sec, I need to insert an anti-flame disclaimer here for the people who didn't read my previous post where I indicated that my arguments are limited to circumstances exclusing cases of rape/incest.)

That's the reason I can't give much weight to the argument that the baby doesn't have a right to live at the expense of the mother. Under normal circumstances, she got pregnant due to a choice she made. Pregnancy is a possible result. Period.

I missed this because of a glitch in the coding.

As has already been discussed probably on every page in this thread. A choice to have intercourse, does NOT equate to a choice to become pregnant. Period.

No, that's a miserable example. The biological purpose for eating is to nourish and energize the body. Choking is an aberration and is a natural accident. On the other hand, the biological purpose for sex is to achieve pregnancy. Therefore is that is the result, then biologically speaking, the couplation was successful. It's apples and oranges, friend.

You are incorrect sir. Sex performs a lot more of a biological function than simple direct procreation. As human beings we are social creatures, and sex is one of the ways in which social bonds are formed. It also has the added bonus of increasing good mood hormones, improving health and fitness, regulating natural function and improving homeostasis in the body, and decreasing caloric requirements.

Also, since in modern times, people tend to eat a LOT more than they require, eating is no longer just a 'biological' function of necessity.

I was responding to a rediculous argument. I responded in kind. If they are referring to human life exclusively, they should say so, and in addition give a definition that would include an early stage abortion but not include the destruction of life that occurs when you stub your toe, take a crap, cut yourself, remove a cyst or cancer, or destroy the placenta after birth.

Every action you take destroys human life. Everytime you have sex you destroy human life. Every time a woman menstuates she destoys human life. This destruction isn't inherently evil the way the person I was responding to was attempting to suggest.

IF you are referring to AP you are neglecting my use of life cycle, which makes such a distinction between toe, crap, and the like, and does not need to apply only to human life.

In no way did I make such an assertion. And the anaolgy of menstruation does not apply to anything said by my NS.

IF not referring to AP, I apologize.

Take care,

-AP

Back to midterms:)

I had to go back to figure out exactly who I was referring to (I extremely doubted it was you). I was referring to a statement made by Lagonia States, not you AP. I stand by everything I said about their statement.

<snip...>

However, it blows my mind that you would characterize pregnancy as ALWAYS a real and immediate threat to life. A sucking chest wound is a real and immediate threat to life. A severed limb is a real and immediate threat to life.

A normal biological process is not, by definition, a real and immediate threat to life. If it were, the woman's immune system would seek out and destroy the fetus as a parasite.

(And yes we're all aware that there are exceptions. That isn't the point.)

Except maybe death itself.

Every pregnancy is a risk to the mother. Death during childbirth is one of the top ten killers of women, and is even worse in third world countries.

The woman's body DOES seek to destroy the infant, and if the infant's protection (hormonal warfare and trickery) fails, the mother's body does in fact kill and purge it.

simple....

a womans body = a womans choice....

very simple. The fetus does not have a right to life, it has never had one and should never gain one.

flame away forced birthers

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

I had to go back to figure out exactly who I was referring to (I extremely doubted it was you). I was referring to a statement made by Lagonia States, not you AP. I stand by everything I said about their statement.


Cool :cool:

Was just taken aback for a second there, sounded lile a response about me and I thought, hey, weren't we getting along?

Take care,

-AP

Why does everyone care so much what a woman does with her baby? If you're the mother, father or family care, otherwise, mind your own business.

Cool :cool:

Was just taken aback for a second there, sounded lile a response about me and I thought, hey, weren't we getting along?

Take care,

-AP

Last time I checked we were getting along just fine. :p Even if it feels like I may lose the argument to you.

Why does everyone care so much what a woman does with her baby? If you're the mother, father or family care, otherwise, mind your own business.


Amen to that

I missed this because of a glitch in the coding.

As has already been discussed probably on every page in this thread. A choice to have intercourse, does NOT equate to a choice to become pregnant. Period.

If you don't use protection before you engage in intercourse then there is
at least a chance to become pregnant. So a choice to have intercourse
without protection does equate to a choice to become pregnant

If you don't use protection before you engage in intercourse then there is
at least a chance to become pregnant. So a choice to have intercourse
without protection does equate to a choice to become pregnant

Read back over the thread - I have already rebuffed this particular angle.

Also - same-sex intercourse carries a fairly low chance of pregnancy... does this mean you think people should have sex with their own gender, to avoid abortions?

simple....

a womans body = a womans choice....

very simple. The fetus does not have a right to life, it has never had one and should never gain one.

flame away forced birthers

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:



That is so not true if a woman didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have spread her legs to get pregnant in the first place. Abortions should be illegal.

That is so not true if a woman didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have spread her legs to get pregnant in the first place. Abortions should be illegal.



I doubt every time a woman has sex she is trying to get pregnant. A 16 year old having sex isn't likely planning to become a mommy in nine months and neither is her partner (daddy for him).

I doubt every time a woman has sex she is trying to get pregnant. A 16 year old having sex isn't likely planning to become a mommy in nine months and neither is her partner (daddy for him).

Maybe not but she should be smart enough to know it is a possiblity.

Maybe not but she should be smart enough to know it is a possiblity.


Thats like saying people should be smart enough to know that if they get in a car and go driving, there is the possibility they'll get in a car accident.

If you don't use protection before you engage in intercourse then there is at least a chance to become pregnant. So a choice to have intercourse without protection does equate to a choice to become pregnant

There is at least a chance to become pregnant even if you use a male and female condom, a diaphragm, spermicidal gel, the woman is on the pill, and the man has had a vasectomy. There are people who don't know how to use protection properly. There are people who think they are protected when they are not (like by pulling out, or the cycle method). The only way one can be absolutely sure they will not get pregnant is to absolutely abstain from all sexual activity, and this is neither healthy nor practical.

If an individual gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) and they say they didn't want a kid, then they never made a choice to become pregnant. They made a mistake or got unlucky, they didn't choose.

Maybe not but she should be smart enough to know it is a possiblity.

People should be smart enough to know a lot of things, but the truth of the matter is that they are not, and never will be. Making policy assuming that everyone will always be informed, aware, and intelligent about every issue is the fastest way to end up with a crapload of problems.

I would gladly explain. As a pro-lifer I am not out to punish those having casual sex and getting stuck with a child as much as I think they should have been prepared and ready for a child before they decided to Have sex. Sex's soul purpose is to make children pleasure is just a great by product of it it is not some game or toy that should be taken lightly. Any way when it comes to abortion I particularly think of the unborn child in question how pro-choicers can say that a fetus is not human is beyond me. Last I checked humans only gave birth to humans so once that a sperm and egg meat and start the process the unborn child is now a developing human being. Killing another human being with out due process of law or self defence murder and since abortion is planed it should be considered murder in the First degree. How ever I am simpathetic to women who must abort due to health reasons becuase as sad as it is its much better to save the wife and loose the child than loose them both. Rape is in the grey area for me. The mother ahd no choice in the matter but what did the child in question do to be executed?

This is why I am a Pro-Lifer

There is at least a chance to become pregnant even if you use a male and female condom, a diaphragm, spermicidal gel, the woman is on the pill, and the man has had a vasectomy. There are people who don't know how to use protection properly. There are people who think they are protected when they are not (like by pulling out, or the cycle method). The only way one can be absolutely sure they will not get pregnant is to absolutely abstain from all sexual activity, and this is neither healthy nor practical.

If an individual gets pregnant (or gets someone pregnant) and they say they didn't want a kid, then they never made a choice to become pregnant. They made a mistake or got unlucky, they didn't choose.


Actually its proven that sex (except for STD's) is actually healthy. How ever their are other ways to get pleasure of sex. As much as I despise both ideas there is still the option of masterbation and sex toys.

Actually its proven that sex (except for STD's) is actually healthy. How ever their are other ways to get pleasure of sex. As much as I despise both ideas there is still the option of masterbation and sex toys.

Not that this had anything to do with what you were quoting, but... masturbation provides only some of the health benefits that sex does, and absolutely none of the emotional or social benefits that it does. Sex is, and has always been, about a LOT more than procreation, and certainly a lot more than a quick pull into a tissue.

As tribal animals, it is deathly important for the species that individuals form bonds. Bonds that create emotional ties capable of causing one individual to risk their life for the group. These bonds were what drove early humans to hunt and gather not just for themselves but for the rest of the tribe. These bonds were what drove them to protect the elderly, so that they could teach the next generation. Sex is one of the ways in which emotional bonds are formed, and it's the most direct way to form a 'family' bond with someone who is not a relative. Sex is the way in which families become tribes, and tribes become nations. Sex is the drive that pushes everyone to succeed.

Like eating, one can only suppress this drive for so long before serious health risks or psychological problems occur.

In all honesty, science hasn't proven yet whether or not a fetus is alive, wheter it is a real person.

However, I believe that it is the government's job to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

This leaves these options:
1. If a fetus is NOT alive/a baby/whatever:
a. woman has abortion: no big deal
b. woman doesn't have abortion: baby
2. If a fetus IS alive/a baby/however you want to term it:
a. woman has abortion: murder
b. woman doesn't have abortion: baby

Based on that, and my belief that the government should protect those who cannot protect themselves, I think that abortion is wrong.

Why don't people put their babies up for adoption? There are so many people out there who WANT kids and can't have any!!!

just use the rubber u wont get pregnet and u wont get herpes.
And well if it brakes then to bad. thats not so comon so don´t worry about it

Maybe not but she should be smart enough to know it is a possiblity.

Really? Try telling that to George W Bush - who's latest 'good plan' is to remove sex-education from the classroom, and replace it with 'abstinence ed.'

So - then we'll have a generation of kids with hormones and urges, and no better information on what to do about them than 'try not to'.

In all honesty, science hasn't proven yet whether or not a fetus is alive, wheter it is a real person.

However, I believe that it is the government's job to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

This leaves these options:
1. If a fetus is NOT alive/a baby/whatever:
a. woman has abortion: no big deal
b. woman doesn't have abortion: baby
2. If a fetus IS alive/a baby/however you want to term it:
a. woman has abortion: murder
b. woman doesn't have abortion: baby

Based on that, and my belief that the government should protect those who cannot protect themselves, I think that abortion is wrong.

Why don't people put their babies up for adoption? There are so many people out there who WANT kids and can't have any!!!

Fiction, I'm afraid.

There are huge numbers of children awaiting adoption, already.

See, there are people who want kids... but, when they adopt, they get to chose which ones they want... and some kids just spend their whole lives in government care... or get so depressed with the lack of a family that they run away from the orphanage, get hooked on drugs, drawn into prostitution to finance that habit, and end up dead of an overdose or after violent abuse by their pimp.

Or any number of other scenarios.

Why don't people put their babies up for adoption? There are so many people out there who WANT kids and can't have any!!!

I am about tired of raining on this particular parade, but, right now there are an estimated 100million children (UNICEF estimates 210million) in the world who are in orphanages, shelters, hostels, foster care, or in the care of churches or the state as wards. Until you do your own part to get the list of already existing kids to a more reasonable number, you have absolutely no right to even begin to think about using this argument ever again. (Well, you do, but we get to laugh at you and your ignorance.)

The process of adoption (having had close family to go through it in every direction) is rough. It is not a fun experience for anyone, and is not always positive. There are not millions of parents out their waiting for any child to be just dropped in their laps. There are waiting lists...true, but the ones on that list have VERY high criteria for what kind of child they will accept.

Let's be honest, not every child that needs a home is newborn, white, disease free, from a non-addict mother, with 0 STD risk, and no mental or physical defects. People may say that they just want a child of their own, but the statistics of children who need homes deny any semblance of truth in those statements.

It's the religious right driving the anti-abortion movement. They'll take your birth control pills next, then your condoms.

Does anyone besides me see how dangerous they are?!

Yes they might bring back some much needed morality too. :rolleyes:

Yes they might bring back some much needed morality too. :rolleyes:Morality cannot be legislated for, though. The more things that are made illegal, on the flimsy grounds that someone in power finds them subjectively immoral, the more people will find that some activity or other that they do not find immoral is officially barred to them. While this could (in the short term) dissuade most of the population ("it harms no-one, but I don't want to get punished for doing it") you'll get more and more people being dissafected with the system and those that finding that practically everything they love doing (and see no wrong for) is being banned will find themselves either participating, being complicit in or at least ignoring (and thus not reporting) an 'underworld' (behind closed curtains, in remote parts of the countryside or whatever) where these so-called-excesses are conducted...

When (say) 90% of the population is involved in technical illegality, then there starts to be a point of 'leak back', where people become so tolerant of everything under the umbrella of de jure illegality and thus even pre-crackdown illegality becomes de facto permissable with there no longer being a line between the two.

An example is prohibition. Driving alchohol underground associated it with prostitution, extortion and murder and those who liked a tipple found it quite easy to slip further into the underworld. With alcohol legal, there's a psychological and practical barrier (not impermeable, but certainly more tangible) between drinking in a bar and getting in deep with criminals.

At least, that's my POV. Feel free to bring me up on any invalid assumptions.

Yes they might bring back some much needed morality too. :rolleyes:
exactly how will bringing back slavery help bring back morality?

[QUOTE=E B Guvegrra]Morality cannot be legislated for, though.


Agreed, morality is a set of almost hidden rules that most people follow in

some form or another that usually influences laws, rather than be governed

by them.


The more things that are made illegal, on the flimsy grounds that someone in power finds them subjectively immoral, the more people will find that some activity or other that they do not find immoral is officially barred to them.

The people in power as you call them, are put there by the people, any

decision they make is usually for the benefit of the country, and reflects a

large percentage of the populations wishes, this is most vital in a true

democracy, which is to benefit the majoritys wishes, not a minoritys.

Before you throw race at me, refering to minoritys, were talking about moral

issues here, which makes race irrelevant.


Unless you think certain races have radically different views on what

constitutes proper morality.



While this could (in the short term) dissuade most of the population ("it harms no-one, but I don't want to get punished for doing it") you'll get more and more people being dissafected with the system and those that finding that practically everything they love doing (and see no wrong for) is being banned will find themselves either participating, being complicit in or at least ignoring (and thus not reporting) an 'underworld' (behind closed curtains, in remote parts of the countryside or whatever) where these so-called-excesses are conducted...

Like Christianity being banned in the future as a 'hate' religon, that could go

underground, and probably would.

Its illegality would make it very tempting to a lot of young people also

probably.

When (say) 90% of the population is involved in technical illegality, then there starts to be a point of 'leak back', where people become so tolerant of everything under the umbrella of de jure illegality and thus even pre-crackdown illegality becomes de facto permissable with there no longer being a line between the two.

That seems to be starting to happen now.

Wide scale alcohol and drug abuse with teenagers socially, and no respect

for anyone or thing.

Thers definitely a social meltdown coming, how will these teenagers who

have about as much awareness of responsibility as an average five year old

does, carry western society onwards in future, when they 'become' adults?

Answer, they are simply not capable.

An example is prohibition. Driving alchohol underground associated it with prostitution, extortion and murder and those who liked a tipple found it quite easy to slip further into the underworld. With alcohol legal, there's a psychological and practical barrier (not impermeable, but certainly more tangible) between drinking in a bar and getting in deep with criminals.

Banning alcohol completely was never going to work, as its wide spread

appeal covered nearly all of society from the rich hobnobs to the guy

collecting the garbage, banning hard drugs with heavy enforcement would

not have the same effect on society, and would benefit it immessurably very

quickly.

Most people do not take hard drugs for long periods of time, but alot of

people are innocent victims in some way of the minority that does, which is

why it has to be stamped out.

If it goes completey underground, which of course it would, it would still be

better than seeing people dealing the stuff openly on the street, and seeing

the effects of their trade in society.

exactly how will bringing back slavery help bring back morality?

It wouldnt... :confused:

I hate all forms of slavery, as it represents greed at its most evil and basest

level.

Also, just so your aware, slavery is still practiced in alot of areas in the

world, not in as great numbers as the past, but sadly growing still.

It isnt a thing of the past anymore Bottle.

Dont limit your concept of slavery to the cotton fields of the 19th C and

before, its still here, and its even flourishing in your own country.

I would gladly explain. As a pro-lifer I am not out to punish those having casual sex and getting stuck with a child as much as I think they should have been prepared and ready for a child before they decided to Have sex. yay, that's somethring thatr annoys me about a lot of pro lifers

Sex's soul purpose is to make children. pleasure is just a great by product of it it is not some game or toy that should be taken lightly.

I disagree with this, mainly. I completely agree that sex shouldn't be taken lightly, and one needs to understand the chances of this happeneing and that happening, but I disagree witht eh fact that it's only purpose is for reproduction. If someone wants to take the chance, then why not? Sex can fufill any purpose you want it to, in my opinion

[quoteAny way when it comes to abortion I particularly think of the unborn child in question how pro-choicers can say that a fetus is not human is beyond me. Last I checked humans only gave birth to humans so once that a sperm and egg meat and start the process the unborn child is now a developing human being. Killing another human being with out due process of law or self defence murder and since abortion is planed it should be considered murder in the First degree. [/quote]

Well, here's why I think a fetus is not a *living* human. Basically, my reasoning behind it all is that, if it were to be born that very second, would it be able to survive on it's own? No. That's how we get things like miscarriages. its not a living thing yet, it's only a potential life. It's not that much different from a seperated egg and sperm.

Morality cannot be legislated for, though.Agreed, morality is a set of almost hidden rules that most people follow in some form or another that usually influences laws, rather than be governed by them.

The people in power as you call them, are put there by the people, any decision they make is usually for the benefit of the country, and reflects a large percentage of the populations wishes, this is most vital in a true democracy, which is to benefit the majoritys wishes, not a minoritys.The people give a mandate to those in power to decide what to do, they generally chose (those who chose them, rather than those who chose the other guys but just happened not to have overall majority) along the lines of "I like what this guy does with $foo" but don't necessarily (in fact, almost inevitably don't) agree with everything. And that's not counting decisions that were never publicised, acknowleged or even anticipate at the time of election, but come to light during the approrpaite term(s) of office... And spin.

Before you throw race at me, refering to minoritys, were talking about moral issues here, which makes race irrelevant.

Unless you think certain races have radically different views on what constitutes proper morality.No. No more so that different people (neighbours, even) can have radically different views on what constituted morality. My neighbour hates cats, thinks they are vermine (doesn't help that there's a huge population around our area) and that no-one should be allowed to keep cats. If pushed, he thinks it immoral that cats can be kept as pets without being spayed/neutered. I like cats (though there are way too many, I must admit) and think it's a trivial issue. To me it's an absurd obsession on his part, to him it's a moral high-ground from which he looks down on all those cat owners who should know better. Horses <-> Courses.

Like Christianity being banned in the future as a 'hate' religon, that could go underground, and probably would.

Its illegality would make it very tempting to a lot of young people also probably.There are many things wrong with Christianity (in various of its modern forms) but I don't see the link. Sorry.

I'll come back to the rest later, I don't have much time right now...

Wow. 120 pages on this thread.

My views on abortion:

I don't think that people should have them, but I'm not gonna stop them.

First Trimester: Go ahead and have it.

Second Trimester: I don't know. I'm not touching this one.

Third Trimester: By this time it has a functional brain and frontal lobe, so it should be considered human.

I have NO idea what partial birth abortion is.

I have NO idea what partial birth abortion is.

I shouldn't let that worry you.

Neither do the people who voted on the 'ban', or the majority of the medical profession... since it is more a 'buzzword' than anything else...

Partial birth abortion makes it sound like they allow a mother to commence the delivery, and then somehow 'abort' the baby (which would, of course, be what a delivery is...), but in a fatal way.

Which makes for a lovely image for the Anti-Abortion camp to protest - regardless of whether or not it is based in reality.

A brief online search will show you that 'partial-birth abortion' has never been an 'optional' procedure, and is almost always the practice of removing dead babies.

I reckon life doesn't start at conception. At that point it's, well, replaceable blob of cells.
Life is unique and irreplacable. I consider it to be when an organism starts having experiences and memories, ie, when it's born.

That said, I'm not a great fan of abortion. It makes people complacent, which in turn is a drain on medical resources. There has to be some manner of system that stops people being so reckless in sex.

There are many things wrong with Christianity (in various of its modern forms) but I don't see the link. Sorry.


Hmm, I dont agree on that, Id say there are many things wrong with western

societys view of Christianity, and to point the finger at another particular

organised religon, Christianity does not practice or support burying a woman

uo to her head in the ground ,and then throwing large stones at her head

untill she dies from a brain hemorrage, anyone like to guess what this is for?

Of course if Christians were doing this, you would never hear the end of it,

but as its practiced by Islamic countrys we turn a blind eye to it, but we

should at least condemn it, so how about a bit more perspective on why you

think Christianity has so much wrong with it.

Also, Im a bit sick and tired of hearing the gays and their supporters on here

blasting the Catholic Church for its strong stance on homosexuality, Islam

doesnt accept it either, so how about getting real and giving as much

condemnation to them as well, or are you just lousy Christian haters?

why is scott peterson on death row for a doubole murder when governemnts around the world condone abortion....i thought it was a fetus...just tissue......right?

why is scott peterson on death row for a doubole murder when governemnts around the world condone abortion....i thought it was a fetus...just tissue......right?

A) it's a back door that pro-lifers are hoping to use to make abortion illegal, in the EXACT same context you just did... 'this is illegal, so that over there should be illegal too!'
unfortunately:
B) the mother in that case did NOT WANT TO ABORT. She wanted the child. So, while I personally think he should only be tried for one murder, and one 'involuntary abortion', obviously someone has decided it's easier to push for double homicide rather than try to get a whole new definition of a crime.
and
C) the infant was past the stage for elective abortions. So even if you do use it as a case to argue against late term abortions, it should in no way be used to argue against elective abortions.

A) it's a back door that pro-lifers are hoping to use...
:eek: :D

:eek: :D

Behave, or I'll hit you with a rolled up newspaper.

That'd learn you.

Behave, or I'll hit you with a rolled up newspaper.

That'd learn you.
You said it

A) it's a back door that pro-lifers are hoping to use to make abortion illegal, in the EXACT same context you just did... 'this is illegal, so that over there should be illegal too!'
unfortunately:
B) the mother in that case did NOT WANT TO ABORT. She wanted the child. So, while I personally think he should only be tried for one murder, and one 'involuntary abortion', obviously someone has decided it's easier to push for double homicide rather than try to get a whole new definition of a crime.
and
C) the infant was past the stage for elective abortions. So even if you do use it as a case to argue against late term abortions, it should in no way be used to argue against elective abortions.

Absolutely.

It's like banning "elective" partial birth abortion, which the less-fascistic elements of government SHOULD have fought, because people like Bush are now using it as the thin end of a wedge - along with things like the Peterson Travesty - to work their black magic on a woman's right to choose.

Anyone ever hear of an 'elective' partial birth abortion?

(Who am I kidding... the averge joe (joanne) doesn't even know what a 'partial birth abortion' IS, or why one might be performed...)

Absolutely.

It's like banning "elective" partial birth abortion, which the less-fascistic elements of government SHOULD have fought, because people like Bush are now using it as the thin end of a wedge - along with things like the Peterson Travesty - to work their black magic on a woman's right to choose.

Anyone ever hear of an 'elective' partial birth abortion?

(Who am I kidding... the averge joe (joanne) doesn't even know what a 'partial birth abortion' IS, or why one might be performed...)
OMG abortion, you are the devil !!1121 @!

the Peterson Travesty - to work their black magic on a woman's right to choose.


Your about as ignorant on that as most are on partial birth abortions.;)

The Peterson judgment stems from the states fetuscide laws. It deals with the root of a woman's right to choose. Since, if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy to term, no one should interfere with that right. Since, if the choice is not protected in both cases, then if a father chooses not to be considered a father, then he can induce a miscarriage, or batter the woman such that the fetus is lost, and only face repercussions for physical damages done to the female. As emotional distress over the loss of a non-existent child (the expulsion of a mass of cells when cycling or termination of pregnancies are also natural process) is hard to recover for in a court.

-Denny Crane, AP Attorney General

I'm against abortion, but all for killing babies.

only 29 pages to go before this thread finally dies. yet another reason to rejoice in the streets.

the title "Pro-lifers, explain yourselves "

the answer (swearwords removed) "NO !!"


anyway I'm pro-choice

Your about as ignorant on that as most are on partial birth abortions.;)

The Peterson judgment stems from the states fetuscide laws. It deals with the root of a woman's right to choose. Since, if a woman chooses to continue a pregnancy to term, no one should interfere with that right. Since, if the choice is not protected in both cases, then if a father chooses not to be considered a father, then he can induce a miscarriage, or batter the woman such that the fetus is lost, and only face repercussions for physical damages done to the female. As emotional distress over the loss of a non-existent child (the expulsion of a mass of cells when cycling or termination of pregnancies are also natural process) is hard to recover for in a court.

-Denny Crane, AP Attorney General

The way I view it... it has been openly admitted that the prosecution could provide no evidence that he did it (no witnesses), no circumstantial evidence to prove he did it, no concrete motive for him doing it, and they don't even know when or where she died.

The evidence as presented basically consists of : he went fishing, on the day the crime is suspected to have taken place, in a place near where her body was found. He was a 'cheat', and exuded a calm persona in court.

He wasn't even asked to testify, was he?

So - he gets a death penalty because he MIGHT have been in the same general area as his wife (before OR after she died, they didn't know), and because he didn't cry in court.

How is this justified? How does a jury (first of all even CONVICT on that little evidence, of a crime like murder) select a DEATH sentence, for that little material evidence?

Because the jury was prejudiced by one fact... the 'sanctity' of the unborn life. Regardless of the mother-to-be (since nobody can actually provide evidence she DID want the child), the case hinged on a knee-jerk reaction to the 'death' of a foetus... do other murder cases get that kind of attention? The Peterson trial occupied vastly more televised and media time than even the OJ Simpson trial.

As far as I can see, the anti-abortioners leaped all over this case... purely as a 'wedge' for later abortion legislation.

Of course, I could be wrong... I mean, I was wrong that time in 1997...

I guess we just wait and see... my money is on fairly imminent arrival of yet another attack on Pro-Choice.