NationStates Jolt Archive

If a woman was raped and became pregnant would you really be willing to tell her that she can't have it aborted?

Who's kidding who? They'd outsource it to telemarketers in Djakarta.

Didn't the Pope say something along those lines about rape victims during the Bosnian War?
Bloody stupid, if you ask me.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

That only applies if I'm not alive yet or possibly already dead.

We all know that not everyone agrees on when a person actually becomes alive. If a woman believes that her unborn child is alive then she wouldn't get an abortion. It becomes a breach of civil rights when you force them to believe the baby is alive at the moment of conception or whatever.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.
My existance after my father robbed a bank would not be a constant reminder to my mother of his robbing that bank, and even if it was, would be nowhere near as traumatic a reminder as that of being raped.

Also, arresting me would be inflicting something on a conscious human being, rather than a ball of cells that is not in any way recognisably human.

What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness?
Until it's recognisably human, it's not a person, and doesn't qualify.
It's just a ball of cells, and I don't think I should be stopped from having a mole (another small group of cells) lasered off if I so choose.

Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

Because it's an excuse to send murderers away for longer.

If a woman was raped and became pregnant would you really be willing to tell her that she can't have it aborted?

After a certain period of time, yeah. If you're raped, get it done with, not 3 months later, not nine later, but now. I'd vote a proposition that outloawed trimesters 2 and 3 tomorrow, rape or no rape.

Give those European abortion pills to the cops, to be handed out when you file the police report.

My question is: why does the father have no right to choose? I understand if the father was a rapist or never there, but when that father is there for the mother, why does he not deserve the right to choose as well?

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

That example is just about as bad as the ST. Louis cardinals. YEAH SOX!!!!

The point is that the rape was a direct cause of the birth. A father robbing a bank is totally irrelevant to the birth of the baby.

The Four Fathers did not intend for that part of the constitution to support abortion, since it was unheard of at the time. You interpret it to mean that it supports unborn fetuses.

The reason that killing a pregnant woman is double homicide is because she did not intend to abort her baby. The killer took it upon himself to well... kill.

Are you really telling me that if your daughter came home pregnant from a brutal rape that you would just tell her to work through it? think about it. Everytime she looks at that kid it will be like a nightmare again and again.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

A) When the fetus becomes a viable organism in its own right. ie. can survive outside the body.
B)Appearantly that part of the Constitution was deleted because every copy I found says nothing of the kind. The declaration of Independence does, but that's not part of our body of law. Even then a fetus isn't anyone. It has the potential to be one, but then again so does a spermatazoa. An egg isn't a person without the complementary genetic material and a fetus isn't a person without some sort of birth.
C)That law only applies to offenses commited on Federal property (ironicly the "Lacy Peterson law" would not have applied to Lacy Peterson) and it does so because Republicans control Congress and do whatever the President says.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?


An embyro, zygote or fetus is no a human being.

It becomes a human being when it develops into one, and you can tell when that happens because it can be physically seperated from the pregnant woman and function as a seperate organism.

Typical pro choice arguement, do you know how many abortions are performed a year in the united states ? most estimates point to 1 to 2 million a year. So seeing as clinical studies show that around 5% of raped women will become pregnant. So if only raped women were having abortions than lets do the math shall we....

1.5 million abortions a year (give or take estimation) = %5
That would mean....
5 : 95 = 1 : 20
so
1.5 : 30

And that 30 stands for 30 million women who would have to be raped a year to account for all these abortions!

Wow, that means that also if women to men ratio in the united states is equal, then there are 150 million women, and 1 in 5 or 20% will be raped each year!

I'm starting to think americas not such a safe place to live. Maybe I'll move to ........mexico?

Looks like the rape arguements not the best, but still...

Typical pro choice arguement, do you know how many abortions are performed a year in the united states ? most estimates point to 1 to 2 million a year. So seeing as clinical studies show that around 5% of raped women will become pregnant. So if only raped women were having abortions than lets do the math shall we....

1.5 million abortions a year (give or take estimation) = %5
That would mean....
5 : 95 = 1 : 20
so
1.5 : 30

And that 30 stands for 30 million women who would have to be raped a year to account for all these abortions!

Wow, that means that also if women to men ratio in the united states is equal, then there are 150 million women, and 1 in 5 or 20% will be raped each year!

I'm starting to think americas not such a safe place to live. Maybe I'll move to ........mexico?

Uh...so?

The abortion debate is boring.

People have made up their minds and simply talk at cross purposes. Pro-Choice folks see abortion as an issue of a woman being able to control her body. Pro-Life folks see it as an issue of murder. Ultimately a person's point of view depends upon a religious belief concerning the definition of life and when it begins. It is an argument about what it means to be a human. We could have the same argument at the other end of the life spectrum about mercy killing and the definition of death. Is a person dead when there is no longer measurable brain activity or when the heart stops working? Is quality of life a factor?

The abortion debate is frustrating because each side marshalls wonderful facts and arguments to support their point of view without acknowledging the other side does not share the underlying premise upon which those facts and arguments rest. This is ultimately an issue dependent upon faith and religion.

What pro-lifers forget is that making somthing illegal doesn't mean it won't be around anymore. Examples : prostitution and drugs. The last thing anyone wants is

Also, the effect of having a baby on a woman is so intense that outlawing abortion would be limit a womans personal freedoms.

I'm accutally conservative on abortion. conservative in the true sence, as in, state rights. I think most of the strong social issues should be state rights, so that preisdential elections are free of such dividing issues, and they can start talking about issues that unite people, such as healthcare.

The only exception that I can think of is gay marriage, where I think that the government needs get out of "marriage" all togethers, and it is inherently religious. Instead, issue everyone civil unions and leave marriage to churches.

The bible is hardly a moral authority.

Take this barbaric passage as an example:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)



Christian fundementalists are no less barbaric than their islamic counterparts in Iran.

Never forget that "bible" is a cross between the words "bile" and "babble."

The bible is hardly a moral authority.

Take this barbaric passage as an example:

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)



Christian fundementalists are no less barbaric than their islamic counterparts in Iran.

Never forget that "bible" is a cross between the words "bile" and "babble."

Yeah.. God forbid women should be modest in public.. :rolleyes:

It's good you know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide but that's not the point. They should be given the option of doing it.

Now if you're going to talk about rights. It is a woman's right to decide if she can have the baby or not. How is it that we let a bunch of fat white guys on Capitol Hill decide what is right and wrong with abortion. They will probably never experience it anyway.

It's good you know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide but that's not the point. They should be given the option of doing it.

Now if you're going to talk about rights. It is a woman's right to decide if she can have the baby or not. How is it that we let a bunch of fat white guys on Capitol Hill decide what is right and wrong with abortion. They will probably never experience it anyway.

Usually a Congressmen has a family which includes a wife a children. What makes your opinion on the matter more valuable then theirs.

Yeah.. God forbid women should be modest in public.. :rolleyes:



I know you think that women should be "seen and not heard," but in the civilized world that view is considered immoral.

Sarcasm eh? hit a nerve eh ? Did I say yes or no anywhere in my post ? I just wanted to show how pointless using the rape scenario is. Read before you post dummy.

I know you think that women should be "seen and not heard," but in the civilized world that view is considered immoral.

I dunno where you got that.. the bible implores women to be modest, just as it implores people not to steal.. it's not like it says the penalty is death for either one of them. I'm not saying women should be shot in soccer fields for immodesty.. but that doesn't mean immodesty is a good idea. :rolleyes:

Also, in what world is expecting one's wife to be modest immoral? Just curious.. ;)

The abortion debate is boring.

People have made up their minds and simply talk at cross purposes. Pro-Choice folks see abortion as an issue of a woman being able to control her body. Pro-Life folks see it as an issue of murder. Ultimately a person's point of view depends upon a religious belief concerning the definition of life and when it begins. It is an argument about what it means to be a human. We could have the same argument at the other end of the life spectrum about mercy killing and the definition of death. Is a person dead when there is no longer measurable brain activity or when the heart stops working? Is quality of life a factor?

The abortion debate is frustrating because each side marshalls wonderful facts and arguments to support their point of view without acknowledging the other side does not share the underlying premise upon which those facts and arguments rest. This is ultimately an issue dependent upon faith and religion.

Excuse me...

What the spoon? :eek:

How does abortion have anything to do with religion? Sure, most pro-lifers are pro-lifers because of religion, but not me. I belive that A human's right to live comes before all else. Visualise:

1: The right to life
2: The right to freedom
3: Everything else

See? Just I'm anti-abortion dosen't mean I think the right to choose is unimportant. The baby's life is just more important. ;)

Of course, if birthing would risk the life of the mother, then we have to take priorities, don't we?

Abortion= Murder... Everyone knows this.
But that doesnt stop the feminists.. and declaring the life of an unborn child a 'woman's right'..
It doesn't stop the conscience of a vote-hungry liberal either... knowing that women make up over half of registered voters..
And of course women are more-so biased towards sex-related issues.
I mean, it's kind of sad what broads have degenerated to, after we gave them the right to vote.. and as for liberals... :rolleyes: ... there will always be corruption in society... so this topic really has me baffled.
All I know is that a human life is more important than anyone's right.. man or woman.

I dunno where you got that.. the bible implores women to be modest, just as it implores people not to steal.. it's not like it says the penalty is death for either one of them. I'm not saying women should be shot in soccer fields for immodesty.. but that doesn't mean immodesty is a good idea. :rolleyes:

Also, in what world is expecting one's wife to be modest immoral? Just curious.. ;)

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


It says that it is a shame for women to speak in church, and says that if women want to learn, they should go home and ask their husbands to teach them.

I dont know what barbaric convolusions of reason can lead to a conclusion that this misogynist piece of trash can constitute merely an 'imploring of modesty.'

And another thing...
As long as abortion is legal.. since it's a 'woman's right'.. should men still be forced to pay child support?

Easiest way is just to ban this disgusting, degrading act of butchery...
Keeps everthing fair.

Abortion= Murder... Everyone knows this.
But that doesnt stop the feminists.. and declaring the life of an unborn child a 'woman's right'..
It doesn't stop the conscience of a vote-hungry liberal either... knowing that women make up over half of registered voters..
And of course women are more-so biased towards sex-related issues.
I mean, it's kind of sad what broads have degenerated to, after we gave them the right to vote.. and as for liberals... :rolleyes: ... there will always be corruption in society... so this topic really has me baffled.
All I know is that a human life is more important than anyone's right.. man or woman.


Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."
It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.
And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues, I mean it is kind of sad what american religion has denerated to, after we granted it toleration in the constitution.
And as for conservatives... :rolleyes: ... there will always be corruption in government and vote-pandering in elections. The topic is baffling.
All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.
Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


It says that it is a shame for women to speak in church, and says that if women want to learn, they should go home and ask their husbands to teach them.

I dont know what barbaric convolusions of reason can lead to a conclusion that this misogynist piece of trash can constitute merely an 'imploring of modesty.'

Beh, it just means that they shouldn't be priests/pastors..
And if your church allows this, it doesn't uphold the sacred scripture of the bible.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


It says that it is a shame for women to speak in church, and says that if women want to learn, they should go home and ask their husbands to teach them.

I dont know what barbaric convolusions of reason can lead to a conclusion that this misogynist piece of trash can constitute merely an 'imploring of modesty.'

You have to consider the realities of the time.. education was not normally granted to women.. and so women asking their husbands later on what was meant by the sermon would've been pretty practical. After all, the passage notes that it coincided with the current law. Today, women are allowed education, which is fine, and have the ability to ask logical questions. Back then, they were treated more or less like children, whom most deny the right to speak in church today. ;) Times change, but parts of the bible were written to deal with the culture of the time.

And another thing...
As long as abortion is legal.. since it's a 'woman's right'.. should men still be forced to pay child support?

Easiest way is just to ban this disgusting, degrading act of butchery...
Keeps everthing fair.


It is revolting barbarism, on par with the islamic taliban to use weapons and government coercion to force women to carry pregnencies agains their will.

Pure sickening misogynism.

You have to consider the realities of the time.. education was not normally granted to women.. and so women asking their husbands later on what was meant by the sermon would've been pretty practical. After all, the passage notes that it coincided with the current law. Today, women are allowed education, which is fine, and have the ability to ask logical questions. Back then, they were treated more or less like children, whom most deny the right to speak in church today. ;) Times change, but parts of the bible were written to deal with the culture of the time.


So people dont have to follow what god put in the bible if they claim that "times have changed" ???

Political correctness trumps god's bible???

Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."
It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.
And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues, I mean it is kind of sad what american religion has denerated to, after we granted it toleration in the constitution.
And as for conservatives... :rolleyes: ... there will always be corruption in government and vote-pandering in elections. The topic is baffling.
All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.
Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.

Hah, what a nut.
Desperation is always obvious.
And we're not talking about 'republican or democratic' bases.. we're talking about women making up over half of all registered voters..

Well, it's pointless arguing with some nut-job that de-values human life over the 'right' of a woman. :p
So good day to you

Hah, what a nut.
Desperation is always obvious.
And we're not talking about 'republican or democratic' bases.. we're talking about women making up over half of all registered voters..

Well, it's pointless arguing with some nut-job that de-values human life over the 'right' of a woman. :p
So good day to you


I do call the dept of homeland security when you taliban types get near public transportation.

You just cant be trusted.

So people dont have to follow what god put in the bible if they claim that "times have changed" ???

Political correctness trumps god's bible???

I Corinthians was written by St. Paul of Tarsus, friend. Paul dealt with the culture of the time.. :rolleyes:

And another thing...
As long as abortion is legal.. since it's a 'woman's right'.. should men still be forced to pay child support?

Easiest way is just to ban this disgusting, degrading act of butchery...
Keeps everthing fair.

Women want it both ways, something they'd never let men get away with.

Double standards favouring women = good
Double standards favouring men = bad

I hate my penis! I could have it both ways dammit!

Back then, they were treated more or less like children, whom most deny the right to speak in church today. ;) Times change, but parts of the bible were written to deal with the culture of the time.

:p ;) :) :cool: :D

I Corinthians was written by St. Paul of Tarsus, friend. Paul dealt with the culture of the time.. :rolleyes:

Pepe is right.. he did

I Corinthians was written by St. Paul of Tarsus, friend. Paul dealt with the culture of the time.. :rolleyes:


So the bible isnt the inspired word of god.

And for the sake of Jesus Christ read the rest of that chapter of I Corinth.

Paul explicitly plays the "word of god" card.

Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

Because it's an excuse to send murderers away for longer.

For one thing, I don't think this is the same everywhere, for the reason of its disputed nature. In those places where it is, I'm sure that a number of Anti-Choice legislators will assure you that it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with getting a wedge into banning abortion...anyone know if there's a "shifty eyes" emoticon?

1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?


1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord


God inspired paul to write that His commandment about women speaking in church was explicitly and unequivocally a Commandment of the Lord.

So the bible isnt the inspired word of god.

And for the sake of Jesus Christ read the rest of that chapter of I Corinth.

Paul explicitly plays the "word of god" card.

I think we all know the difference between the Gospels and the epistles... imbecile. :rolleyes: ;)

I think we all know the difference between the Gospels and the epistles... imbecile. :rolleyes: ;)


So you didnt read that chapter of I corinth?

You'd better go back to madrassa!

I think we all know the difference between the Gospels and the epistles... imbecile. :rolleyes: ;)

Hah, yeah..
This ' new grenada' nutjob is out of his element.

Women want it both ways, something they'd never let men get away with.

Double standards favouring women = good
Double standards favouring men = bad

I hate my penis! I could have it both ways dammit!

Let's see...the alternative is that the woman has to carry the a parasite she doesn't want to term because the man says so. So, that's bad, and safeguarding against this hardly constitutes a double standard. It's not as if the alternative is that the man carries it instead. Regarding child support, the alternative is that the woman has to pay for raising the child herself. Let's see, again, that's bad. One forces a physical burden on the woman, the other an economic burden - neither of which should be forced on her.

Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."

For clarification, it isn't the woman herself who is the "unborn child". It's the fetus inside her.


It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.

Excuse me, are you implying that all pro-lifers are conservatives?

"Moralistic Liberal" here, sheesh. :rolleyes:

And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues

Since when are the people trying to preserve life the same as those who try to destroy it?

All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.

Yes, but it's not as important as the life of a baby.

Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.

And now you're equating a fetus to religion? I'm confused here.

That is not a fact, it is an opinion.



For clarification, it isn't the woman herself who is the "unborn child". It's the fetus inside her.




Excuse me, are you implying that all pro-lifers are conservatives?

"Moralistic Liberal" here, sheesh. :rolleyes:



Since when are the people trying to preserve life the same as those who try to destroy it?



Yes, but it's not as important as the life of a baby.



And now you're equating a fetus to religion? I'm confused here.


Oh dear me oh my.

You really ought to read what I quoted in the post where I typed that. Or read up....

Well, it's pointless arguing with some nut-job that de-values human life over the 'right' of a woman. :p
So good day to you

Prove it's life and you can be such a haughty prick. Until then, you ought to hold your tongue, fool.

I read it. Your point?

It is revolting barbarism, on par with the islamic taliban to use weapons and government coercion to force women to carry pregnencies agains their will.

Pure sickening misogynism.

Women just don't "get" pregnant...
They brought the child into this world.. deal with it..
Murder should never be an option

Hah, yeah..
This ' new grenada' nutjob is out of his element.

I've got to agree. :(

They didn't call Corinth Korinthiazomai for no good reason... imploring a city with more prostitutes than modern-day Thailand to show modesty is barbaric to some people... luckily, not to the sort of people that matter. ;)

Prove it's life and you can be such a haughty prick. Until then, you ought to hold your tongue, fool.

Well, if you don't know basic human anatomy... don't take it out on me.

I've got to agree. :(

They didn't call Corinth Korinthiazomai for no good reason... imploring a city with more prostitutes than modern-day Thailand to show modesty is barbaric to some people... luckily, not to the sort of people that matter. ;)


Again my good mullah, civilized people do not consider banning women from speaking in church to be morally correct.

I'm not a sociological or cultural relativist. I believe that your culture of woman-hating is wrong.

Women just don't "get" pregnant...
They brought the child into this world.. deal with it..
Murder should never be an option

I'd applaud you, but you're probably a bushie. ;)

Women just don't "get" pregnant...
They brought the child into this world.. deal with it..
Murder should never be an option


Murder isnt an option.

Abortion does not end a human life.

Let's see...the alternative is that the woman has to carry the a parasite she doesn't want to term because the man says so. So, that's bad, and safeguarding against this hardly constitutes a double standard. It's not as if the alternative is that the man carries it instead. Regarding child support, the alternative is that the woman has to pay for raising the child herself. Let's see, again, that's bad. One forces a physical burden on the woman, the other an economic burden - neither of which should be forced on her.

Well....she could always have an abortion? something the man has no right to decide upon, or she could keep the child and force the father to pay child support, again something the man has no right to decide upon. I'm guessing your a women, because in your haste to through out a comeback putting me in my place you essentally said that you want to have it both ways.....Thanks I guess

You'd better go back to madrassa!

What's up with invoking the arabs? You certainly won't learn anything about the Gospels at a madrass... maybe you've been convinced of the horrors of moral standards by someone who went to one, but I surely haven't. :rolleyes: ;)

Again my good mullah, civilized people do not consider banning women from speaking in church to be morally correct.

I'm not a sociological or cultural relativist. I believe that your culture of woman-hating is wrong.

Hmm...
Woman-hating
Child-hating
and Baby-hating.

See the significance? You practice TWO of them.

Hmm...
Woman-hating
Child-hating
and Baby-hating.

See the significance? You practice TWO of them.


You forget that a zygote embryo or fetus is neither a baby nor a child.

I practice none of those.

Murder isnt an option.

Abortion does not end a human life.

I smell another opinion claimed as fact...

You forget that a zygote embryo or fetus is neither a baby nor a child.

I practice none of those.

Opinion, and falsehood.

I smell another opinion claimed as fact...

As opposed to...

Have you bothered reading much of whats been written in this topic?

Opinion, and falsehood.

You claim which as a falsehood?

Again my good mullah, civilized people do not consider banning women from speaking in church to be morally correct.

I'm not a sociological or cultural relativist. I believe that your culture of woman-hating is wrong.

no culture endorses 'woman-hating'.. at least not western..
I don't know about the japs.. :D
Anyhow, women staying in their ideological, god-intended place and 'hating' are two different subjects.
This is about abortion.. please stay on topic.

I've read all of it. You seem to think I have no brain. Try examining your own before you examine others'.

Well, if you don't know basic human anatomy... don't take it out on me.

Well, you and Grigala have already proven you don't grasp sarcasm, giving birth to great irony. Now you prove that you, indeed, have no idea what you're talking about, nor the dimensions of this issue. Cite for me 3 medical, reputable websites that prove that life begins at conception. Go! Since you are so obviously in your element, this should be no problem whatsoever for you.

no culture endorses 'woman-hating'.. at least not western..
I don't know about the japs.. :D
Anyhow, women staying in their ideological, god-intended place and 'hating' are two different subjects.
This is about abortion.. please stay on topic.


So long as misogynist barbarian religious fundementalists fight in the abortion battle, what i've said will remain completely topical.

You claim which as a falsehood?

I'd say, "Anyone who practices abortion practices Baby-hating", but then I'd be acting like you.

I've read all of it. You seem to think I have no brain. Try examining your own before you examine others'.

Honestly my boy, if you didnt have a brain you couldnt type.

I just dont think you are morally correct or reasonable in your dencunciations of 'opinon rather than fact.'

I'm not interested in an epistemological argument, but if push comes to shove, you do understand that everything is just 'opinion' dont you?

Well, you and Grigala have already proven you don't grasp sarcasm, giving birth to great irony. Now you prove that you, indeed, have no idea what you're talking about, nor the dimensions of this issue. Cite for me 3 medical, reputable websites that prove that life begins at conception. Go! Since you are so obviously in your element, this should be no problem whatsoever for you.

Excuse me, what sarcasam?

I've read all of it. You seem to think I have no brain. Try examining your own before you examine others'.

New Granada, are you getting around to pointing out their idiocy? I'd hate to do so and step on your toes...

I'd say, "Anyone who practices abortion practices Baby-hating", but then I'd be acting like you.

I made two statements, one was "a fetus/zygote/embryo isnt a human being" and the other was
"I dont hate babies, children or women"

you said one was an opinion and the other was a falsehood.

To which were you refering with each charactarization?

Honestly my boy, if you didnt have a brain you couldnt type.

I just dont think you are morally correct or reasonable in your dencunciations of 'opinon rather than fact.'

I'm not interested in an epistemological argument, but if push comes to shove, you do understand that everything is just 'opinion' dont you?

There is a difference between "all of them" and 99.9%.

And my denunciations are the only "fact" in this topic.

I made two statements, one was "a fetus/zygote/embryo isnt a human being" and the other was
"I dont hate babies, children or women"

you said one was an opinion and the other was a falsehood.

To which were you refering with each charactarization?

Former to the former, latter to the latter.

There is a difference between "all of them" and 99.9%.

And my denunciations are the only "fact" in this topic.


How thoughful and kind of god to enlighten you with the "facts."

Former to the former, latter to the latter.

So you contend that I hate women babies or children, and have lied in saying that I do not..


Upon what grounds do you base this person attack?

Let's see...the alternative is that the woman has to carry the a parasite she doesn't want to term because the man says so. So, that's bad, and safeguarding against this hardly constitutes a double standard. It's not as if the alternative is that the man carries it instead. Regarding child support, the alternative is that the woman has to pay for raising the child herself. Let's see, again, that's bad. One forces a physical burden on the woman, the other an economic burden - neither of which should be forced on her.

Like I said before..
Women just don't "get" pregnant...
And second.. If it is purely a woman's right to kill an infant... then she shouldn't be allowed to constitute a man's right to pay child support...
Anyone else see the injustice?
Just make this barbaric insanity illegal. It's murder!

New Granada, are you getting around to pointing out their idiocy? I'd hate to do so and step on your toes...

You make no sense with this post. Please explain to me it's point or I will consider it spam.

And, I am not a "their", that implies that I am multible persons.

Abortion= Murder... Everyone knows this.
But that doesnt stop the feminists.. and declaring the life of an unborn child a 'woman's right'..
It doesn't stop the conscience of a vote-hungry liberal either... knowing that women make up over half of registered voters..
And of course women are more-so biased towards sex-related issues.
I mean, it's kind of sad what broads have degenerated to, after we gave them the right to vote.. and as for liberals... :rolleyes: ... there will always be corruption in society... so this topic really has me baffled.
All I know is that a human life is more important than anyone's right.. man or woman.

Originally Posted by New Granada
Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."
It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.
And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues, I mean it is kind of sad what american religion has denerated to, after we granted it toleration in the constitution.
And as for conservatives... ... there will always be corruption in government and vote-pandering in elections. The topic is baffling.
All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.
Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.


Yeah, grigala....that point you're arguing? It's simply New Granada turning around the closed-minded, factless argument of your little friend in this debate (i.e. not his position). If you reread that post multiple times and thought that what you were posting was an intelligent response, it should now be clear and it was anything but, because you just didn't get it.

You make no sense with this post. Please explain to me it's point or I will consider it spam.

And, I am not a "their", that implies that I am multible persons.


Somehow i dont think that his post, which started with "new granada," was refering to you. regardless of what he quoted.

So you contend that I hate women babies or children, and have lied in saying that I do not..


Upon what grounds do you base this person attack?

"have lied in saying I do not"? Huh? I never said you didn't.

Okay, that sentence made about as much sense as one of your posts.

Like I said before..
Women just don't "get" pregnant...


This seems a little too difficult for some to figure out.. ;)

Like I said before..
Women just don't "get" pregnant...
And second.. If it is purely a woman's right to kill an infant... then she shouldn't be allowed to constitute a man's right to pay child support...
Anyone else see the injustice?
Just make this barbaric insanity illegal. It's murder!

YES!!!!! IF ITS PART OF A WOMANS BODY THAN THE CONNECTION TO THE MAN IS VOID! HALLILUJA! PRAISE JESUS THIS MAN HAS SEEN THE LIGHT! a little over the top? i don;t think so!

Originally Posted by New Granada
Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."
It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.
And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues, I mean it is kind of sad what american religion has denerated to, after we granted it toleration in the constitution.
And as for conservatives... ... there will always be corruption in government and vote-pandering in elections. The topic is baffling.
All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.
Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.


Yeah, grigala....that point you're arguing? It's simply New Granada turning around the closed-minded, factless argument of your little friend in this debate (i.e. not his position). If you reread that post multiple times and thought that what you were posting was an intelligent response, it should now be clear and it was anything but, because you just didn't get it.



Indeed, I even pointed out to him initially that it would be to his benefit if he read what lead up to that post.

Originally Posted by New Granada
Abortion is not murder, everyone knows this.

But that doesnt stop the religious fundementalists and american talibans from declaring that a woman's body is really an "unborn child."
It doesnt stop the conscious of a vote-hungry conservative either, knowing that ignorant religious fundementalists make up a large chunk of the republican base.
And of course the american taliban is more biased towards sex-related issues, I mean it is kind of sad what american religion has denerated to, after we granted it toleration in the constitution.
And as for conservatives... ... there will always be corruption in government and vote-pandering in elections. The topic is baffling.
All i know is that a woman's right to self-determination is more important than the jibberjabber of some religious nuts about a zygote being a person.
Women's freedom is more important than anyone's religion, muslim christian or jew.


Yeah, grigala....that point you're arguing? It's simply New Granada turning around the closed-minded, factless argument of your little friend in this debate (i.e. not his position). If you reread that post multiple times and thought that what you were posting was an intelligent response, it should now be clear and it was anything but, because you just didn't get it.

It's not automatically "factless and close-minded" just because he's on the opposite side of the argument.

And I get it perfectly, I just replied to "turn around his factless and close-minded argument".

Like I said before..
Women just don't "get" pregnant...
And second.. If it is purely a woman's right to kill an infant... then she shouldn't be allowed to constitute a man's right to pay child support...
Anyone else see the injustice?
Just make this barbaric insanity illegal. It's murder!

Oh, so because a woman gets pregnant, it's solely her responsibility? Sorry, no one saying she's not 50% blameworthy, but that doesn't mean she doesn't retain control of her body. Fact is, the alternative is not that the man carries it if she doesn't want to...and since that's the case, the choice defaults to her. A man's responsibility to pay child support reflects that 50% responsiblity being his, plain and simple. Unless you can propose a way that the man can carry the child if the woman doesn't want it, it's all about as fair as it can be.

How you doing on on proving that "life begins at conception" thing? ;)

"have lied in saying I do not"? Huh? I never said you didn't.

Okay, that sentence made about as much sense as one of your posts.


Jesus christ pay attention and read!

"So you contend that I hate women babies or children,"
You said that I was making a falsehood when i claimed that I did not hate women, babies or children.

"and [you] have lied in saying that I do not..[hate women/children/babies]"


It is english my boy, learn it! Love it! Pay attention!

Indeed, I even pointed out to him initially that it would be to his benefit if he read what lead up to that post.

I've read this entire topic, which was kind of hard considering the rate at which it is growing is only slightly less than my reading rate.

Jesus christ pay attention and read!

"So you contend that I hate women babies or children,"
You said that I was making a falsehood when i claimed that I did not hate women, babies or children.

"and [you] have lied in saying that I do not..[hate women/children/babies]"


It is english my boy, learn it! Love it! Pay attention!

I never said you didn't hate [women/children/babies], so I never lied saying "you did not", because I never said "you did not".

If a woman was raped and became pregnant would you really be willing to tell her that she can't have it aborted?

Yeah, easily.
If she want's to go at-it with a coat hanger that's her problem.. and should be tried for murder.

No crime in the world, especially rape, should justify the right of an infant to live.

Oh, so because a woman gets pregnant, it's solely her responsibility? Sorry, no one saying she's not 50% blameworthy, but that doesn't mean she doesn't retain control of her body. Fact is, the alternative is not that the man carries it if she doesn't want to...and since that's the case, the choice defaults to her. A man's responsibility to pay child support reflects that 50% responsiblity being his, plain and simple. Unless you can propose a way that the man can carry the child if the woman doesn't want it, it's all about as fair as it can be.

;)

Then the man should get to terminate his responsability to the child during the same time as the mother has the option to terminate the child. If she decides to keep 100% control then the man is freed from his obligations to the child. Thats about as fair as it can be. That is if being fair means 50% man 50% woman.

How thoughful and kind of god to enlighten you with the "facts."

God dosen't "enlighten people with facts", but that's a whole other topic.

And my opinions on abortion are just that, opinions, just like yours.

It's not automatically "factless and close-minded" just because he's on the opposite side of the argument.

Gee, you were just a short while ago whining about how NG's argument was factless and such, but somehow the original basis for that argument (proposed by Plenkawhatever) is fine? Heh, and you're getting on me for being biased...you're like a magic irony machine.

No, it's factless and closedminded because he has no facts to it (regarding the former) and he won't consider the merit or strenght of any other argument (pertaining to the latter).

And I get it perfectly, I just replied to "turn around his factless and close-minded argument".

So, do you often go around arguing sarcastic non-arguments? You're either backpedaling to try to save face, or you're still utterly in the dark here, because that's pretty damn stupid. 3 pages of stupid, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Granada
Jesus christ pay attention and read!

"So you contend that I hate women babies or children,"
You said that I was making a falsehood when i claimed that I did not hate women, babies or children.

"and [you] have lied in saying that I do not..[hate women/children/babies]"


It is english my boy, learn it! Love it! Pay attention!



I never said you didn't hate [women/children/babies], so I never lied saying "you did not", because I never said "you did not".

Ok, since you still refuse to pay attention to english and what the words mean, I will spell it out even more slowly and in even greater detail.

1. Somone told me I hated babies and children.
2. I said I did not hate either babies or children.
3. You told me that my claim regarding hating babies and children was false.
4. You implied, therefore, that i *did* hate babies and children. (by virtue of negating my negative)
5. You implied that I *lied* (by claiming something other than the truth, namely, by claiming that I did not hate babies/children when in fact I did)

Now do you understand the simple sentance I posted?

Again, Pay Attention And Read.

Oh, so because a woman gets pregnant, it's solely her responsibility? Sorry, no one saying she's not 50% blameworthy, but that doesn't mean she doesn't retain control of her body. Fact is, the alternative is not that the man carries it if she doesn't want to...and since that's the case, the choice defaults to her. A man's responsibility to pay child support reflects that 50% responsiblity being his, plain and simple. Unless you can propose a way that the man can carry the child if the woman doesn't want it, it's all about as fair as it can be.

How you doing on on proving that "life begins at conception" thing? ;)

Well, the man obviously cannot carry around the child...
It's God's will... don't blame man..
I just don't believe in murder... that's all...

Well, the man obviously cannot carry around the child...
It's God's will... don't blame man..
I just don't believe in murder... that's all...


Is it god's will for you to die in a blaze of glory sending a city bus of irreligious heathens to hell too mr. taliban?

Gee, you were just a short while ago whining about how NG's argument was factless and such, but somehow the original basis for that argument (proposed by Plenkawhatever) is fine? Heh, and you're getting on me for being biased...you're like a magic irony machine.

It's not "fine", I'm just saying that NG's post was just as "factless".

No, it's factless and closedminded because he has no facts to it (regarding the former) and he won't consider the merit or strenght of any other argument (pertaining to the latter).

Neither does, you, me, NG, or anyone else in this thread.



QUOTE=Anbar]So, do you often go around arguing sarcastic non-arguments? You're either backpedaling to try to save face, or you're still utterly in the dark here, because that's pretty damn stupid. 3 pages of stupid, actually.[/QUOTE]

Sarcastic non-arguments? I could say the same thing about NG's arguments, but I don't want to demean myself to your level.

Then the man should get to terminate his responsability to the child during the same time as the mother has the option to terminate the child. If she decides to keep 100% control then the man is freed from his obligations to the child. Thats about as fair as it can be. That is if being fair means 50% man 50% woman.

Have you considered how 50/50-ing something like that would work? She doesn't want it, he does...you want to tell me how that works? You can't make half that decision, so the choice defaults to her. Quite frankly, if I ever knocked up an anti-abortion girl and she refused to have an abortion, for example, I'd be pretty ticked...but there's not a damn thing I could complain about, because it's her body. So, it works both ways. The choice has to default to someone, and the fact of the matter is that the woman has to carry the growth for nine months (and take all the risks and such that come with that), so it goes beyond just who supports it later.

Then the man should get to terminate his responsability to the child during the same time as the mother has the option to terminate the child. If she decides to keep 100% control then the man is freed from his obligations to the child. Thats about as fair as it can be. That is if being fair means 50% man 50% woman.

I still think this is a moot argument, not believing in murder and such.
But seriously, if abortion is legal.. a man should certainly have a deadline to decide whether or not he wants to pay child support..
I mean the guy would be a real jerk.. but in your crazy warped ideology... he shouldn't bare any obligation to the child if he wants no part of it.
That's just common sense speaking to me.

Excuse me...How does abortion have anything to do with religion?

It has everything to do with religion and a person's definition of when a human becomes a human. You oppose abortion because you say it kills a baby. However, pro-choice folks deny that the fetus is a human. Abortion is not murder, from their point of view, because the living tissue, with the potential to become human, is part of the mother and as such she has a right to control her body. Another, more extreme position considers contraception of any kind to be a sin because the sperm and/or egg are human.

The argument comes down to when you think that spark (or soul or spirit) that transforms us from our component organs and cellular structures into people actually takes place. When the sperm enters the egg? Before the sperm enters the egg? When the fetus can live independently of the mother? At a certain point in brain development? The Catholic Church used to refer to human life beginning when the baby "quickened" (they have since changed that position).

As I mentioned before the same debate is conducted at the other end of life's journey. When does a person cease to be human? If machines pump and filter my blood, bring oxygen into my lungs, and feed my digestive system involuntarily while I have no brain function am I me? State law says I am, but ultimately that too comes down to a religious definition of what human life is.

Look at most of the posts on this issue and you will see people arguing at cross purposes, because they are using facts to support an underlying premise their opponents don't believe. They can't really discuss the issue because they have different religious views on what is human life.

Sarcastic non-arguments? I could say the same thing about NG's arguments, but I don't want to demean myself to your level.


Do you understand that sentance I posted yet, please read up and pay attention to the point-by-point breakdown.

Have you considered how 50/50-ing something like that would work? She doesn't want it, he does...you want to tell me how that works? You can't make half that decision, so the choice defaults to her. Quite frankly, if I ever knocked up an anti-abortion girl and she refused to have an abortion, for example, I'd be pretty ticked...but there's not a damn thing I could complain about, because it's her body. So, it works both ways. The choice has to default to someone, and the fact of the matter is that the woman has to carry the growth for nine months (and take all the risks and such that come with that), so it goes beyond just who supports it later.

It's murder anyways... so the only one you should be 'ticked' at is yourself..
For one getting her pregnant, and second for wanting to kill a baby. Shame on you.

Ok, since you still refuse to pay attention to english and what the words mean, I will spell it out even more slowly and in even greater detail.

1. Somone told me I hated babies and children.
2. I said I did not hate either babies or children.
3. You told me that my claim regarding hating babies and children was false.
4. You implied, therefore, that i *did* hate babies and children. (by virtue of negating my negative)

I meant these.

5. You implied that I *lied* (by claiming something other than the truth, namely, by claiming that I did not hate babies/children when in fact I did)

I do think that you belive that you don't hate [women/babies/children], I just think that's incorrect. I belive that anyone who supports killing a fetus hates babies. This may or may not be the truth, but it's still what I belive.

Well, the man obviously cannot carry around the child...
It's God's will... don't blame man..
I just don't believe in murder... that's all...

Then you have no alternative to improve the system, and so in what you propose, it becomes unfair to the woman. If you cannot balance the system, you ought not to complain about it as if the answer were simple. I propose the system is as balanced as it can be (under what God has willed, you might say), and you've yet to propose a perfectly balanced system to counter that argument.

As for murder, yes, that's all well and good to say it, but you can't murder something that's not alive, and you've not proved it's life yet.

Is it god's will for you to die in a blaze of glory sending a city bus of irreligious heathens to hell too mr. taliban?

Yeah.. not believing in murder must mean he wants to kill people, right? This guy's just the King of logic. :p

I meant these.



I do think that you belive that you don't hate [women/babies/children], I just think that's incorrect. I belive that anyone who supports killing a fetus hates babies. This may or may not be the truth, but it's still what I belive.


Well, you called it a falsehood and not an opinion.

And since you seem to be fixated on the differences between 'facts' and 'opinions' that distinction is significant.

It was kind of the lord god to enlighten you with the 'facts' regarding whether or not what I said was "falsehood."

Is it god's will for you to die in a blaze of glory sending a city bus of irreligious heathens to hell too mr. taliban?

So now he's a Taliban (a murderer), for being against abortion (anti-murder)? Sounds stupid to me, but that's just me.

It's murder anyways... so the only one you should be 'ticked' at is yourself..
For one getting her pregnant, and second for wanting to kill a baby. Shame on you.

Murder requires termination of life, and it's not life. Prove me wrong - put up or shut up.

Yeah.. not believing in murder must mean he wants to kill people, right? This guy's just the King of logic. :p

He hasnt really given a position on murder, just on abortion.

And abortion isnt murder.


*three cheers for arguing at cross purposes!*

Have you considered how 50/50-ing something like that would work? She doesn't want it, he does...you want to tell me how that works? You can't make half that decision, so the choice defaults to her. Quite frankly, if I ever knocked up an anti-abortion girl and she refused to have an abortion, for example, I'd be pretty ticked...but there's not a damn thing I could complain about, because it's her body. So, it works both ways. The choice has to default to someone, and the fact of the matter is that the woman has to carry the growth for nine months (and take all the risks and such that come with that), so it goes beyond just who supports it later.

Simple people often want black and white
Your talking about something that is the law
I'm talking about something that should be considered
If the woman wants an abortion that should be her right, if a man wants an abortion thats the equivalent of his severance to the child.
I never said a man should have the deciding vote on wether the child will live or not. This is clearly my position

Do you understand that sentance I posted yet, please read up and pay attention to the point-by-point breakdown.

I do, but that has nothing to do with what you quoted.

So now he's a Taliban (a murderer), for being against abortion (anti-murder)? Sounds stupid to me, but that's just me.


anti-abortion is in reality oppositon to women's rights, not murder.

He is a taliban because he is a barbarian religious fundementalist who tries to use his religion to oppress women. It is what the taliban did in afghanistan and it has given the word broad currency.


3cheersforcrosspurposes

Yeah.. not believing in murder must mean he wants to kill people, right? This guy's just the King of logic. :p

You summarize my point better than I could. ;)

So now he's a Taliban (a murderer), for being against abortion (anti-murder)? Sounds stupid to me, but that's just me.

That's who you're arguing with on this thread. ;)

The good news is: a morally indefensible position is pretty useless without popular support, which they don't have.. think if it as entertainment, and it's more fun. :p

(my apologies for quoting a long-past post)
The Four Fathers did not intend. . .

How do you know what the Four Fathers intended? I bet you can't even name all four of them. Do you know why you can't name all four? There weren't four of them. They are our forefather (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forefather)s, not "the Four fathers." I couldn't let this mistake stand, becuase I didn't want any impressionable youth reading it and learning something false.

I still think this is a moot argument, not believing in murder and such.
But seriously, if abortion is legal.. a man should certainly have a deadline to decide whether or not he wants to pay child support..
I mean the guy would be a real jerk.. but in your crazy warped ideology... he shouldn't bare any obligation to the child if he wants no part of it.
That's just common sense speaking to me.

Welcome to the dark side

So now he's a Taliban (a murderer), for being against abortion (anti-murder)? Sounds stupid to me, but that's just me.

Phlenketc is arguing for forcing a woman to forgo certain medical procedures on her own body based on his religious beliefs...as do the Taliban. Sounds like a perfect parallel to me.

[QUOTE=Anbar]it's not life.QUOTE]

OPINION ALERT!

And abortion isnt murder.


This seems to be the running OPINION.

That's who you're arguing with on this thread. ;)

The good news is: a morally indefensible position is pretty useless without popular support, which they don't have.. think if it as entertainment, and it's more fun. :p

The lack of popular support for the indefensible position of anti-abortion is why abortion is legal in every developed, educated and civilized country on earth.

Phlenketc is arguing for forcing a woman to forgo certain medical procedures on her own body based on his religious beliefs...as do the Taliban. Sounds like a perfect parallel to me.

Yup.. and I have brown hair.... like Hitler! Oooooo! ;)

anti-abortion is in reality oppositon to women's rights, not murder.

Do I really need to say that this is an opinion, not a fact, again?

Simple people often want black and white
Your talking about something that is the law
I'm talking about something that should be considered
If the woman wants an abortion that should be her right, if a man wants an abortion thats the equivalent of his severance to the child.
I never said a man should have the deciding vote on wether the child will live or not. This is clearly my position

Ah, that makes it a bit clearer. I can agree with that.

Yup.. and I have brown hair.... like Hitler! Oooooo! ;)

Um, not that HItler has anything to do with the Taliban, but...

I believe I was referring to a different poster...unless, of course, you're puppetting in this thread to drum up support for your position...which is illegal.

Ah, that makes it a bit clearer. I can agree with that.

Yeah! jerks rule! Now i don't feel so bad for being one. WOOT WOOT!

Do I really need to say that this is an opinion, not a fact, again?


I'm starting to suspect that this whole ludicrous obsessions with calling things 'opinions' (did you just discover epistemology my son?) is a ploy to spam and get your post count up and you should be reported to mods.

:)

Phlenketc is arguing for forcing a woman to forgo certain medical procedures on her own body based on his religious beliefs...as do the Taliban. Sounds like a perfect parallel to me.

I don't know about Phlen, but I argue that based on morals, not religous beliefs.

And it affects the baby's body too. Seriously, it kills it. Don't say it shouldn't have a say in it's own survival.

Oh, wait, you're probably going to say that regardless. My mistake.

Yup.. and I have brown hair.... like Hitler! Oooooo! ;)


Except that forcing women to forgo medical procedures due to a man's religious beliefs was a *central, core, defining principle* of the Taliban, while hitler's hair color was incidental.

Um, not that HItler has anything to do with the Taliban, but...

I believe I was referring to a different poster...unless, of course, you're puppetting in this thread to drum up support for your position...which is illegal.

No, I just think the liberal use of hyperbole's not helping things.

The lack of popular support for the indefensible position of anti-abortion is why abortion is legal in every developed, educated and civilized country on earth.

Indefensible? I'm doing pretty good job of defending it. And, you can't defend something indefensible.

I don't know about Phlen, but I argue that based on morals, not religous beliefs.

And it affects the baby's body too. Seriously, it kills it. Do'n say it shouldn't have a say in it's own survival.

Oh, wait, you're probably going to say that regardless. My mistake.


You could make your post count higher if you quoted yourself and said "note: opinion" in regards to all your posts.

You'd honestly get twice as many posts.

Indefensible? I'm doing pretty good job of defending it. And, you can't defend something indefensible.


mon petit cherie epistemologiste, read what was quoted in that post and pay attention to context

That's who you're arguing with on this thread. ;)

The good news is: a morally indefensible position is pretty useless without popular support, which they don't have.. think if it as entertainment, and it's more fun. :p

Do you just pop in tho throw in petty insults, or do you have some actual substance to contribute?

As for your second comment, I beleive that the pro-choice crown is in the majority in the US. Most poeple support a woman's right to choose, and as a result, it's legal for her to do so. You must be referring to this thread.

"Morally indefensible?" Those are your morals, and you can keep them. We're defending our position just fine; which is more than I can say for some other people posting here. Here's a hint:

strength of conviction =/=strength of argument.

I'm starting to suspect that this whole ludicrous obsessions with calling things 'opinions' (did you just discover epistemology my son?) is a ploy to spam and get your post count up and you should be reported to mods.

:)

No, I just try to reply one post to one post. Think about it, you've posted more in this thread than I have.

mon petit cherie epistemologiste, read what was quoted in that post and pay attention to context

I read it. Seriously, your obsession with saying that I haven't read stuff is like my obsession with calling stuff "opinions".

This might sound stupid, but:

What's epistemology?

edit: Whew, I think I finally caught up reading this thread.

I don't know about Phlen, but I argue that based on morals, not religous beliefs.

And it affects the baby's body too. Seriously, it kills it. Don't say it shouldn't have a say in it's own survival.

Oh, wait, you're probably going to say that regardless. My mistake.

And just where do your morals come from? Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is alive, so it's clearly not from empirical evidence or expert opinion. You must have some other reason for believing what you do. I assumed religion - if it's something else, please, enlighten me.

Something that's not alive has no right to survival. None of you has proved a fetus is alive, and I grow weary of waiting for you to do so. It's the foundation of your arguments...I'd expect one of you to pick up the ball at some point. After 10 pages, it's about time one of you does so.

Do you just pop in tho throw in petty insults, or do you have some actual substance to contribute?

As for your second comment, I beleive that the pro-choice crown is in the majority in the US. Most poeple support a woman's right to choose, and as a result, it's legal for her to do so. You must be referring to this thread.

"Morally indefensible?" Those are your morals, and you can keep them. We're defending our position just fine; which is more than I can say for some other people posting here. Here's a hint:

strength of conviction =/=strength of argument.

Actually, my argument on page 1 wasn't in advocacy of a complete abortion ban... but we've gotten so far away from that that i'm just responding to ancillary arguments now, e.g. denial that abortion is murder. ;)

No, I just try to reply one post to one post. Think about it, you've posted more in this thread than I have.


Indeed, but if you payed attention to the posts in the forum you'd notice that I havent posted the same trivial statement repeatedly.

(since you are slow on the uptake with english sentances, i'll break this one down ahead of time)

(you keep posting that different things people say are 'opinions,' rather than argue against the points contained within the posts)

(what you say is trivial because it is devoid of practical relevance)

(it is devoid of practical relevance because it is a common constant in every statement anyone makes)

(think of the equation A(z) + B(z) = C(z), its relationship to A+B=C)

(again, i'll explain for you)

(the z is constant so it can be removed from the equation and the relationship between A B and C is the same)

the hypocrisy of the Republican party makes me want to puke.

I agree with Republicans when they say that life begins with conception, but my agreement with Republicans ends when the baby is born. Once the child is born, Republican policies would have that child thrown to the wolves.

Furthermore, I find it telling how the Bush administration dragged its feet regarding the AIDS epidemic in Africa; apparently our Glorious Pro-Life Leader failed to recognize that 1)AIDS can be transmitted to babies innocent of wrongdoing through childbirth, 2)while there is no cure for AIDS, drugs exist that can prevent this method of transmission, and 3)the United States is wealthy enough to distribute these drugs to poor nations in need.

Instead, Bush wanted his precious tax cut. And this example alone makes me believe that the Republican position on "the sanctity of human life" is, at best, shallow. Republican refusals to acknowlege this problem, and address it in a timely manner, led to the deaths of millions of people. Many of these deaths could have been prevented. Doesn't sound like "pro-life" to me.

That said, let's assume that a child who would have been aborted is brought to term because his/her mother was prevented from having abortion. What happens to that child under present Republican policies? Note that this assumes that the child is not rich or even middle class.

That child has no assurances of living in a clean, healthy environment.
That child will receive a subpar education, and what little education the child does receive will be on how to fill in ovals on a standardized test. Thanks a lot for NCLB.
That child will have no assurance of any decent standard of healthcare, as the mother cannot afford insurance premiums that go up by 15% a year, or even ER treatment.
That child has no assurance of having enough food to eat, or adequate shelter, as Republicans generally oppose government aid to the needy, as well as labor regulations that ensure that workers get paid a wage that they can survive on. It would be one thing to oppose welfare if there were available jobs that paid enough for everyone to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves with; unfortunately, there aren't.
That child might be conscripted, upon reaching the age of 18, to fight wars over natural resources, bombing other children in the process.

Even though I am pro-life, I must say that I would rather have been aborted than face this as a child. :(

Furthermore, if the Republicans succeed in overturning Roe v Wade, they will have discarded a wedge issue that is useful for turning out their base. It is not in the best interests of the Republican Party to outlaw abortion; they just use it to shill for votes among people who believe that responsibility for the sanctity of human life ends at childbirth.

I read it. Seriously, your obsession with saying that I haven't read stuff is like my obsession with calling stuff "opinions".

This might sound stupid, but:

What's epistemology?

edit: Whew, I think I finally caught up reading this thread.


hardly, you respond to red herrings by disregarding the context of the posts you respond to.

and epistemology is, as you should know, the study of knowledge (or the study of "the ability to know")

... but we've gotten so far away from that that i'm just responding to ancillary arguments now, e.g. denial that abortion is murder. ;)

With petty insults? Why don't you, oh, I don't know...prove such arguments false? Or, do you somehow think it's proper to simply insult people whose arguments you can't defeat?

Those are your morals, and you can keep them.

That's just fine. "Pro-lifers" (oh how I hate that term- since it implies that people in favour of legal abortion are murderers) aren't forced to terminate pregnancies. If you're so anti-abortion, don't have one yourself. We just want the option there, since the consensus seems to be for it.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?

Because only the pregnant woman can decide whether to go through with the pregnancy. No one can make the choice for her. So when a pregnant woman is killed, it is assumed that she wanted to have the child.

That's just fine. "Pro-lifers" (oh how I hate that term- since it implies that people in favour of legal abortion are murderers) aren't forced to terminate pregnancies. If you're so anti-abortion, don't have one yourself. We just want the option there, since the consensus seems to be for it.


Thats why serious journalistic standards of writing proscribe "anti-abortion" as a proper label for people who oppose abortion.

And just where do your morals come from? Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is alive, so it's clearly not from empirical evidence or expert opinion. You must have some other reason for believing what you do. I assumed religion - if it's something else, please, enlighten me.

Guess what, stoopid? I don't.

And sience dosen't support your claim that a fetus is not alive, because living has to do with when you recive a soul, and thus has nothing to do with science.

Something that's not alive has no right to survival.

I belive you kow what I would say here, so there's no point in saying it.

You seem to enjoy effectively comparing a fetus to a doll.

the hypocrisy of the Republican party makes me want to puke.

I agree with Republicans when they say that life begins with conception, but my agreement with Republicans ends when the baby is born. Once the child is born, Republican policies would have that child thrown to the wolves...

Wow, an opinion which is not only well stated, but well explained. Thank you, thank you very much.

the hypocrisy of the Republican party makes me want to puke.
bla bla bla bla
Party to outlaw abortion; they just use it to shill for votes among people who believe that responsibility for the sanctity of human life ends at childbirth.[/b]

Looks like we got some anti bush centiment here. Love he bush,charish the bush, the bush is your freind.

I thought we were talking about abortion not AIDS ?
dammit, everyheres a DEMvsGOP battleground!
TISK TISK

hardly, you respond to red herrings by disregarding the context of the posts you respond to.

and epistemology is, as you should know, the study of knowledge (or the study of "the ability to know")

I know now. ;)

With petty insults? Why don't you, oh, I don't know...prove such arguments false? Or, do you somehow think it's proper to simply insult people whose arguments you can't defeat?

Yeah.. so, when whoever it was told whoever the other person was that being anti-abortion meant they wanted to blow up a bus and kill others, pointing out the absurdity of that was a 'petty insult,' right? Start making sense, friend. ;)

That's just fine. "Pro-lifers" (oh how I hate that term- since it implies that people in favour of legal abortion are murderers) aren't forced to terminate pregnancies. If you're so anti-abortion, don't have one yourself. We just want the option there, since the consensus seems to be for it.

Who are you referring to? That was my quote, but not my position you addressed. I am confused.

Guess what, stoopid? I don't.



I belive you kow what I would say here, so there's no point in saying it.

You seem to enjoy effectively comparing a fetus to a doll.


Do you discount the morality of people who are pro-choice?

I consider it a moral point that a fetus is not a human being, and a moral point that the government does not have the right to coerce women into carrying a pregnancy by force of arms.

Looks like we got some anti bush centiment here. Love he bush,charish the bush, the bush is your freind.

I thought we were talking about abortion not AIDS ?
dammit, everyheres a DEMvsGOP battleground!
TISK TISK

Respecting the sanctity of human life requires more than simply opposing abortion, and I brought up these other issues to demonstrate that.

Do you discount the morality of people who are pro-choice?

No, their morals are just different than mine.

I consider it a moral point that a fetus is not a human being

My morals state that it is, but moarls depend on the person, ya know?

and a moral point that the government does not have the right to coerce women into carrying a pregnancy by force of arms.

Anyone (except perhaps a taliban) would agree with you there, but you're streching the issue.

Who are you referring to? That was my quote, but not my position you addressed. I am confused.

Sorry mate,. I was addressing the same person you were addressing, whoever that was. :p

I consider it a moral point that a fetus is not a human being, and a moral point that the government does not have the right to coerce women into carrying a pregnancy by force of arms.

I agree. And in terms of damage, I think being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy causes much more, to you, the child and those around you.

Originally Posted by Anbar
And just where do your morals come from? Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is alive, so it's clearly not from empirical evidence or expert opinion. You must have some other reason for believing what you do. I assumed religion - if it's something else, please, enlighten me.

Guess what, stoopid? I don't.

More insults...you poor, pathetic n00b. So, your beliefs are based on nothing, then? I can respect a person of faith for their beliefs - at least that constitutes a some form of support for their opinion. You, on the other hand, have no basis for your opinion (neither fact, nor belief), which just makes you an unthinking fool. Or, as you so childishly put it, you're too "stoopid" to even think about the issue.


Originally Posted by Anbar
Something that's not alive has no right to survival.

I belive you kow what I would say here, so there's no point in saying it.

You seem to enjoy effectively comparing a fetus to a doll.

I have the right to - you've not proven me wrong. I keep saying that if you want to keep claiming a fetus is alive, prove it. Til then, I have all the right in the world to say it's not, while you just look like a moron who can't prove his claims. Believe it or not, among people who actually debate this issue intelligently, arguments amount to more than just "I think this!" versus "No!! You're stupid! I think this!" That's just childish bickering, and why I look on you with disdain.

More insults...you poor, pathetic n00b. So, your beliefs are based on nothing, then? I can respect a person of faith for their beliefs - at least that constitutes a some form of support for their opinion. You, on the other hand, have no basis for your opinion (neither fact, nor belief), which just makes you an unthinking fool. Or, as you so childishly put it, you're too "stoopid" to even think about the issue.

No, they're based on my morals, and the only reason you're stupid is because you can't seem to swallow that.

I have the right to - you've not proven me wrong. I keep saying that if you want to keep claiming a fetus is alive, prove it. Til then, I have all the right in the world to say it's not, while you just look like a moron who can't prove his claims.

If you want to argue this, prove your claims.

According to your logic, I have the right, because you haven't proven me wrong either. So, "I have all the right in the world to say that it is, while you just look like a moron who can't prove his claims".

Respecting the sanctity of human life requires more than simply opposing abortion, and I brought up these other issues to demonstrate that.

Yes, but it seems oddly suspiciouse how frequently you brought up bush and his republican buddies in office now. Why don't we point the finger at some other administrations, for example, the Carter administration,regan.....bush sr...clinton...and finaly bush junior. Wow look at that, 3 republican presidents to 2, wait a minute
carter = 1 term
regan = 2 terms
bush sr = 1 term
clinton = 2 terms
and ahh the final proff
bush jr = 1 term

So there you have it folks, republican presidents care less about AIDS than Democratic presidents do
or is it just because republicans spend more time in the white house ?
or is it because the average american doesn't care about dime a dozen aids infested black people in africa ?

Yeah.. so, when whoever it was told whoever the other person was that being anti-abortion meant they wanted to blow up a bus and kill others, pointing out the absurdity of that was a 'petty insult,' right? Start making sense, friend. ;)

Yes, that's the only stupid post you've made here...and I'm the king of Persia. Incidentally, NG was wise to take a page from the Neoconservative playbook on that example, and I applaud him for it. Seems that some of you seem a bit slow on the uptake, though.

Sorry mate,. I was addressing the same person you were addressing, whoever that was. :p

That's what I figured, no worries. It is a bit confusing around here, as I suspect that there's some puppetry about...

That's what I figured, no worries. It is a bit confusing around here, as I suspect that there's some puppetry about...

To clear up confusion, I'm not a puppet, or a n00b. In fact, my nation has been around almost as long as yours has.

No, they're based on my morals, and the only reason you're stupid is because you can't seem to swallow that.

No, it's quite obvious that your morals are based in your own ignorance, I grasped that long ago. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you actually had a reason for what you believed. I know otherwise now, though. ;)

Do you think it's somehow commendable that you hold an opinion with no basis?

If you want to argue this, prove your claims.

According to your logic, I have the right, because you haven't proven me wrong either. So, "I have all the right in the world to say that it is, while you just look like a moron who can't prove his claims".

Heh, no, you made the claim first, and I countered it - which means the ball is in your court. Prove your claim, that's how debate works.

No, wait, let me trump you intellectiually once again, since it's late I and I don't have time for your foolishness. No one can factually prove that claim, because there is no conclusive answer. At one point, a zygote is formed, and some cite this as life. At another, a heart begins beating independently of the mother's, other cite this as life. At yet another point, brainwaves begin to be measured, later in ways that signify that pain receptors and otehrs that take in external stimuli exist, and I cite this as life. This occurs late in development. Finally, some cite the moment of birth.

But guess what? There's no scientific definition. That's right - no empirically proven point where life begins, because we don't have a firm definition of life! I knew from square one that you couldn't prove your point, nor can I...but at least I have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter, something you cannot say.

To clear up confusion, I'm not a puppet, or a n00b. In fact, my nation has been around almost as long as yours has.

Um, Feb 2003 versus June 2004, and you have 86 posts - no, it hasn't.

Yes, but it seems oddly suspiciouse how frequently you brought up bush and his republican buddies in office now. Why don't we point the finger at some other administrations, for example, the Carter administration,regan.....bush sr...clinton...and finaly bush junior. Wow look at that, 3 republican presidents to 2, wait a minute
carter = 1 term
regan = 2 terms
bush sr = 1 term
clinton = 2 terms
and ahh the final proff
bush jr = 1 term

So there you have it folks, republican presidents care less about AIDS than Democratic presidents do
or is it just because republicans spend more time in the white house ?
or is it because the average american doesn't care about dime a dozen aids infested black people in africa ?

Yes, but he's commenting on the Republican stance on abortion and hypocritically claims to be the party which defends "the sanctity of life." So, citing Democratic administrations does little to refute his argument.

Yeah! jerks rule! Now i don't feel so bad for being one. WOOT WOOT!

Well, I would have to say that the man should have to pay the hospital expenses of putting her in that position - either for the abortion or the delivery. After that, though, it was her choice, so the responsiblity could be put squarely on her.

Yes, but he's commenting on the Republican stance on abortion and hypocritically claims to be the party which defends "the sanctity of life." So, citing Democratic administrations does little to refute his argument.

Suppoed pro-chioce and pro-life governments care about AIDS at the same level....they both really don't care at all because its not eather of their problem is all.

SO how Republicans and AIDS fits into this thread is a mystery.

Well, I would have to say that the man should have to pay the hospital expenses of putting her in that position - either for the abortion or the delivery. After that, though, it was her choice, so the responsiblity could be put squarely on her.

I live in canada, so free abortions for all up here.

I live in canada, so free abortions for all up here.

"Abortions for some...little [insert country's name here] flags for everyone!"

*Cheers*

Yes, but it seems oddly suspiciouse how frequently you brought up bush and his republican buddies in office now. Why don't we point the finger at some other administrations, for example, the Carter administration,regan.....bush sr...clinton...and finaly bush junior.

AIDS did not exist yet as a human disease during the Carter administration.
Reagan pretty much ignored it, just like Bush.
And I will confess that I don't know the specifics of Clinton's policy on AIDS. Nor do I necessarily agree with everything he did.

So there you have it folks, republican presidents care less about AIDS than Democratic presidents do
or is it just because republicans spend more time in the white house ?
or is it because the average american doesn't care about dime a dozen aids infested black people in africa?

Sadly, I'm going to have to say the third option...it seems that most of us 'Murikans don't much care about the fortunes of poor people, especially those in a far off land that we have never seen.

Suppoed pro-chioce and pro-life governments care about AIDS at the same level....they both really don't care at all because its not eather of their problem is all.

SO how Republicans and AIDS fits into this thread is a mystery.

He was stating his dislike of the Republican platform, which heavily leans on being the party which holds life sacred. One point which he sees which shows hypocrisy here is that they've hardly done anything about all the people dying of AIDS. Now, were the Democrats to make a similar claim about the importance of life to their party, it would be pertinent. You can point out that the Democrats didn't do enough about AIDS, either, but that doesn't make them hypocrites. He was disgusted with the Republicans' hypocrisy in alledging to be "pro-life," and pointed out why, including other issues which pertain to life and the loss of it.

Sadly, I'm going to have to say the third option...it seems that most of us 'Murikans don't much care about the fortunes of poor people, especially those in a far off land that we have never seen.
Oh i care a great deal, ever read frank herbert Santeroga barrier.. i think thats what the title was? It was based on how the world decided a plauge in africa ( BASED ON AIDS ) was to be controlled by quarinteening the whole continent. I like that option, less licklyhood of my lineage getting AIDS that way.
Gentlemen....to evil.

Now, folks, I'm going to take my leave while I have no unfinished business. I'm sick and tired, both literally, so it's time to sleep. Best of luck to this surprisingly lengthy thread.

AIDS did not exist yet as a human disease during the Carter administration.
Just being pedantic... AIDS has been around in humans since the 1930's. I'll admit it didn't reach the public eye until the 80's though, so your point remains valid.

I'll just shut up now. :p

He was stating his dislike of the Republican platform, which heavily leans on being the party which holds life sacred. One point which he sees which shows hypocrisy here is that they've hardly done anything about all the people dying of AIDS. Now, were the Democrats to make a similar claim about the importance of life to their party, it would be pertinent. You can point out that the Democrats didn't do enough about AIDS, either, but that doesn't make them hypocrites. He was disgusted with the Republicans' hypocrisy in alledging to be "pro-life," and pointed out why, including other issues which pertain to life and the loss of it.

Yes but above all else the republican forign polocy trumps all else
"If your not american.....to hell with you"
they can still be pro life in America and pro screw you in the world, most countries have that polocy, but not to the charming extent the GOP does.

This isn't an argument so much as a compomise im making for you, damn i hate to compromise, so instead, i'll say you did.

Um, Feb 2003 versus June 2004, and you have 86 posts - no, it hasn't.

Um... I started my NATION in July 2003, jolt just hates me, so it dosen't register my old existance.

Oh i care a great deal, ever read frank herbert Santeroga barrier.. i think thats what the title was? It was based on how the world decided a plauge in africa ( BASED ON AIDS ) was to be controlled by quarinteening the whole continent. I like that option, less licklyhood of my lineage getting AIDS that way.
Gentlemen....to evil.

I have never read this book/author you speak of...however the idea of 'quarantining' millions of people to their certain death, rather than trying to help them, disgusts me.

I have never read this book/author you speak of...however the idea of 'quarantining' millions of people to their certain death, rather than trying to help them, disgusts me.

"As is life"

sometimes you have to take on the sins of the world for the sake of your children

No, it's quite obvious that your morals are based in your own ignorance, I grasped that long ago. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you actually had a reason for what you believed. I know otherwise now, though. ;)

Do you think it's somehow commendable that you hold an opinion with no basis?

If you want to deny the fact that my morals are different than yours, go right ahead, dig your own social grave. My reason is my morals, and until you start to comprehend that I will assume that you are incapible of such a feat.

Heh, no, you made the claim first, and I countered it - which means the ball is in your court. Prove your claim, that's how debate works.

If you want to see me talk about my claim, you might want to read my previous posts. I've done more explaining than you have, so don't give me that.

No, wait, let me trump you intellectiually once again, since it's late I and I don't have time for your foolishness. No one can factually prove that claim, because there is no conclusive answer. At one point, a zygote is formed, and some cite this as life. At another, a heart begins beating independently of the mother's, other cite this as life. At yet another point, brainwaves begin to be measured, later in ways that signify that pain receptors and otehrs that take in external stimuli exist, and I cite this as life. This occurs late in development. Finally, some cite the moment of birth. .

I don't have time for your foolishness either, and it's obvious that neither one of us is going to convince the other of their veiws, so this debate is inherently pointless. For me, every potential baby has the right to live, weither it is "alive" yet or not.

But guess what? There's no scientific definition. That's right - no empirically proven point where life begins, because we don't have a firm definition of life! I knew from square one that you couldn't prove your point, nor can I...but at least I have the knowledge to make an informed decision on the matter, something you cannot say.

I have the knowlege to make an informed decision on the matter.

There. I said it. I find it ignorant of you to assume that I am unintelligent when our contact dosen't exceed this thread.

You want knowlege? Here's my theory:

Every time a sperm and an egg meet, they have potential to make a baby. (fact) I belive that nobody has any right to deny life to anyone who hasn't had the opprotunity to experience life yet. (opinion) Then again, once a baby has had the chance to experience life, it is alive, and thus cannot be killed without the legal consequences of murder. (opinion, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with me on this) I do not think that is is right for anyone to deny life to anything, as long as it has the potential for life. (opinion). It is part of my set of morals that said actions are wrong. (fact, it is in my morals).

There, now the proverbial "ball" is back in your proverbial "court".

"As is life"

sometimes you have to take on the sins of the world for the sake of your children

Please explain to me how giving victims of the AIDS epidemic medicine would threaten me? :rolleyes:

(I'm 19 and as such do not yet have children, but I guess you could say that I just got done being a child myself :p )

Please explain to me how giving victims of the AIDS epidemic medicine would threaten me? :rolleyes:

(I'm 19 and as such do not yet have children, but I guess you could say that I just got done being a child myself :p )

There is no cure for AIDS once you get HIV its only a metter of time before the flu kills you or it flips to AIDS and that will kill you. So you could contain the desease while looking for treatment options. 1 in 4 people in africa have AIDS now. That means that its a safe bet that once the next generation comes to mateing age, it might be 1 in 2, then 3 in 4 after that. I'm just saying if theres not progress made soon, eveyone in theat contienets gona be living with a communicatable, and termanal illness, and containment will be the only option at that point.

If you want to deny the fact that my morals are different than yours, go right ahead, dig your own social grave. My reason is my morals, and until you start to comprehend that I will assume that you are incapible of such a feat.

blah blah blah

morals).

There, now the proverbial "ball" is back in your proverbial "court".

hes gone to bed dude......sorry. post #171


Speaking of going to bed, goodnight everyone

There is no cure for AIDS once you get HIV its only a metter of time before the flu kills you or it flips to AIDS and that will kill you. So you could contain the desease while looking for treatment options. 1 in 4 people in africa have AIDS now. That means that its a safe bet that once the next generation comes to mateing age, it might be 1 in 2, then 3 in 4 after that. I'm just saying if theres not progress made soon, eveyone in theat contienets gona be living with a communicatable, and termanal illness, and containment will be the only option at that point.

I am well aware that there is not yet a cure for AIDS, but there are medicines that can at least block transmission of AIDS, which could help greatly in containing it if only they were used. And yes, I'll acknowledge that no medicine is 100% effective.

Now, going back to my original point, I expressed disdain for those in the halls of power here in the US, who had the oppurtunity to help contain the AIDS epidemic in Africa by funding the distribution of these medicines to the Third World. Now, how many babies have been given an effective death sentence because they acquired AIDS from the rather bloody process of childbirth, when modern medicine could have greatly reduced the probability of transmission?

President Bush had the oppurtunity to act on this issue, and he squandered it. When public pressure became too great, he allocated a token sum that would barely make a dent in the problem, so he could claim he did something; however, he wouldn't want to jeopardize pharmaceutical industry profits by distributing too much free medicine, now would he?:rolleyes: While you might disagree with my judgement, I believe this willful ignorance makes Bush complicit in at least the preventable cases of AIDS. However, I will also admit that he can't just wave his magic wand and make the disease disappear from the face of the earth.

The ignorance expressed by the official foreign policy of the United States in regards to this issue (and many others) has been a major contributor to these sorts of problems.

Oh, and you might want to check your spelling...your post was extremely difficult to read. Copy and paste the post into a word processor and run spell check if you must; other members of this forum will thank you, I'm sure. That said, I really need to go to bed (almost 4 am here). Good night.

If a woman was raped and became pregnant would you really be willing to tell her that she can't have it aborted?

Yes, absolutely definitely. I really don't get the whole "in the case of rape" thing. If the foetus / embryo / unborn child whatever you want to call it is worthy of a right to life, it isn't less worthy if it's father was a vicious arsehole. If it isn't worthy of a right to life, it isn't more worthy if its mother consented to take the risk of impregnation.

"What about rape?" is a non-question. What about it? Might be extremely uncomfortable psychologically for the mother, but it doesn't affect the right to life (or not) of the unborn.

What if a girl of 12 is raped by her father? What if? I don't think taking it out on the embryo is fair. In my country, a majority disagree with me so what the hey. I hope they'll come around eventually. Slavery was perfectly normal and acceptable in human society for thousands of years. It was only relatively recently that the morality of it came into question.

"What about rape?" is a non-question. What about it? Might be extremely uncomfortable psychologically for the mother, but it doesn't affect the right to life (or not) of the unborn.

If you care so much about the future of the unborned baby, I'd like you to present with some facts. For instance, if a woman is forced to carry her pregnancy against her will, nobody should be surprised if she doesn't love her baby that much. This, of course, doesn't nor contribute at all to the wellbwing of the future child. Furthermore, at some point the child will learn that his mother doesn't love him very much, in fact she didn't even want a child, but we have this law that bans abortion.

If we take into account only the unborn child, then, indeed, abortion is bad. But you can't reduce it to that. It also affects another life, that of the mother. Regardless the human rights, America has a death penalty (and other countries, but America is the flagship of democracy, is it not?). The vas majority of countries consider self-defense as a legitimate reason to take somebody's elese life.

No matter how you look at it, you can't put aside the mother (and her rights) and not even the father, although for him the problem is much simpler.

It is absurd to state that sperm or egg is an unborn child. It is also absurd to say that a foetus in the 8th month is not an unborn child (with the consequent rights). But a egg fertilized in-vitro is an unborned child? Should I be considered a murderer for unplugging the fridge?

Putting aside religion (becuase religion SHOULD NOT give rules for society, since not all of the memebers of a society share the exact same religion), the debate should be around human rights. Obviously, you have to ballance the rights of the woman and the rights of the unborn child. This is not easy. However, I think that the woman's rights should have precedence (to some extent) merely for the fact that the woman already is a 'fully functional' human being.

My point is that yes, a woman should have the right to decide. I read 13 pages of posts and I have not met a single powerful argument (except the religious ones) that supports banning of abortion.

For the record, I am male, 23 years old and I live in Romania (actually in Italy, but only since october 1st).

Oh *Lord*. Not this thread again. Where the hell have all the smart pro-choice people gone? Gah, I guess I'll have to fence some stuff in the next 15 minutes (instead of studying for my English exam).

1. Abortion CANNOT be murder.
No, shut up and read the reason:
Murder is defined as illegally taking the life of a human being against their will.

Abortion is NOT illegal, so cannot be murder.
Debate exists as to the 'humanity' of a zygote, embyro or fetus. Until they are accepted legally as human, abortion CANNOT be murder.
Before a brain exists, the zygote, embryo or fetus has no will and so abortion cannot be murder.

All abortions that currently occur after the period when brainwaves can be detected are done due to dire health risks to both the mother and child. They are NOT elective, and making them illegal would cause both the mothers and the children to die.

2. Right to life of the 'child' versus choice of the mother:
A parent CANNOT (under current law) be forced to donate an organ to anyone, including their children, without their consent.

There is no reason a mother should be an exception to this.

The womb is an organ, and a mother has the right to remove the consent for the embryo to use it against her will. The humanity or lack thereof of the embryo is IRRELEVENT and plays no part in this. Unless someone can give a good reason why the ONLY exception to the law stating people have the right to not donate organs (regardless of context) should be pregnant women, abortion must remain legal.

3. Male responsibility:
Men cannot have equal rights currently, because they don't have equal responsibility. Yes, both mother and father had sex (50-50 responsibility), but the father is currently not responsible for incubating the infant. I agree with the notion of paper abortions. Up to the cut of point for elective abortions, men should be able to sign away their rights and responsibilities to the child. They lose all rights of visitation, but also the responsibility of child support.

This is only fair while abortions are legal, so both parents have the option of exercising or dismissing their rights and responsibilities.

A better aim would be to develop technology to the point that a zygote can be removed from a woman ALIVE and grown outside of her body. Then she can keep her right to refuse to donate her womb against her will, without the infant dying.

Until then, there is no compelling reason why her rights should be removed (since in no other case can someone be forced to donate an organ, even if it's to their child, and even if their child dies as a direct result).

4. Exceptions in the case of rape.
To make an exception in the case of rape is to reduce the debate to the level of 'punishing a woman for enjoying sex'. If she doesn't enjoy the sex (rape), she's not forced to endure childbirth (punishment if she does not want the child). If she enjoys the sex, she should be sentenced to punishment by child (my pet peeve is anti-abortioners who think a child should be forced upon woman as 'punishments'. Such attitudes show far less respect for life than any pro-choicer, or even pro-abortioner).

Ugh, can't think of any more points. Hopefully someone will actually consider what I've written instead of just blocking their ears and going LALALA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Queensland Ontario
There is no cure for AIDS once you get HIV its only a metter of time before the flu kills you or it flips to AIDS and that will kill you. So you could contain the desease while looking for treatment options. 1 in 4 people in africa have AIDS now. That means that its a safe bet that once the next generation comes to mateing age, it might be 1 in 2, then 3 in 4 after that. I'm just saying if theres not progress made soon, eveyone in theat contienets gona be living with a communicatable, and termanal illness, and containment will be the only option at that point.


I am well aware that there is not yet a cure for AIDS, but there are medicines that can at least block transmission of AIDS, which could help greatly in containing it if only they were used. And yes, I'll acknowledge that no medicine is 100% effective.

Now, going back to my original point, I expressed disdain for those in the halls of power here in the US, who had the oppurtunity to help contain the AIDS epidemic in Africa by funding the distribution of these medicines to the Third World. Now, how many babies have been given an effective death sentence because they acquired AIDS from the rather bloody process of childbirth, when modern medicine could have greatly reduced the probability of transmission?

President Bush had the oppurtunity to act on this issue, and he squandered it. When public pressure became too great, he allocated a token sum that would barely make a dent in the problem, so he could claim he did something; however, he wouldn't want to jeopardize pharmaceutical industry profits by distributing too much free medicine, now would he? While you might disagree with my judgement, I believe this willful ignorance makes Bush complicit in at least the preventable cases of AIDS. However, I will also admit that he can't just wave his magic wand and make the disease disappear from the face of the earth.

The ignorance expressed by the official foreign policy of the United States in regards to this issue (and many others) has been a major contributor to these sorts of problems.

I agree with Evil on this one. There are so many ways in which transmission of AIDs can be reduced, for example when anti-retrovirals are given to a pregnant woman with HIV. And yet pharmaceutical companies have little to no interest in helping. A lecturer of mine asked a Swiss drug company to help by donating products to be used in sub-Saharan Africa. The company said they didn't wish to tarnish their image by being associated with HIV. That's disgusting.

And there are other ways to reduce the transmission of the disease such that rates of infection will fall. (LemonAIDs (www.aids.net.au) )--> Check out this site for information. It's just a matter of overcoming barriers and implementing these strategies until a cure can be found. Until then, it IS possible to make the infection rate decrease!

I thought Queensland Ontario might have been joking... Obviously not.

And Shaed, very well thought out post. Congrats. :)

Yes, absolutely definitely. I really don't get the whole "in the case of rape" thing. If the foetus / embryo / unborn child whatever you want to call it is worthy of a right to life, it isn't less worthy if it's father was a vicious arsehole. If it isn't worthy of a right to life, it isn't more worthy if its mother consented to take the risk of impregnation.

"What about rape?" is a non-question. What about it? Might be extremely uncomfortable psychologically for the mother, but it doesn't affect the right to life (or not) of the unborn.

What if a girl of 12 is raped by her father? What if? I don't think taking it out on the embryo is fair. In my country, a majority disagree with me so what the hey. I hope they'll come around eventually. Slavery was perfectly normal and acceptable in human society for thousands of years. It was only relatively recently that the morality of it came into question.


This is clear evidence of the prolific misogynism of the anti-abortion movement.

[QUOTE=Shaed]All abortions that currently occur after the period when brainwaves can be detected are done due to dire health risks to both the mother and child. They are NOT elective, and making them illegal would cause both the mothers and the children to die. [QUOTE]

Nothing in any abortion law states "dire health risks" to the child or mother. "Health" has been defined so broadly as to render the word meaningless...

I'm not a huge prolifer or prochoicer....I just think this absolutist stuff is hogwash. The birth canal does not bestow upon a child constitutional rights, nor does a barely multicellular organism have the same rights as any of the posters here.

Actually, this month's issue of Harpers has a good article on abortion, suprisingly in a fair manner too for such an empty rag.

Yes, I would. If she was really desparate to get rid of the baby, there are plenty of families looking for a baby to adopt.

Um... I started my NATION in July 2003, jolt just hates me, so it dosen't register my old existance.

Funny...your national population is a third of mine...pretty unusual for a nation claiming to be that old.

Yes but above all else the republican forign polocy trumps all else
"If your not american.....to hell with you"
they can still be pro life in America and pro screw you in the world, most countries have that polocy, but not to the charming extent the GOP does.

This isn't an argument so much as a compomise im making for you, damn i hate to compromise, so instead, i'll say you did.

Perhaps this is true...but life under God knows no borders. Still, you make a valid point.

If you want to deny the fact that my morals are different than yours, go right ahead, dig your own social grave. My reason is my morals, and until you start to comprehend that I will assume that you are incapible of such a feat.

Ugh...did I say that I deny your morals are different than mine? No, I said your morals, having no basis in fact or belief, are ignorant. They have no external influence to lend credibility to them, and are based in nothing outside of your own head.

If you want to see me talk about my claim, you might want to read my previous posts. I've done more explaining than you have, so don't give me that.

I've read plenty of it. Here's a tip...just because you say, "I believe X," that does not constitute an explanation for why you believe X, nor a good reason for continuing to believe X.

I don't have time for your foolishness either, and it's obvious that neither one of us is going to convince the other of their veiws, so this debate is inherently pointless. For me, every potential baby has the right to live, weither it is "alive" yet or not.

Why? Women allow countless potential babies to die off during their lifetimes in a process called "menstruation." Who's going to champion the rights of those potential babies?

I have the knowlege to make an informed decision on the matter.

There. I said it. I find it ignorant of you to assume that I am unintelligent when our contact dosen't exceed this thread.

Hate to burst your bubble (since you're cleearly so proud that you said it), but saying it does not make it true. I make my claims based on what you've said in this thread regarding this topic - your don't base your beliefs in science, nor in religion. You simply believe as you do because you haven't thought about it any further than that. You know, as far as figuring in things other than your own initial impressions of things.

You want knowlege? Here's my theory:

Every time a sperm and an egg meet, they have potential to make a baby. (fact) I belive that nobody has any right to deny life to anyone who hasn't had the opprotunity to experience life yet. (opinion) Then again, once a baby has had the chance to experience life, it is alive, and thus cannot be killed without the legal consequences of murder. (opinion, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with me on this) I do not think that is is right for anyone to deny life to anything, as long as it has the potential for life. (opinion). It is part of my set of morals that said actions are wrong. (fact, it is in my morals).

There, now the proverbial "ball" is back in your proverbial "court".

An egg has the chance to experience life. End the barbaric process of menstruation now!

As for the part in bold above, I think it's pretty clear that this is where your argument gets fuzzy, even to you (note the extended parentesied explanation). How is life equivalent to "the chance to experience life?" You don't know anyone who disagrees with you that this is where life begins? You'd better get out more, then.

If you have no further factual basis for this argument, we'll have to agree to disagree now, because if that's the case, there's no point in wasting further time. Your beliefs are based in your opinion, mine in scientific research on fetal development. I hold far more respect for the latter, and that's not about to change.

I think the important decision to be made is where do human rights start to impinge upon th ewomans choice.

I think a good place to start is concious thought.

I dont think a 6 week old fetus is capable of concious thought, and so it doesn't qualify as murder to abort it.

pro-lifers tend to be fond of saying that life begins at conception. If this means that they think any fertilised egg should have full human rights then that seems a sound argument (although one I disagree with).

a problem for my example pro-life stance is what to do with say fertilized IVF eggs there may be many. only a few are implanted into the mother, what to do with the rest? stem cell research or incineration?

the biggest problem with my postion is we have no way of determining where the concious thought starts, I personally don't think it has anything to do with a beating heart or survivability outside the womb, and so am likely to go for some kind of arbitrary point such as start of the third trimester, where the baby is fully formed but smaller and less healthy than a full term baby.

The weekness with this is that it legally means the baby has no rights on the last day of the 2nd trimester and full human rights the next day. However, I feel this is a legal artefact and the status quo (atleast here in Australia) is pretty good.

I think the important decision to be made is where do human rights start to impinge upon th ewomans choice.

I think a good place to start is concious thought.

I dont think a 6 week old fetus is capable of concious thought, and so it doesn't qualify as murder to abort it.

pro-lifers tend to be fond of saying that life begins at conception. If this means that they think any fertilised egg should have full human rights then that seems a sound argument (although one I disagree with).

a problem for my example pro-life stance is what to do with say fertilized IVF eggs there may be many. only a few are implanted into the mother, what to do with the rest? stem cell research or incineration?

the biggest problem with my postion is we have no way of determining where the concious thought starts, I personally don't think it has anything to do with a beating heart or survivability outside the womb, and so am likely to go for some kind of arbitrary point such as start of the third trimester, where the baby is fully formed but smaller and less healthy than a full term baby.

The weekness with this is that it legally means the baby has no rights on the last day of the 2nd trimester and full human rights the next day. However, I feel this is a legal artefact and the status quo (atleast here in Australia) is pretty good.

How about "Before it has a brain, it has no conscious thoughts"?

Currently, I believe, the cut off for elective abortions is around the point where brain waves can be picked up. To me that's perfectly in tune with the conscious thought argument.

Luckily for me, my views are independant of whether a fetus is alive/human/conscious. No icky arbitary cut-off points for me.

I agree with Evil on this one. There are so many ways in which transmission of AIDs can be reduced, for example when anti-retrovirals are given to a pregnant woman with HIV. And yet pharmaceutical companies have little to no interest in helping. A lecturer of mine asked a Swiss drug company to help by donating products to be used in sub-Saharan Africa. The company said they didn't wish to tarnish their image by being associated with HIV. That's disgusting.

And there are other ways to reduce the transmission of the disease such that rates of infection will fall. (LemonAIDs (www.aids.net.au) )--> Check out this site for information. It's just a matter of overcoming barriers and implementing these strategies until a cure can be found. Until then, it IS possible to make the infection rate decrease!

I thought Queensland Ontario might have been joking... Obviously not.

And Shaed, very well thought out post. Congrats. :)

Thanks ;)

the biggest problem with my postion is we have no way of determining where the concious thought starts, I personally don't think it has anything to do with a beating heart or survivability outside the womb, and so am likely to go for some kind of arbitrary point such as start of the third trimester, where the baby is fully formed but smaller and less healthy than a full term baby.

Developmental theory places the development of the nervous system to the point where signals and external stimuli begin to be received at, as I recall, the 7th ot 8th month. This is why I have no problem at all with abortion, as most are not done this late (and rare cases which are have extenuating circumstances).

I believe avortion is wrong (except possibly in cases of rape nad where the life of the mother is at risk, i'm undecided there). I also belive that it is wrong to force my views on anybody else. Beyond what is neccasary to run a safe, fair and peacable land, why go about banning anything you don't like or agree with. Then just about everything and everybody would be banned. Heck the aborition issue would dissapear because someone would be bound to ban marrige and/or sex.

Oh, and you might want to check your spelling...your post was extremely difficult to read. Copy and paste the post into a word processor and run spell check if you must; other members of this forum will thank you, I'm sure. That said, I really need to go to bed (almost 4 am here). Good night.
A SHOT AT MY SPELLING EH!
YOU DON'T KNOW ME! I COULD BE A FRENCHMAN DOIN PRITTY GOOD AT SPELLING ENGLISH.unfortunatly this is not the case, to anyone reading last night we had a cor espondance going on this thing at the rate of instant messaging, and oh wouldn't you love it if i went to all that trouble of editing while your slamming me in this threat. Making fun of someones spelling is about as cool as making fun of someone who can't walk because they have polio. Some people includeing myself are not good spellers, that doen't mean your automatically better than me. And if your thinking "yes, i am better than you because i can spell better than you." than why don't you coke you elitest bastard. You hit a nerve right here dammit!

IN my opinion, in order for somone to oppose abortion and have integrity, they must do two things:

1) Distribute contraceptives and literature on their use to people who are most statistically likely to becoem pregnant and have an abortion

2) Adopt at least one infant whose mother would have otherwise had an abortion.


Unless a person has done both of those things, or is actively seeking to do so, I consider them a hypocrite.

Whining about abortion does not prevent abortion.
The two things presented above DO prevent abortion.

Whining about abortion is simply self-aggrandizing self righteousness.

It is a matter of priorities.

I agree with Evil on this one. There are so many ways in which transmission of AIDs can be reduced, for example when anti-retrovirals are given to a pregnant woman with HIV. And yet pharmaceutical companies have little to no interest in helping. A lecturer of mine asked a Swiss drug company to help by donating products to be used in sub-Saharan Africa. The company said they didn't wish to tarnish their image by being associated with HIV. That's disgusting.

And there are other ways to reduce the transmission of the disease such that rates of infection will fall. (LemonAIDs (www.aids.net.au) )--> Check out this site for information. It's just a matter of overcoming barriers and implementing these strategies until a cure can be found. Until then, it IS possible to make the infection rate decrease!

I thought Queensland Ontario might have been joking... Obviously not.

And Shaed, very well thought out post. Congrats. :)

Well you know, thats all well and good, but i care about africans as much as they care about me. When was the last time an african didn anything for you ?
--->You see things as the way the should be
--->I'm stateing things the way they are
What are they animals ? can the not take care of themselves ? i'f a creature cannot survive without constant intervention do they really have the right to live ? or for that matter have no means to live yet still drag others down with them ?

Ultimately a person's point of view depends upon a religious belief concerning the definition of life and when it begins. ... This is ultimately an issue dependent upon faith and religion.

Not necessarily anything to do with religion. Clearly when a baby is old enough that it could survive outside the womb, it is alive on its own. That happens around the 7th month, although some 6th month ones will also be viable. Thus there is no question that 3rd-trimester abortions are murder. Is a baby alive earlier? Well, that depends. Try looking at it as someone who is in a coma, but has normal brainwaves, heartbeat, and an excellent prognosis for recovery in a few months. That person would be legally alive. Why should a baby be any different? So I would say that on *scientific* and *legal* grounds life begins sometime around the beginning of the second trimester. That is around the time that a baby begins to display what might be construed as awareness greater than just relfex responses. You will notice I haven't referred to any religious beliefs.

If I was legislating, I would say that 3rd-trimester abortions should be banned outright, 2nd-trimester somewhere between banned and strongly discouraged, and 1st-trimester a matter of personal choice.

Not necessarily anything to do with religion. Clearly when a baby is old enough that it could survive outside the womb, it is alive on its own. That happens around the 7th month, although some 6th month ones will also be viable. Thus there is no question that 3rd-trimester abortions are murder. Is a baby alive earlier? Well, that depends. Try looking at it as someone who is in a coma, but has normal brainwaves, heartbeat, and an excellent prognosis for recovery in a few months. That person would be legally alive. Why should a baby be any different? So I would say that on *scientific* and *legal* grounds life begins sometime around the beginning of the second trimester. That is around the time that a baby begins to display what might be construed as awareness greater than just relfex responses. You will notice I haven't referred to any religious beliefs.

If I was legislating, I would say that 3rd-trimester abortions should be banned outright, 2nd-trimester somewhere between banned and strongly discouraged, and 1st-trimester a matter of personal choice.

I think you'll find 3rd-trimester abortions only occur in situations where there is significant risk to the health of the mother and/or child.

Why should a baby be any different to a coma patient? Because the 'baby' (incorrect term, by the by) is living off another person. If that person removes consent for the infant to live off them, legally they have the right to have the infant removed.

Just like any other case of organ donation, in fact.

We could have the same argument at the other end of the life spectrum about mercy killing and the definition of death.

No, we couldn't. I don't see that there is anything to debate. Anybody can kill themselves if they wish, obviously, but it should be absolutely illegal to help them in any way. As well as being utterly immoral, the situation offers way too many posibilities for abuse.

Is a person dead when there is no longer measurable brain activity or when the heart stops working? Is quality of life a factor?

Dead when there is no measurable brain activity *and* no possibility that it can be restored.

People whose hearts have stopped working can often be revived, it is not that rare, so that is a really bad measurement. Heck, some people have no (natural) heart, they have a pump.

Quality of life - how the heck can that be a factor?

Well you know, thats all well and good, but i care about africans as much as they care about me. When was the last time an african didn anything for you ?
--->You see things as the way the should be
--->I'm stateing things the way they are
What are they animals ? can the not take care of themselves ? i'f a creature cannot survive without constant intervention do they really have the right to live ? or for that matter have no means to live yet still drag others down with them ?

The reason why most African nations need so much aid is because they had much of their wealth stolen from them by European colonization and imperialism. The slave trade severely depopulated parts of Africa, and even after that ended, European nations such as Britain, France, and Germany competed for the "Who can carry off the most wealth?" title. During the age of imperialism, Europe acted as a giant vaccum cleaner to suck wealth out of Africa, and there are still remnants of that even after colonization (examples: the DeBeers diamond cartel and Chevron in Nigeria). Most of Africa wasn't even decolonized until the 1960's.

Before the European slave trade, Africa actually had several thriving civilizations. However, I do not expect a continent that had its entire economy ripped out from underneath it over a period of five hundred years to be expected to fully recover in forty. You decry the "constant intervention" and accuse Africans of "drag[ging] us down," but the fact is that any help we give Africa is but the first payment on a looooooooooooong mortgage to repay what Anglo-Saxons stole from the African people.

In regards to spelling, you mistook constructive criticism for a personal attack. I make spelling errors too, but if I find them (or if others point them out), I edit them out of my posts. You call me an "elitist;" when did I say "You are inferior?"

When was the last time an african didn anything for you ?
I was born, and spent the first 14 years of my life in South Africa. :rolleyes:

AndThe reason why most African nations need so much aid is because they had much of their wealth stolen from them by European colonization and imperialism. The slave trade severely depopulated parts of Africa, and even after that ended, European nations such as Britain, France, and Germany competed for the "Who can carry off the most wealth?" title. During the age of imperialism, Europe acted as a giant vaccum cleaner to suck wealth out of Africa, and there are still remnants of that even after colonization (examples: the DeBeers diamond cartel and Chevron in Nigeria). Most of Africa wasn't even decolonized until the 1960's.

Before the European slave trade, Africa actually had several thriving civilizations. However, I do not expect a continent that had its entire economy ripped out from underneath it over a period of five hundred years to be expected to fully recover in forty. You decry the "constant intervention" and accuse Africans of "drag[ging] us down," but the fact is that any help we give Africa is but the first payment on a looooooooooooong mortgage to repay what Anglo-Saxons stole from the African people.
What he said. :P I have to go have dinner, so no time to argue with your callousness.

umm, it wasn't until after the slave trade had finished that europe really pushed into africa, buoyed in part by the monroe doctrine keeping them out of the americas.

The Europeans were only getting slaves from africa for a cpl hundred years, the muslim nations though were doing it for much longer, but even then, the Europeans weren;t taking them from their homes, they were buying them from other africans who were running the slave trade industry.

umm, it wasn't until after the slave trade had finished that europe really pushed into africa, buoyed in part by the monroe doctrine keeping them out of the americas.

The Europeans were only getting slaves from africa for a cpl hundred years, the muslim nations though were doing it for much longer, but even then, the Europeans weren;t taking them from their homes, they were buying them from other africans who were running the slave trade industry.

The Muslims did not practice the slave trade on nearly the same scale as the Europeans did, even though they practiced it for much longer.

Furthermore, Africans themselves often abducted other Africans against their will to sell to Europeans, and it was stuff like this that destabilized Africa before colonization. However, you are correct in stating that the Europeans didn't colonize much of Africa until the nineteenth century. Before that, they had simply created a demand of slaves that was so strong that entire villages were abducted by African slave drivers/raiders.

Edit: Google the African Diaspora, because that is what I'm referring to, and it happened before major European colonization of the continent.

IN my opinion, in order for somone to oppose abortion and have integrity, they must do two things:

1) Distribute contraceptives and literature on their use to people who are most statistically likely to becoem pregnant and have an abortion

2) Adopt at least one infant whose mother would have otherwise had an abortion.

yeah, i agree with that. for somebody to be pro-life and have any case at all, i think they must put their proverbial money where their mouth is and actually adopt. then i will at least respect them for commitment to their principles, even if i think those principles are irresponsible, disrespectful, and irrational.

the gross total taken by the muslims as slaves, was higher than what Europe took, but the muslims did it over 500 as opposed to 200 years; however it was pretty much a case of both of them getting as many as they could as fast as they could, but Europe had bigger boats and more money to spend.

Furthermore, Africans themselves often abducted other Africans against their will to sell to Europeans

It wasn't often, it was always, the slave trade was never Europeans or Persians/Turks abducting them , it was always buying them from African traders. To try and abduct them yourself would have had your nation black banned by all the traders(pardon the pun).

We had been using white slaves for thousands of years, the Africans offered us a ready supply, so we took it, we would have kept using eachother as slaves had the African traders not offered them to us on a platter.

yeah, i agree with that. for somebody to be pro-life and have any case at all, i think they must put their proverbial money where their mouth is and actually adopt. then i will at least respect them for commitment to their principles, even if i think those principles are irresponsible, disrespectful, and irrational.

bigot much?

The abortion debate is frustrating because each side marshalls wonderful facts and arguments to support their point of view without acknowledging the other side does not share the underlying premise upon which those facts and arguments rest. This is ultimately an issue dependent upon faith and religion.

I agree, which is why I feel that the government should keep their goddamned noses out of it. Freedom of religion and all that. I am perfectly okay with someone saying to me, "I feel that this is a moral wrong and I won't allow it into my life." Hell, I am just as likely to agree with them as not. I am not okay with someone saying, "I feel that this is a moral wrong, and so I don't think you should have a choice about whether or not you want it in your life." It is the height of arrogance for one to attempt to make moral decisions for another person or to judge one for the results of that decision.

Of course, if birthing would risk the life of the mother, then we have to take priorities, don't we?

All births risk the life of the mother. All pregnancies risk the life of the mother. All abortions risk the life of the mother. Hell, all toothaches risk the life of the mother. It is important to note that an individual should always have the right to choose which risks to their own life they are willing to take and which they are not. That isn't a 'freedom' issue, it's a 'life' issue.

If a woman is not willing to take even the minimal risks of modern pregnancy, then they cannot be forced on her, and it is immoral to do so. In the same way that you cannot force someone to drive, to donate blood, to jump on a granade, or to push someone out of the way of a moving train even if it is to save the life of another.

Just as I have the right to choose whether or not to donate a kidney to save someones life, so to does the mother have the right to choos whether or not she is willing to donate her uterus to save someone's life.

All I know is that a human life is more important than anyone's right.. man or woman.

I am going to assume this wasn't sarcasm.

To follow your logic, people should be forced to donate blood, organs, marrow, and other bodily necessities to save the lives of others.

So how many kidneys do you have right now?

Hypocrite.

Opinion, and falsehood.


Please, do everyone on the other side of this debate a favor. Define baby. Define Child. Define Human. Define Life.

I've been in 3 of these debate threads so far. I have only ever seen the pro-choice side do this. All I hear from the anti-abortion side is, "that's opinion" or "it's human" without any clarification of what makes their own point relevent or in any way objective or valid.

It would be most beneficial if you could define it in such a way that does not also include patent absurdities.

Well, the man obviously cannot carry around the child...
It's God's will... don't blame man..
I just don't believe in murder... that's all...

Do you even know the definition of murder?

My question is: why does the father have no right to choose? I understand if the father was a rapist or never there, but when that father is there for the mother, why does he not deserve the right to choose as well?SINCE WOMEN CONSIDER THEIR BODIES A SEPERATE ENTITY, A MAN WILL HAVE NO SAY SO IN THE LIFE OF UNBORN CHILDREN. BUT IF THE CHILD IS BORN, SHE EXPECTS FINANCIAL AID AND OTHER SUPPORT FROM THE DEMON SEED DELIVERER.

SINCE WOMEN CONSIDER THEIR BODIES A SEPERATE ENTITY, A MAN WILL HAVE NO SAY SO IN THE LIFE OF UNBORN CHILDREN. BUT IF THE CHILD IS BORN, SHE EXPECTS FINANCIAL AID AND OTHER SUPPORT FROM THE DEMON SEED DELIVERER.
Damn you found out our secret! :mad: :rolleyes:

This seems to be the running OPINION.

To give you a sense of your own ignorance, the definition of murder:

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

I assume you are referring to the first use of the word, and you are not equating abortion to difficulty (the only one of the three on which I would agree with you) nor to the groupings of crows (which may explain the rest of your posts).

I want you to note the three key words, unlawful, killing, and human. Since abortion is legal, it is not unlawful. Since a fetus (in the early stages) has yet to be proven to meat the qulification for being alive it isn't killing. Since the fetus can be said to be no more human than a severed thumb it doesn't meet the qualifications for being human.

Abortion does not meet the requirements for murder. Quit bandying the word about until you at least have some Idea what it means

And sience dosen't support your claim that a fetus is not alive, because living has to do with when you recive a soul, and thus has nothing to do with science.

Damn. I wish you would have said this at first. Then I could have spent the rest of this thread ignoring your posts.

Science does support my claim that a fetus isn't alive. It does not support your claim that living has to do with when you receive a soul. Neither does any religious text of which I am aware. Only your own opinion (since you so love this word) is making or denying any such claims.

You will have to forgive me if I find it both insane and stupid to base laws that affect me and 290 million other people solely on your opinion.

You want knowlege? Here's my theory:

Every time a sperm and an egg meet, they have potential to make a baby. (fact) I belive that nobody has any right to deny life to anyone who hasn't had the opprotunity to experience life yet. (opinion) Then again, once a baby has had the chance to experience life, it is alive, and thus cannot be killed without the legal consequences of murder. (opinion, but I don't know anyone who disagrees with me on this) I do not think that is is right for anyone to deny life to anything, as long as it has the potential for life. (opinion). It is part of my set of morals that said actions are wrong. (fact, it is in my morals).

There, now the proverbial "ball" is back in your proverbial "court".

Potentiality does not equate to actuality (fact). I believe that nobody has any right to force another to save the life of a third party (opinion). Once a fetus meets all the criteria for being alive, then it should be protected in a limited fashion. (opinion) If you follow your right to life argument to it's logical conclusion, you also would support forced organ donation etc. (fact) I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they should or should not do with their own life. (opinion) It is part of my set of morals that said actions are wrong. (fact) Forcing my own, or your, morality on another is hypocritical and arrogant. (opinion, but I haven't met a sane person that disagrees with me yet)

Sorry to jump in...but I couldn't resist.

Oh *Lord*. Not this thread again. Where the hell have all the smart pro-choice people gone? Gah, I guess I'll have to fence some stuff in the next 15 minutes (instead of studying for my English exam).


Golf clap? Golf clap? Golf clap...

*clapclapclapclapclap*

Just so yall know, Islam rejects the notion of life beginning at conception.

That's a fairly large monotheistic religion saying fetuses are not humans.

Not that religion should have any part in this *debate* but I feel the need to respond to some of your assertions that God recognizes life at conception. Your version of God, perhaps. Other versions of God, no.

Just so yall know, Islam rejects the notion of life beginning at conception.

That's a fairly large monotheistic religion saying fetuses are not humans.

Not that religion should have any part in this *debate* but I feel the need to respond to some of your assertions that God recognizes life at conception. Your version of God, perhaps. Other versions of God, no.

So does the Bible, though most Christians and many Jewish sects ignore Exodus 21:22. Where it treats a miscarriage caused by violence like very petty theft and not like murder.

Slightly off topic.

Why can no-one spell "Foetus" correctly.

Also I don't understand why people can argue sooooo much about this.
If a mother chooses to remove a group of cells, a hundredth the size of a full stop why can't she?
It obviously gets more complicated later on, but that is just people's ignorance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

God Bless Northern Ireland :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

Slightly off topic.

Why can no-one spell "Foetus" correctly.
"Fetus" is the American spelling. :D

Corrupting the English language since 1776...

Im Just wondering, who is trying to convince who now? I mean really, does anyone believe that you can convince a Pro-Lifer to be Pro-Choice or a Pro-Choice to be Pro-Life? These issues are kinda set in stone unless some sort of life altering event occurs, and last I checked not too many life altering events happened in internet chat boards.

As many people have mentioned so far, pro-choicers usually prove their point that "abortion is NOT murder" by saying the fetus is "NOT human." Yet, I have seen no proof of that. Not one pro-choicer has added scientific proof to that claim, just as no pro-lifer has used scientific proof to prove their claim either. All you are doing is arguing opinions. Honestly, there has not been one thread that contains scientific debates. It sounds more like little kids arguing over who's right.

For pro-choicers--you really can't use popular support for your scientific proof. After all, what's popular is not always true. For the longest time, most AMericans were certain that blacks weren't full humans. That's not right.

For pro-lifers--you really can't use the Bible as proof. The majoirity of people on this post don't believe the Bible is true.

Get some facts on this issue before you start parading your narrow-minded opinions. (that goes to all of you) ;)

Those opposed to abortion believe that abortion is murder. Is this true? First, something very basic: What is murder? Webster’s Dictionary states that murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person.” What does it mean to kill? “To put to death; to deprive of life” To examine this more, what is to deprive something? Deprive means “ to take something away from; to keep from using, acquiring or enjoying.” Thus, to murder someone means to take life away from a person or to keep that person from using, acquiring or enjoying life. Life is “the ability to stimuli, reproduce and grow.” “To increase in size, develop and reach maturity” is the definition of grow. Therefore, murder is taking away the ability to increase in size, develop and reach maturity from a human being and to keep that person from using those abilities. Is abortion murder?

Before answering this question, it is imperative to understand whether or not a fetus is a human. A fetus is what the embryo is considered after ten weeks of development in the mother’s womb. A human is “of relating to, or typical of man; having or manifesting human form or attributes” and being is “one’s existence.” A human being, therefore, is something that exists in human form and exhibits manlike qualities; an individual. Is a fetus a human? The actual definition for fetus is “the individual unborn organism carried within the womb from the time major features appear.” One can conclude, therefore, that the fetus is a human; and if the fetus really is a human, than to terminate or end the fetus is to commit murder.

According to the definition of abortion, the fetus must be incapable of survival. But, is a fetus, or a preborn baby, incapable of survival? This is really a question of understanding viability. Viability is the ability to live and survive outside of the womb, with or without medical help. A fetus who is viable is capable of survival. With increasing medical advances, a fetus is considered viable nineteen weeks after conception. This number is continually being lowered; in thirty years it has gone down six weeks. A baby is born about thirty-nine weeks after conception and is then considered a human individual who cannot be murdered ; yet “twenty weeks have elapsed since the baby first became viable and first gained the ability to live without its mother. Yet now for the first time is gains the legal right to live.”

BTW, if the fetus is not a human, it's not alive, right? By week six, a fetus has a heartbeat. A clump of cells huh? A fetus may not be a fully developed human, but neither is a six month baby.

--what do ya'll say?

Those opposed to abortion believe that abortion is murder. Is this true? First, something very basic: What is murder? Webster’s Dictionary states that murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person.” What does it mean to kill? “To put to death; to deprive of life” To examine this more, what is to deprive something? Deprive means “ to take something away from; to keep from using, acquiring or enjoying.” Thus, to murder someone means to take life away from a person or to keep that person from using, acquiring or enjoying life. Life is “the ability to stimuli, reproduce and grow.” “To increase in size, develop and reach maturity” is the definition of grow. Therefore, murder is taking away the ability to increase in size, develop and reach maturity from a human being and to keep that person from using those abilities. Is abortion murder?

Before answering this question, it is imperative to understand whether or not a fetus is a human. A fetus is what the embryo is considered after ten weeks of development in the mother’s womb. A human is “of relating to, or typical of man; having or manifesting human form or attributes” and being is “one’s existence.” A human being, therefore, is something that exists in human form and exhibits manlike qualities; an individual. Is a fetus a human? The actual definition for fetus is “the individual unborn organism carried within the womb from the time major features appear.” One can conclude, therefore, that the fetus is a human; and if the fetus really is a human, than to terminate or end the fetus is to commit murder.

According to the definition of abortion, the fetus must be incapable of survival. But, is a fetus, or a preborn baby, incapable of survival? This is really a question of understanding viability. Viability is the ability to live and survive outside of the womb, with or without medical help. A fetus who is viable is capable of survival. With increasing medical advances, a fetus is considered viable nineteen weeks after conception. This number is continually being lowered; in thirty years it has gone down six weeks. A baby is born about thirty-nine weeks after conception and is then considered a human individual who cannot be murdered ; yet “twenty weeks have elapsed since the baby first became viable and first gained the ability to live without its mother. Yet now for the first time is gains the legal right to live.”

BTW, if the fetus is not a human, it's not alive, right? By week six, a fetus has a heartbeat. A clump of cells huh? A fetus may not be a fully developed human, but neither is a six month baby.

--what do ya'll say?
I say a heartbeat doesn't mean squat. Braindead people exhibit heartbeats as well. The only worthwhile measure of whether someone is alive is brain activity.

As well, the entire "viability" line of reasoning is pointless. You make the good point that viability is rapidly moving earlier and earlier. It's quite conceivable that within this century, viability will reach zero, that is, a zygote can be grown into a baby completely without a uterus. So arguing on viability isn't helpful I believe.

The fundamental question in this debate is "When does life begin?" Fertilization is an easy choice. But you can't tell me a single cell is a human. Life doesn't "begin", it slowly evolves.

"As well, the entire "viability" line of reasoning is pointless. You make the good point that viability is rapidly moving earlier and earlier. It's quite conceivable that within this century, viability will reach zero, that is, a zygote can be grown into a baby completely without a uterus. So arguing on viability isn't helpful I believe."

On the contrary, viability is very important. By saying that fetus does not need the woman's uterus, we can say that it is not part of the women, but in itself it is an individul. The whole concept, then, of a woman's right to choose is faulty, because the "organism" or "pile of cells" doesn't belong to her...it is not her. Therefore, she can't "choose" the outcome of another individual. It's not like a mole or something.

A side note, if a fetus is not a human, what is it? And life evolves? Where did ya get that from? Does that mean that some people are more alive than others? IF you say that life doesn't begin, than you totally just wiped out the theory that life begins at birth. Does that mean that I could go out and shoot someone and say that "that person wasn't fully alive yet, so it's not murder"? You're not making sense.

ABout brain activity:

-The cortex is developed between four and five weeks of age
-Reflex actions can be observed between four and seven weeks
-Brain waves are detectable between six and seven weeks
-Nerves connecting the spinal cord to peripheral structures have developed between six to eight weeks
-Adverse reactions to stimuli are observed between eight and ten weeks
-Neurotransmitters capable of sending pain signals to the brain are present at twelve weeks

The problem I have with this entire argument is that most people seem to forget that the laws of man supercede the laws of any "God" or "Gods". There is no law against abortion (at least in NA), and thus it is OK.

As many people have mentioned so far, pro-choicers usually prove their point that "abortion is NOT murder" by saying the fetus is "NOT human." Yet, I have seen no proof of that. Not one pro-choicer has added scientific proof to that claim, just as no pro-lifer has used scientific proof to prove their claim either. All you are doing is arguing opinions. Honestly, there has not been one thread that contains scientific debates. It sounds more like little kids arguing over who's right.

Actually, I say that, first and formost, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal. Since we can take that as fact and not opinion, the other criteria for murder (life, human, consciousness) do not even come into the equation. In the same way that it isn't murder for a soldier to shoot at and kill an enemy troop during battle, a cop to shoot and kill a robber, or in some states an individual to shoot someone robbing their house.

Secondly, several pro-choicers have given the scientific criteria for life and for humanity. Since you chose to ignore it, I will post you a link or two here: Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) and Human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). Note that a fetus doesn't initially meet the requirements for either.

For pro-choicers--you really can't use popular support for your scientific proof. After all, what's popular is not always true. For the longest time, most AMericans were certain that blacks weren't full humans. That's not right.

We aren't using popular support. We are using the most objective definitions we currently have. If someone can come up with a definition that classifies, objectively, a fetus/zygote/embryo as both alive and human without additionally including patent absurdities, I (and the scientific community) would review it, and might even accept it.

Get some facts on this issue before you start parading your narrow-minded opinions. (that goes to all of you) ;)

Back at you.

Those opposed to abortion believe that abortion is murder. Is this true? First, something very basic: What is murder? Webster’s Dictionary states that murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person.” What does it mean to kill? “To put to death; to deprive of life” To examine this more, what is to deprive something? Deprive means “ to take something away from; to keep from using, acquiring or enjoying.” Thus, to murder someone means to take life away from a person or to keep that person from using, acquiring or enjoying life. Life is “the ability to stimuli, reproduce and grow.” “To increase in size, develop and reach maturity” is the definition of grow. Therefore, murder is taking away the ability to increase in size, develop and reach maturity from a human being and to keep that person from using those abilities. Is abortion murder?

No. Way to skip by the first 4 words of the definition. Without it being criminal or unlawful, it cannot meet the criteria for murder, despite all your other pedantic arguments. I also like how you edit out part of the definition for life. For those that don't know, that sentence should read, "Life is, 'the ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and grow.'" Before the fetus develops a working nervous system (around week 20) it cannot respond to stimuli and is therefore not alive by your own definition.

Next.

On the contrary, viability is very important. By saying that fetus does not need the woman's uterus, we can say that it is not part of the women, but in itself it is an individul.
There's the problem. You consider a fetus to be an individual. (btw, I do not consider a fetus to be a "part of the body" any more than ingested food is, for lack of a better example. But saying it is "part of her body" is helpful as a catchphrase, just like "abortion is murdering babies".)

The whole concept, then, of a woman's right to choose is faulty, because the "organism" or "pile of cells" doesn't belong to her...it is not her. Therefore, she can't "choose" the outcome of another individual. It's not like a mole or something.
It is growing inside her however. She can't be forced to provide life support to it. That more than anything is reason enough for her choice (this is assuming we recognize that fetuses are not humans...obviously we do not agree here, but I'm just explaining the pro-abortion viewpoint).

A side note, if a fetus is not a human, what is it? And life evolves? Where did ya get that from? Does that mean that some people are more alive than others?
Honestly, yes. You can't tell me that a single fertilized cell is of equal worth as a full grown human. You can't tell me that a blastula of however many dozens of cells is of equal worth to a full grown human. So at what point does a fetus become of equal worth to a full grown human? (unless you insist that a zygote is of equal worth, in which case arguing this further is useless). This also goes on to brain damaged people. If I had to choose between saving a severely mentally damaged person or a normal human from a fire, I would save the normal person without a second thought. This is a slight tangent I know, but would it be a 50/50 choice to you? Or back to the zygote, would saving a zygote or saving a fully grown human be a 50/50 choice to you?

IF you say that life doesn't begin, than you totally just wiped out the theory that life begins at birth.
I never believed in that theory. It's a compromise wrested out of people who don't want to think harder into this. It's either "abortion before birth!" or "No abortion ever!". Neither of the two events really do much towards brain growth and sentience. Becoming self-aware is a long drawn-out process, we simply have to admit it doesn't exist in terms of black and white.

Does that mean that I could go out and shoot someone and say that "that person wasn't fully alive yet, so it's not murder"?.
No it doesnt. Anyone who you would conceivably shoot has a thinking brain. I'm talking about fetuses here.

ABout brain activity:

-The cortex is developed between four and five weeks of age
-Reflex actions can be observed between four and seven weeks
-Brain waves are detectable between six and seven weeks
-Nerves connecting the spinal cord to peripheral structures have developed between six to eight weeks
-Adverse reactions to stimuli are observed between eight and ten weeks
-Neurotransmitters capable of sending pain signals to the brain are present at twelve weeks
All of these are present in animals, (often to greater extents) yet we have no qualms killing them.

As well, NONE of these are present in newly fertlized egg cells...do you still have qualms terminating a newly fertilized egg cell?

IN my opinion, in order for somone to oppose abortion and have integrity, they must do two things:

1) Distribute contraceptives and literature on their use to people who are most statistically likely to becoem pregnant and have an abortion

2) Adopt at least one infant whose mother would have otherwise had an abortion.


Unless a person has done both of those things, or is actively seeking to do so, I consider them a hypocrite.

Whining about abortion does not prevent abortion.
The two things presented above DO prevent abortion.

Whining about abortion is simply self-aggrandizing self righteousness.

It is a matter of priorities.


I absolutely agree. And I think that unless one gives all earnings above subsistance to charity and volunteers 90% of their free time to charitable causes they have no business advocating wealth redistribution or any form of socialism. To do so would be hypocritical. It's just a matter of priorities.

Actually, I say that, first and formost, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal. Since we can take that as fact and not opinion, the other criteria for murder (life, human, consciousness) do not even come into the equation. In the same way that it isn't murder for a soldier to shoot at and kill an enemy troop during battle, a cop to shoot and kill a robber, or in some states an individual to shoot someone robbing their house.

But hold on a minute. Down a few lines you just said that you're not using popular support to support abortion. Now up here you're saying that you support it b/c it's legal. Something could be still wrong yet legal....I'm sure you can think of some. Slavery was legal. All those instances you just mentioned are in self-defense; the person being shot at pretty much had it coming. What did the "Fetus" do? Also, are you implying that robbers don't have life or they're not humans?

Secondly, several pro-choicers have given the scientific criteria for life and for humanity. Since you chose to ignore it, I will post you a link or two here: Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) and Human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human). Note that a fetus doesn't initially meet the requirements for either.

Um, acually I looked at them. In the conventional definition, a "fetus" fulfills 4 out of the 5 requirements. ANd I think that you forgot a word: existence. IT said that the organism must manifest all in it's entire existence, not in the thirty weeks it's in the uterus. I don't think you proved your point there.



We aren't using popular support. We are using the most objective definitions we currently have. If someone can come up with a definition that classifies, objectively, a fetus/zygote/embryo as both alive and human without additionally including patent absurdities, I (and the scientific community) would review it, and might even accept it.

I was going to ask you the opposite of life, but since you think life evolves, I won't bother. But for everyone else who's reads this, isn't the opposite of life death? If by saying that the fetus is not alive, aren't you saying that it's dead? Which goes against the whole brain-activity thing you're so fond of.

Back at you.[/QUOTE]

Your volley.

You consider a fetus to be an individual

IF it’s not a part of the woman, and it’s not an individual, what else is there?

She can't be forced to provide life support to it.

That’s a good argument. I’m sure deadbeat dads and moms would love to hear that one.

Honestly, yes. You can't tell me that a single fertilized cell is of equal worth as a full grown human. You can't tell me that a blastula of however many dozens of cells is of equal worth to a full grown human. So at what point does a fetus become of equal worth to a full grown human? (unless you insist that a zygote is of equal worth, in which case arguing this further is useless). This also goes on to brain damaged people. If I had to choose between saving a severely mentally damaged person or a normal human from a fire, I would save the normal person without a second thought. This is a slight tangent I know, but would it be a 50/50 choice to you? Or back to the zygote, would saving a zygote or saving a fully grown human be a 50/50 choice to you?

They are both totally equal to me. And I can’t believe that you think a “normal human being” is worth more than a “severely mentally damaged person.” That’s sick. I would do anything in my power to help both, it wouldn’t be a decision.

No it doesnt. Anyone who you would conceivably shoot has a thinking brain. I'm talking about fetuses here

I’m sorry. But a fetus does have a thinking brain, just not to the capacity of Albert Einstein.

All of these are present in animals, (often to greater extents) yet we have no qualms killing them.

This was merely used to indicate brain activity, which you used to determine what is alive. Animals are alive. But they are not humans, (duh), which means killing them isn’t murder.

As well, NONE of these are present in newly fertlized egg cells...do you still have qualms terminating a newly fertilized egg cell?

Yes.

No. Way to skip by the first 4 words of the definition. Without it being criminal or unlawful, it cannot meet the criteria for murder, despite all your other pedantic arguments. I also like how you edit out part of the definition for life. For those that don't know, that sentence should read, "Life is, 'the ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and grow.'" Before the fetus develops a working nervous system (around week 20) it cannot respond to stimuli and is therefore not alive by your own definition.

Next.

I wonder what the penalty was in the 1800s to kill a slave. Does anyone know? Was it legal? Was it unlawful? IF it wasn't, I guess it wasn't murder.

Ya know, I might have edited it out when I wrote it (last year), but the definition still proves beneficial to me. A fetus can respond to stimili (which you admitted) it can still reproduce (though it has to wait 15 or so years) and it can definitely grow. Again, I'll ask: if it's not alive, is it dead? It can't grow if it's dead, and we all know that fetuses grow, right? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to respond to stimuli ( by not letting it reach 20 weeks)? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to reproduce (by not letting it be born)? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to grow??? I like how you totally ignored the point I was making.

After you.

But hold on a minute. Down a few lines you just said that you're not using popular support to support abortion. Now up here you're saying that you support it b/c it's legal. Something could be still wrong yet legal....I'm sure you can think of some. Slavery was legal. All those instances you just mentioned are in self-defense; the person being shot at pretty much had it coming. What did the "Fetus" do? Also, are you implying that robbers don't have life or they're not humans?

I hope this is facetious. I said that abortion was not murder because it wasn't legal. I did not say that I supported it because it was legal. Learn to read. It's legality has no bearing on whether or not I support it. It does however have bearing on whether or not it is, by definition, murder. In the same way, the legality of one defending oneself (and in some states, ones property) means that if one kills another in self-defense one is not guilty of murder. In the same way, a mother aborting a child cannot be considered guilty of murder (and neither can the doctor) because what they are doing is legal ergo not murder.

In specific response to your question, "What did the 'Fetus' do?" I can simply answer, that it makes demands on the life and health of the mother, and therefore is a risk to her life. Even in the case of a perfectly ordinary pregnancy the risk to the mother is never (at least not yet) zero. In the same way that I cannot force you to donate your organs or risk your life to save my or my childs life, so to do you not have the right to force a mother to do so for her own progeny.

Um, acually I looked at them. In the conventional definition, a "fetus" fulfills 4 out of the 5 requirements. ANd I think that you forgot a word: existence. IT said that the organism must manifest all in it's entire existence, not in the thirty weeks it's in the uterus. I don't think you proved your point there.

If it only fullfils 4 of the 5 requirements, then it doesn't meet the requirements, does it? Up until the point that it does (around week 20) it doesn't meet the requirements, and if aborted before then, never will, therefore it will never be alive throughout its entire existence. In the same way, a fertilized egg doesn't meet all of the requirements, and if it is menstrated out of the body it never will and can't therefore be considered to have ever been 'alive' (at least not in a way seperate from the mother).

I was going to ask you the opposite of life, but since you think life evolves, I won't bother. But for everyone else who's reads this, isn't the opposite of life death? If by saying that the fetus is not alive, aren't you saying that it's dead? Which goes against the whole brain-activity thing you're so fond of.

Death is not the 'opposite' of life, it is the end of life. Life is the process by which organisms (or entities if you prefer) pass from birth to death. And what would my stance on evolution (since I didn't even mention it) have on anything to do with this discussion or your question? I am saying that the fetus a seperate living organism until it meets the criteria for being so. It isn't dead, it just isn't alive yet. In the same way, carbon isn't alive until it's absorbed by a plant or other organism and made part of that organism. It cannot be dead until it has already been alive.

Your volley.

Nice try.

I wonder what the penalty was in the 1800s to kill a slave. Does anyone know? Was it legal? Was it unlawful? IF it wasn't, I guess it wasn't murder

There was no penalty. It was legal. Ditto in reverse. No, it wasn't murder (because it was legal). That has no bearing on it's morality, only on it's definition (justifiable manslaughter or destruction of property, at the time). Have you even bothered to read your own definition (and the dictionary's) for murder?

Is the death penalty murder? Is a soldier killing an enemy murder? Your own definition would say no. What do you say? and Why?

Ya know, I might have edited it out when I wrote it (last year), but the definition still proves beneficial to me. A fetus can respond to stimili (which you admitted)

Not until the ~20th week

it can still reproduce (though it has to wait 15 or so years)

No it cannot, it has the potential to do so. Potentiality doesn't equal actuality. In the same way that we don't give children the right to drive, vote, or run for president until they reach certain age criteria, so too does a fetus/zygote/embryo neither require nor deserve all the rights of a fully grown human.

and it can definitely grow. Again, I'll ask: if it's not alive, is it dead? It can't grow if it's dead, and we all know that fetuses grow, right? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to respond to stimuli ( by not letting it reach 20 weeks)? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to reproduce (by not letting it be born)? Is abortion denying the fetus the right to grow??? I like how you totally ignored the point I was making.

After you.

Death is not the opposite of life, it is the end of life. The period before life exists cannot be called 'dead', because it was never alive. A embryo, therefore, is potentially a seperate living organism, before it becomes so, it stays in the potentially category. 'Dead' has nothing to do with the equation. Similarly, a child is not an adult, just because it will likely become so. It is a child. A pear is not a tree just because it can potentially become so.

Abortion as a legal issue, has nothing to do with the fetus, or its potentiality. It has to do with the same right everyone else has, to do or not do what they choose to in regards to how they risk their own life and limb. If you choose to donate your organs, blood, time, and risks to your own life to protect another, that is your right, but noone but the pro-lifers are advocating forcing you to.

They are both totally equal to me. And I can’t believe that you think a “normal human being” is worth more than a “severely mentally damaged person.” That’s sick. I would do anything in my power to help both, it wouldn’t be a decision.

That wasn't the question. The question was, 'which would you help first (give priority too)?' If you would honestly say you would ignore the pleading and choking individual writhing on the floor in pain over the brain dead vegetable who can neither ask for your help nor recognize your lack of it, I would question your sanity or your honesty or both.

Let me ask you a question. Lets say your dad robbed a bank. BUT instead of arresting him, we decide to arrest you? How would that make you feel? See killing the baby just because the dad was a raptist asshole is like punishing you because your dad robbed the bank.

I also got a question for Pro-Choice. Where do the women right to choose ends and Human right begin? What happened to the first part of the consitution that states that EVERYONE has a right to life liberty and happiness? Also why is it when a pregent woman is killed, its double homocide. BUT when a woman KILLS her unborn baby (or fetus for you liberals) its an abortion and carries no sentance?
The law dictating that the murdering a pregnant woman is a double homicide was invented by conservative pro-lifers trying to define a fetus as a living being in the public mind. It will doubtless be used as proof of the "hypocrisy" of liberals in the challenging of Roe v. Wade.

BTW, no one should even try calling themselves "pro-life" unless they are vegetarian pacifists who oppose the death penalty and support more funding to health care, even if the money comes out of their taxes.

That wasn't the question. The question was, 'which would you help first (give priority too)?' If you would honestly say you would ignore the pleading and choking individual writhing on the floor in pain over the brain dead vegetable who can neither ask for your help nor recognize your lack of it, I would question your sanity or your honesty or both.

Amen to that, brutha.

IF it’s not a part of the woman, and it’s not an individual, what else is there?
Good question. I believe it is a clump of cells...the problem however is that there is no definate point of change, it slowly becomes human. I obviously am using a hard-to-maintain argument, but that's because I refuse to believe a single fertilized egg cell can be considered a human. If it failed in division and remained that single cell the rest of its life, would it still be a human? Obviously not, it would exhibit just as much life as any other cell in the human body. The only thing it has going for it is potential...and here's where that argument breaks down. EVERY cell in the human body has the potential to be a new life, through cloning. Life is such a strange thing to quantify, I fully admit I have difficulty putting it down concisely. But I am not going to latch on to an easy argument like "Life begins at conception" or "Life begins at the 2nd or 3rd trimester" or "Life begins at birth". I think in shades of grey here, not in black and white.

That’s a good argument. I’m sure deadbeat dads and moms would love to hear that one.
Again you are jumping from fetuses to children. I can't refute any argument like that because I believe fetuses are NOT children.

They are both totally equal to me.
You can't choose between saving the life of THIS: http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/svt/portail_tice/ethique/zygote.gif and an adult human?!?!

I think you are just saying that to maintain your argument that zygotes are people. If in real life you were confronted by an adult human and a zygote in a petri dish (but ready for implantation!) both trapped in a burning building, but only had the opportunity to save one, I know you'd save the adult. Thus not all life is equal.

And I can’t believe that you think a “normal human being” is worth more than a “severely mentally damaged person.” That’s sick. I would do anything in my power to help both, it wouldn’t be a decision.
I'm forcing you to make a choice to evaluate which one you value more, or if both truly are the same. I shouldn't have gone off on the brain-damage tangent, but yes, I believe a brain-damaged person is worth less than a normal person. In fact, I believe the only reason people have any worth at all is because of human thought. No brain, no thought, no worth.

I’m sorry. But a fetus does have a thinking brain, just not to the capacity of Albert Einstein.
*Ahem* http://www.ac-grenoble.fr/svt/portail_tice/ethique/zygote.gif

Checking...no brain there...

This was merely used to indicate brain activity, which you used to determine what is alive. Animals are alive. But they are not humans, (duh), which means killing them isn’t murder.
I know. Just pointing out that reflexes and response to stimuli are do not impart value to an organism on their own.



Yes. [I still have qualms terminating a newly fertilized egg cell]
Why? No brain.

yeah, i agree with that. for somebody to be pro-life and have any case at all, i think they must put their proverbial money where their mouth is and actually adopt. then i will at least respect them for commitment to their principles, even if i think those principles are irresponsible, disrespectful, and irrational.

Precisely, unless somone has the integrity to make sacrafices in their own life for their abortion opposition, they have no right to demand such sacrafices of others.

As many people have mentioned so far, pro-choicers usually prove their point that "abortion is NOT murder" by saying the fetus is "NOT human." Yet, I have seen no proof of that. Not one pro-choicer has added scientific proof to that claim, just as no pro-lifer has used scientific proof to prove their claim either. All you are doing is arguing opinions. Honestly, there has not been one thread that contains scientific debates. It sounds more like little kids arguing over who's right.

For pro-choicers--you really can't use popular support for your scientific proof. After all, what's popular is not always true. For the longest time, most AMericans were certain that blacks weren't full humans. That's not right.

For pro-lifers--you really can't use the Bible as proof. The majoirity of people on this post don't believe the Bible is true.

Get some facts on this issue before you start parading your narrow-minded opinions. (that goes to all of you) ;)

There is no scientific definition of when something becomes human; and as it is a quality of an entity that anti-abortionists like to toss about, it's not my place as a pro-choice poster to define it (and is thusly impossible for me to prove). My claims do not hinge upon something becoming human at some point. I never use the word at all.

Before answering this question, it is imperative to understand whether or not a fetus is a human. A fetus is what the embryo is considered after ten weeks of development in the mother’s womb. A human is “of relating to, or typical of man; having or manifesting human form or attributes” and being is “one’s existence.” A human being, therefore, is something that exists in human form and exhibits manlike qualities; an individual. Is a fetus a human? The actual definition for fetus is “the individual unborn organism carried within the womb from the time major features appear.” One can conclude, therefore, that the fetus is a human; and if the fetus really is a human, than to terminate or end the fetus is to commit murder.

First of all, I wasn't aware that Webster's Dictionary was a scientific text...that's really the only way it would have credibility in these matters.

Secondly, it's not hard to see that you make a leap in logic around the two definitions. You'll note that the definition of "fetus" says nothing about "existing in human form" or "displaying manlike characteristics." IT does say something about displaying "major features," but since a fetus is developing "major features" progressively over nine months (and continues to do so after birth), that vague term doesn't mean squat.

As for a heartbeat, no. I believe the example of braindead people has already been cited.

Humanity or 'life' of the zygote/embryo/fetus is irrelevent.

Someone hasn't bothered reading the thread.

Just like I cannot legally force my mother to donate blood to me, even if I die as a result of her refusing, so too can a pregnent woman not be forced to donate nutrients and her womb to the infant inside her.

It's 'human being' status DOES NOT MATTER. No one has any right to legally force her to donate an organ, anymore than they have the right to force ANYONE to donate an organ.

Unless you want to make it illegal to refuse to donate your blood and organs if another person will die without them, that is. Otherwise you're just spouting ill-thought out hypocrisy, aimed to single out women as the ONLY exception to a logical and existing standard.


We should be focussing on increasing the amount of premature births that can be kept alive outside the womb, and on pushing back the age at which they can safely be removed and kept alive.

Once we reach a scientific age where zygotes can be removed as soon as they are detected (if the woman removes consent for them to exist in her womb), and then culture them safely outside of the womb, THEN anti-abortioners will have a purpose - to adopt the unwanted zygotes.

And if they wouldn't be willing to do that, they should all just shut the hell up.

*is cranky after first exam*
*grrrr*

Humanity or 'life' of the zygote/embryo/fetus is irrelevent.

Someone hasn't bothered reading the thread.

Just like I cannot legally force my mother to donate blood to me, even if I die as a result of her refusing, so too can a pregnent woman not be forced to donate nutrients and her womb to the infant inside her.

It's 'human being' status DOES NOT MATTER. No one has any right to legally force her to donate an organ, anymore than they have the right to force ANYONE to donate an organ.

Unless you want to make it illegal to refuse to donate your blood and organs if another person will die without them, that is. Otherwise you're just spouting ill-thought out hypocrisy, aimed to single out women as the ONLY exception to a logical and existing standard.


We should be focussing on increasing the amount of premature births that can be kept alive outside the womb, and on pushing back the age at which they can safely be removed and kept alive.

Once we reach a scientific age where zygotes can be removed as soon as they are detected (if the woman removes consent for them to exist in her womb), and then culture them safely outside of the womb, THEN anti-abortioners will have a purpose - to adopt the unwanted zygotes.

And if they wouldn't be willing to do that, they should all just shut the hell up.

*is cranky after first exam*
*grrrr*


A very good point.

Allowing the government to use weapons to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy just because she 'got pregnant' is the same as compelling somone to donate organs just because they 'ate healthy' and have healthy organs.

Make no mistake, outlawing abortion means that the government can chain a woman up and throw her in jail at gunpoint if she refuses to carry a pregnancy.
It Is Barbaric

There are countries in the world where this actually happens.
Iran is an example, taliban controlled afghanistan is another.

A very good point.

Allowing the government to use weapons to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy just because she 'got pregnant' is the same as compelling somone to donate organs just because they 'ate healthy' and have healthy organs.

Make no mistake, outlawing abortion means that the government can chain a woman up and throw her in jail at gunpoint if she refuses to carry a pregnancy.
It Is Barbaric

There are countries in the world where this actually happens.
Iran is an example, taliban controlled afghanistan is another.

Well it's a good point except for the fact that the government can order people to donate blood, or give tissue samples etc. Moreover there now exists constitutional laws that mandate a pregnant mother avoids contact with certain toxins.

So, morality aside, it is not a valid legal argument against outlawing abortion.

Well it's a good point except for the fact that the government can order people to donate blood, or give tissue samples etc. Moreover there now exists constitutional laws that mandate a pregnant mother avoids contact with certain toxins.

So, morality aside, it is not a valid legal argument against outlawing abortion.


It was not against german law for the jews to be put in camps, gassed in showers and burned in ovens.

Morality trumps current legalism.

"Life is, 'the ability to respond to stimuli, reproduce, and grow.'"


so a sterile, paralyzed completely grown man is not alive according to your definition. for he cannot feel and thus cannot respond to stimuli, since he is sterile he can not reproduce, and since he is completely grown he is no longer growing and thus has noo ability to grow.

in repsonse to those who say that a fetus should be killed because it is forcing itself upon its mother, i say that the unborn child did not choose to be conceived in the mother's womb. The mother herslef chose this to happen when submitting to the act of sex so it was not the childs fault that it was concieved and so should not be killed.