NationStates Jolt Archive

What is wrong with abortions? Think of the positives:
1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.
2. It will help keep control over the huge population.
3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!
4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.
5. It would allow stem cell research.
6. Did I mention the sex?

Lets try to think of more people, starting with 7!

7. It screws over the christian coalition. Which we all want.

Anyone up for dead baby jokes?

:D

Shouldn't we be thinking about the unborn human beings who are being killed.

Anyone up for dead baby jokes?

:D
OOOOH!! mememememmemememememmememe!! I love dead babies!!

It could be considered murder if the definition of human life extends to fetuses. It all boils down to when the starting point for human life is. No one has a proven answer, so it's entirely subjective. A lot of people say it begins at conception, but I say it doesn't begin until rational thought has developed.

1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.

--We really need to enrich doctors? That's a justification? :p

2. It will help keep control over the huge population.

--What huge population? We're in decline, if you count out immigration. :rolleyes:

3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!

--How does abortion guarantee more sex? And if it did, sex doesn't justify killing someone. ;)

4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.

--I think 30,000,000 abortions might disagree. :D

5. It would allow stem cell research.

--We don't need abortions for stem-cell research. :cool:

1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.

--We really need to enrich doctors? That's a justification? :p

2. It will help keep control over the huge population.

--What huge population? We're in decline, if you count out immigration. :rolleyes:

3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!

--How does abortion guarantee more sex? And if it did, sex doesn't justify killing someone. ;)

4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.

--I think 30,000,000 abortions might disagree. :D

5. It would allow stem cell research.

--We don't need abortions for stem-cell research. :cool:

To Pepe's points only:

1. If you think about it, more doctors means more people being employed. I guess.

2. The population is not decreasing. The rate of growth is decreasing.

3. Abortions means people can have more sex with less consequences. Theoretically, that would lead to more people having more sex.

4. 30,000,000 abortions? You mean 30,000,000 fetuses, who are not entitled to protections and freedoms guaranteed to people in our nation.

5. You are correct, we do not. But it would make it easier.

1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.

--We really need to enrich doctors? That's a justification? :p

2. It will help keep control over the huge population.

--What huge population? We're in decline, if you count out immigration. :rolleyes:

3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!

--How does abortion guarantee more sex? And if it did, sex doesn't justify killing someone. ;)

4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.

--I think 30,000,000 abortions might disagree. :D

5. It would allow stem cell research.

--We don't need abortions for stem-cell research. :cool:

5. We do for certain kinds.

4. yeah thats 30 million more people flooding our country.

2. If you dont count immigrants, if you do, were inclining by about 5000 a day! Including your Mexican race, Pepe, if that is your real name!

3. How could you say no to more sex. There will be more if they arent worried about having a kid.

Im a catholic but i will give off a non-catholic view at this. Abortion prevents human life. ESPECIALLY partial birth abortion. A fetus has the potential for human life, like for example, everyone posting here was a fetus at one time or another and you pro-choicers wouldnt exist if you were aborted.

Unfortunately a lot of abortions are committed because of irresponsible people. Women who got drunk, had sex and boom got pregnant, the majority of abortions happen because of that. Adoption is a wonderful alternative because many families are more then willing to adopt children. These fetuses could be just as human as me or you and everyone else but because of a women's irresponsibility and stupidity needless to say (most of the time anyway, there are some special circumstances) these children suffer extermination for the mistakes of others. That isnt fair, especially partial birth abortion, when the child feels pain. This is unethical, immoral and unjustified.

What's the difference between a dead baby and a marker?

You don't get second looks when you're writing with a marker!

Why is an unborn child considered to have its rights when it was killed by Scott Peterson but it is considered a fetus when we selfishly see it as an "inconvenience"?

(look above)


That should be the real title of this thread.

1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.

--We really need to enrich doctors? That's a justification? :p

2. It will help keep control over the huge population.

--What huge population? We're in decline, if you count out immigration. :rolleyes:

3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!

--How does abortion guarantee more sex? And if it did, sex doesn't justify killing someone. ;)

4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.

--I think 30,000,000 abortions might disagree. :D

5. It would allow stem cell research.

--We don't need abortions for stem-cell research. :cool:

I love you, so right. i'm anti abortion, but pro choice, i feel its none of my bussiness about what people do to thier fetuses, but remeber, ABORTION SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED BIRTH CONTROL! GAH! did i mention i'm antiabortion but prochoice? does that even make sense?

2. If you dont count immigrants, if you do, were inclining by about 5000 a day! Including your Mexican race, Pepe, if that is your real name!


The difference is: abortions don't prevent immigration. ;)

And Pepe's a nickname, of course. I guess you could use it as a formal name, but that'd be rare.

Im a catholic but i will give off a non-catholic view at this. Abortion prevents human life. ESPECIALLY partial birth abortion. A fetus has the potential for human life, like for example, everyone posting here was a fetus at one time or another and you pro-choicers wouldnt exist if you were aborted.

Unfortunately a lot of abortions are committed because of irresponsible people. Women who got drunk, had sex and boom got pregnant, the majority of abortions happen because of that. Adoption is a wonderful alternative because many families are more then willing to adopt children. These fetuses could be just as human as me or you and everyone else but because of a women's irresponsibility and stupidity needless to say (most of the time anyway, there are some special circumstances) these children suffer extermination for the mistakes of others. That isnt fair, especially partial birth abortion, when the child feels pain. This is unethical, immoral and unjustified.

Do you adopt?

What is wrong with abortions? Think of the positives:
1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.
2. It will help keep control over the huge population.
3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!
4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.
5. It would allow stem cell research.
6. Did I mention the sex?

Lets try to think of more people, starting with 7!

Your kidding me right? God, you got the mentality of a porn star, God, people like you should be shot or given a tube of lubricant so you can satisfy yourself if your that desperate. More sex, unbelievable, go get a blow up doll if your that concerned about getting a girl pregnant, dont make it the punishment of the child because you are to eager to use your nuke.

Do you adopt?

Do i adopt? No, but im 19, if i could, i would. However i am part of the big brother program which is similiar to adoption for under-privileged kids because i used to be one myself.

Do i adopt? No, but im 19, if i could, i would. However i am part of the big brother program which is similiar to adoption for under-privileged kids because i used to be one myself.

I'm going to start knocking up girls and sending their babies to you. Sound good?

You know the stretch of desert that goes on forever in Arizona, or the beautiful remote mountain areas in Colorado, or just the simplicity of plains and prarie land, think of that whole area industrial and full of houses. Is that what you want, abortion isnt murder, I dont believe in mid birth abortions I must say but the others are fine, thats like saying dont chop down a tree cause its alive. Its just stupid.

I'm going to start knocking up girls and sending their babies to you. Sound good?

Hope you send them to me personally so i can make you paralyzed from the waist down. Im a man of morals, i dont condone taking advantage of girls, if i ever saw that i'd break your legs.

Hope you send them to me personally so i can make you paralyzed from the waist down. Im a man of morals, i dont condone taking advantage of girls, if i ever saw that i'd break your legs.

You would try to break my legs.

Perhaps the problems with abortion lie in the fact that we're killing a human being? I know that may be difficult to understand. But who really needs responsibility these days, eh?

Your kidding me right? God, you got the mentality of a porn star, God, people like you should be shot or given a tube of lubricant so you can satisfy yourself if your that desperate. More sex, unbelievable, go get a blow up doll if your that concerned about getting a girl pregnant, dont make it the punishment of the child because you are to eager to use your nuke.

You say god too much, if you love god so much why dont you become a priest, or reverand, or start a plantation booming with slaves, another thing that god supposedly supports, or didnt you know? Its all in the bible. Or maybe you forgot, the bible isnt gods auto-biography.

Perhaps the problems with abortion lie in the fact that we're killing a human being? I know that may be difficult to understand. But who really needs responsibility these days, eh?

The problem is that different people have different definitions of when it becomes a human being, and some people honestly don't view it as killing a person.

You know the stretch of desert that goes on forever in Arizona, or the beautiful remote mountain areas in Colorado, or just the simplicity of plains and prarie land, think of that whole area industrial and full of houses. Is that what you want, abortion isnt murder, I dont believe in mid birth abortions I must say but the others are fine, thats like saying dont chop down a tree cause its alive. Its just stupid.

Who are you to choose who lives and who dies? What if you were in a position, you had two people that you care about dearly now, they werent born and you had to make a choice, do you abort one or the other or neither? Would you abort someone you care about deeply? Then why allow others to kill off their offspring? One of those children aborted could one day turn out to be your best friend, your favorite cousin, your wife, your husband? The possibilities are endless, but they never get the chance. We cry when we hear of a child killed in a gang fight, we cry when a family member dies, but no one cries when these children or if you must "potential children" are killed, why? They are going to end up just as human as we are.

Perhaps the problems with abortion lie in the fact that we're killing a human being? I know that may be difficult to understand. But who really needs responsibility these days, eh?

It is as alive as a tree. or especially less alive than an animal! Thats right! People eat meat! Who cares! Just because its alive! Why dont we stop eating meat, yes! Give the animals the right to live forever! In fact, give them a job! Let them vote!

Animals for David Cobb! (Green Party)

Do i adopt? No, but im 19, if i could, i would. However i am part of the big brother program which is similiar to adoption for under-privileged kids because i used to be one myself.


I have always lived under one simple theory : Sometimes, it would have been better if some had been killed as children. I dont mean murderers or rapists exclusively, I mean better for themselves. Abortion is a nice idea in concpt, but you have forgotten all of the abuse -especially sexual- that accompanies it all too often.
It is these kinds of things, too, that breed sociopaths and murderers. Though ocasionally, ahving your dad as Raegan's Vice president causes this too.

What's the difference between a dead baby and a marker?

You don't get second looks when you're writing with a marker!
HAHA holy crap. I actually laughed at that one.

Perhaps the problems with abortion lie in the fact that we're killing a human being? I know that may be difficult to understand. But who really needs responsibility these days, eh?

right wing people are the ones for the most part dislike abortions right? but wait it is mainly right wing people who support the death penalty, so killing fetus, bad, but killing people good. mixed messages

Who are you to choose who lives and who dies? What if you were in a position, you had two people that you care about dearly now, they werent born and you had to make a choice, do you abort one or the other or neither? Would you abort someone you care about deeply? Then why allow others to kill off their offspring? One of those children aborted could one day turn out to be your best friend, your favorite cousin, your wife, your husband? The possibilities are endless, but they never get the chance. We cry when we hear of a child killed in a gang fight, we cry when a family member dies, but no one cries when these children or if you must "potential children" are killed, why? They are going to end up just as human as we are.
ok..here comes the flaming..
Maybe its just better that way. humans are parasitic creatures, maybe cutting down our numbers isnt so bad, and maybe having it done it a desentized way isnt so bad.

Who are you to choose who lives and who dies? What if you were in a position, you had two people that you care about dearly now, they werent born and you had to make a choice, do you abort one or the other or neither? Would you abort someone you care about deeply? Then why allow others to kill off their offspring? One of those children aborted could one day turn out to be your best friend, your favorite cousin, your wife, your husband? The possibilities are endless, but they never get the chance. We cry when we hear of a child killed in a gang fight, we cry when a family member dies, but no one cries when these children or if you must "potential children" are killed, why? They are going to end up just as human as we are.

How about abort them before people get used to them, we cant go back in time. Maybe if we follow your plan we'll be lucky enough to get as populated as China, and as crowded as India, or Indonesia, until there are people sprouting from the ground. Is that what you want, just so some sperm and eggs can live? Do you or did you masturbate? NOOOO! DONT! Save those sperm! They might become a baby some day, give it to a woman on the street, say:

"Excuse me miss, I didnt want to waste these, could you eject this into your eggs?"

HAHA holy crap. I actually laughed at that one.
Heh. Just trying to lighten the mood. I think I've debated abortion in three different threads today. I'm not up for repeating myself.

So, what's red and hangs out the back of a train?

A miscarriage.

It is as alive as a tree. or especially less alive than an animal! Thats right! People eat meat! Who cares! Just because its alive! Why dont we stop eating meat, yes! Give the animals the right to live forever! In fact, give them a job! Let them vote!

Animals for David Cobb! (Green Party)

I became a vegetarian to stop thought like yours. We must protect the sanctity of all life! Animal and Plant!

I have always lived under one simple theory : Sometimes, it would have been better if some had been killed as children. I dont mean murderers or rapists exclusively, I mean better for themselves. Abortion is a nice idea in concpt, but you have forgotten all of the abuse -especially sexual- that accompanies it all too often.
It is these kinds of things, too, that breed sociopaths and murderers. Though ocasionally, ahving your dad as Raegan's Vice president causes this too.

See its that kind of mentality that sickens me. Well these aborted children could be murderers and rapists. Sure, but the odds are slim, millions of babies are aborted a year, 99% of them would turn out just like you and me, normal people, they could be scientists, school teachers, senators, president, doctor, baseball player, astronaut, war hero, your next John Kerry, the possibilities are limitless, but they arent given the chance because of abortion. Ive yet to see good reason to condone abortion other then personal gain from other people, doctors getting more money, and sex, these arent justifiable reasons, its reasons for people who want money and are obsessed with their own equipment.

right wing people are the ones for the most part dislike abortions right? but wait it is mainly right wing people who support the death penalty, so killing fetus, bad, but killing people good. mixed messages

I'm not right-wing in anyway whatsoever. I"m against the death penalty.

It is as alive as a tree. or especially less alive than an animal! Thats right! People eat meat! Who cares! Just because its alive! Why dont we stop eating meat, yes! Give the animals the right to live forever! In fact, give them a job! Let them vote!

Comparing a human being to a tree.. :rolleyes: Hey, look! Some people view rapists as nonhuman beings! Let's round them up and shoot 'em all! Surely they aren't humans either! :rolleyes:

I became a vegetarian to stop thought like yours. We must protect the sanctity of all life! Animal and Plant!

Plant? But you eat vegetables no? maybe if we give in to your type one day well all be reduced to eating filtered dirt. No, I wont go down that path.

Heh. Just trying to lighten the mood. I think I've debated abortion in three different threads today. I'm not up for repeating myself.

So, what's red and hangs out the back of a train?

A miscarriage.
oh, man...thats just gruesome...lol

Then why allow others to kill off their offspring?

There's your problem. "Allow others" Why do YOU get to choose who lives and who dies?

See its that kind of mentality that sickens me. Well these aborted children could be murderers and rapists. Sure, but the odds are slim, millions of babies are aborted a year, 99% of them would turn out just like you and me, normal people, they could be scientists, school teachers, senators, president, doctor, baseball player, astronaut, war hero, your next John Kerry, the possibilities are limitless, but they arent given the chance because of abortion. Ive yet to see good reason to condone abortion other then personal gain from other people, doctors getting more money, and sex, these arent justifiable reasons, its reasons for people who want money and are obsessed with their own equipment.

Yeah and think of all those baseball players scientists etc. Flooding our country(s) think of how smelly and overpopulated we would be, until we had to send civilians to the moon, think of those millions of abortions, just think of those millions of people hanging around in our neighborhoods, thats a lot of people. Wow, I could just picture it! Wed be fucked!

See its that kind of mentality that sickens me. Well these aborted children could be murderers and rapists. Sure, but the odds are slim, millions of babies are aborted a year, 99% of them would turn out just like you and me, normal people, they could be scientists, school teachers, senators, president, doctor, baseball player, astronaut, war hero, your next John Kerry, the possibilities are limitless, but they arent given the chance because of abortion. Ive yet to see good reason to condone abortion other then personal gain from other people, doctors getting more money, and sex, these arent justifiable reasons, its reasons for people who want money and are obsessed with their own equipment.
1: Why on earth would I want another John Kerry?
2: My theory is that every problem in the world can be linked to overpopulation not too remotely, If we dont get more abortions or some world-wide campaigh=n to drop average sperm count... The only option would be child-limitation laws. Which would frankly rule, except a "second" or "third" would probably end upkilled if its an accident.

How about abort them before people get used to them, we cant go back in time. Maybe if we follow your plan we'll be lucky enough to get as populated as China, and as crowded as India, or Indonesia, until there are people sprouting from the ground. Is that what you want, just so some sperm and eggs can live? Do you or did you masturbate? NOOOO! DONT! Save those sperm! They might become a baby some day, give it to a woman on the street, say:

"Excuse me miss, I didnt want to waste these, could you eject this into your eggs?"

Now your just being ridiculous. Alright, im not trying to be offensive, im tryiing to argue a point and give you a scenario, i'd appreciate it if you wouldnt mock me or insult me. I dont believe in abrotion, i dont believe in protection, i believe intercourse is a sacred thing. Obviously thats not a ideal shared these days so i wont argue there. Want to have sex all you want, use protection, birth control pills, i dont condone it, but anything is a better alternative to abortion at this point. There is no justifiable reason for abortion.

I'm not right-wing in anyway whatsoever. I"m against the death penalty.



Comparing a human being to a tree.. :rolleyes: Hey, look! Some people view rapists as nonhuman beings! Let's round them up and shoot 'em all! Surely they aren't humans either! :rolleyes:

Good idea! Rapists should be shot, they have scared their victim for life.

Now your just being ridiculous. Alright, im not trying to be offensive, im tryiing to argue a point and give you a scenario, i'd appreciate it if you wouldnt mock me or insult me. I dont believe in abrotion, i dont believe in protection, i believe intercourse is a sacred thing. Obviously thats not a ideal shared these days so i wont argue there. Want to have sex all you want, use protection, birth control pills, i dont condone it, but anything is a better alternative to abortion at this point. There is no justifiable reason for abortion.

Condoms arent the most comfortable things in the world.

Condoms arent the most comfortable things in the world.
horay for vasectomies!!!..or tube-tying!!!

Condoms arent the most comfortable things in the world.

Is that all you wear?... because I believe many people would disagree with you there.

There is no justifiable reason for abortion.

You mean there's no justifiable reason for abortion in your opinion. Not everyone sees things exactly like you do. And your opinion should not be legislated.

There's your problem. "Allow others" Why do YOU get to choose who lives and who dies?

I get to choose because my beliefs only have on choice and thats everyone lives. Overpopulation? Only China is that bad and thats because the majority of the women in the country are prostitutes. Get rid of prostitution and you cut down a lot of babies, Control your hormones and show maturity, you cut down another baby fest. You know self-restraint isnt a bad thing, its a difficult thing, trust me, im a 19 year old, its not easy, but having a little dignity and pride in your ability to control yourself is a good feeling. Oral sex is a better alternative, be my guest, you and your partner can go at it in that department all you want if need be anything to prevent pregnancy. Enjoy!

You mean there's no justifiable reason for abortion in your opinion. Not everyone sees things exactly like you do. And your opinion should not be legislated.

Should your opinion be legislated?

I get to choose because my beliefs only have on choice and thats everyone lives.

Why do your beliefs get to be the law?

I get to choose because my beliefs only have on choice and thats everyone lives. Overpopulation? Only China is that bad and thats because the majority of the women in the country are prostitutes. Get rid of prostitution and you cut down a lot of babies, Control your hormones and show maturity, you cut down another baby fest. You know self-restraint isnt a bad thing, its a difficult thing, trust me, im a 19 year old, its not easy, but having a little dignity and pride in your ability to control yourself is a good feeling. Oral sex is a better alternative, be my guest, you and your partner can go at it in that department all you want if need be anything to prevent pregnancy. Enjoy!
Ah, if only women felt as good about oral sex as men did...Did you say the majority of chinese women are prostitutes?? I find that horribly unlikely, that most women-as in, over half- are hookers.

You mean there's no justifiable reason for abortion in your opinion. Not everyone sees things exactly like you do. And your opinion should not be legislated.

Whats a justifiable reason you've shown me that abortion is good? If i used your reasons for other purposes say i went up and shot you then told cops that i did it so i can screw your girlfriend and get your money, my ass would be in the electric chair in no time.

Should your opinion be legislated?

No, no opinion should be legislated.

1. The same ppl who are against the death penalty for murderers and rapist, are for the death penalty of innocent babies.

2. I think its funny how all of the ppl who are pro-choice have been born.

Why do your beliefs get to be the law?

I wish it were law but its not unfortunately. But you nor any other pro-choice person has shown me a legit reason for abortion other then it cuts down their apartment size and gives them reason to launch in any direction of their choosing. Let's make prostitution legal, lets make murder legal, lets make everything immoral legal, no wait, why even have laws? Laws are created on moral standards, i believe banning abortion is a moral standard. Just so you can have sex more is not justifiable nor moral.

1. The same ppl who are against the death penalty for murderers and rapist, are for the death penalty of innocent babies.

2. I think its funny how all of the ppl who are pro-choice have been born.

1: death penalty is for riminals of the worst caliber. Not for so-far innocent children. I just oppose it because a) its completely irreversible and b) your county is racialy bigoted. So is mine

2: the non nonsensical of us realise that, and realize that maybe, just as if it might be better for those aborted children to not be born, maybe the case applies to us. i know it applies to me.

Whats a justifiable reason you've shown me that abortion is good? If i used your reasons for other purposes say i went up and shot you then told cops that i did it so i can screw your girlfriend and get your money, my ass would be in the electric chair in no time.

That's an incorrect comparisson. The issue is that not everyone agrees whether or not a fetus is a human being, and therefore subject to the laws that we are. And since there is disagreement over that, and neither side is able to conclusively prove that they are correct, then it remains a matter of opinion, and neither side should have it's opinion be the law. However, since the pro-choice stance does not seek to enforce mandatory abortions or some other form of forced abortion, but the pro-life stance seeks to prevent abortions, the default would be to allow those who seek abortions the right to do so, and those who do not can choose not to. Until it can be proven conclusively that a fetus is a human being (and I don't know if it ever will be conclusive enough for more militant pro-lifers), then the right should not be withheld from those who desire it.

I wish it were law but its not unfortunately. But you nor any other pro-choice person has shown me a legit reason for abortion other then it cuts down their apartment size and gives them reason to launch in any direction of their choosing. Let's make prostitution legal, lets make murder legal, lets make everything immoral legal, no wait, why even have laws? Laws are created on moral standards, i believe banning abortion is a moral standard. Just so you can have sex more is not justifiable nor moral.

Logical fallacy nonwithstanding, I think prostitution should be legal. The reason murder is illegal is because it infringes upon other people's rights, namely the right to not be dead. Prostitution infringes on no one's rights that don't choose it to, and neither does abortion, if you are of the belief that a fetus is not a human being.

To Pepe's points only:

1. If you think about it, more doctors means more people being employed. I guess.

2. The population is not decreasing. The rate of growth is decreasing.

3. Abortions means people can have more sex with less consequences. Theoretically, that would lead to more people having more sex.

4. 30,000,000 abortions? You mean 30,000,000 fetuses, who are not entitled to protections and freedoms guaranteed to people in our nation.

5. You are correct, we do not. But it would make it easier.

A little disclaimer, to start things off. The first sentence is my actual argument. The rest is full of excrutiatingly radical ideas, none of which I actually recommend. They can be fun to read though.

To Sdaeriji's points.

1. Creating more jobs isn't important enough to kill someone else for. Why not just hire assassins to go around, killing people who don't agree with the government, and then feed the corpses to people who make dead baby jokes, since they seem to like carnage? After all, it would solve soo many problems! You'd have less population, less political unreast, less crowed cemetaries, and fewer jerks making dead baby jokes!!!

2. Population growth isn't important enough to kill someone else for. If you're really so concerned about it, you have two main options:

- Stop having sex. There, abortion controversy and population control issues solved.
- Volunteer yourself for an abortion (as in having you be aborted). Less population, abortions with the abortee having a say, and one less pro-abortion person.

3. No, I think someone dying before they have a chance at life, not to mention the incredible mental trauma that all concerned go through when an abortion occurs, are more consequences having a child to carry on your legacy. Oh, an more people having sex? Wouldn't that lead to more population, i.e. blatantly contradicting the main idea of your second point?

4. THE PEOPLE GAURANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN OUR NATION HAVE CHANGED, AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO CHANGE AGAIN. Once, only white male landowners had rights and freedoms. Now, virtually everyone except for the unborn have protected rights and freedoms. Just because they aren't protected now doesn't mean they should never be protected. Or do you think that we should kill women and non anglo-saxons, because they haven't always had protected rights and freedoms?

5. Stem cell research is fundamentally flawed. Any research based on the destruction of human beings should be very illegal. Or would you support Hitler's research practices when he killed Jews brutally to further scientific knowlege? Besides, there are no guarantees in science. Everyone seems to think that stem cell research will cure cancer, et cetera, but we really have no idea what it can do, only what it may be able to do. Besides, is making something easier always the best way to go? Wouldn't life be easier if you were allowed to do whatever you want? Why can't we? Because, that's just plain stupid.

I'm sick and tired of this "choice" crap. Vote for life.

Logical fallacy nonwithstanding, I think prostitution should be legal. The reason murder is illegal is because it infringes upon other people's rights, namely the right to not be dead. Prostitution infringes on no one's rights that don't choose it to, and neither does abortion, if you are of the belief that a fetus is not a human being.

well, there is some issues with prostitution that treat the grls almost as slaves...but Im sure legality will solve some of those.

A little disclaimer, to start things off. The first sentence is my actual argument. The rest is full of excrutiatingly radical ideas, none of which I actually recommend. They can be fun to read though.

To Sdaeriji's points.

1. Creating more jobs isn't important enough to kill someone else for. Why not just hire assassins to go around, killing people who don't agree with the government, and then feed the corpses to people who make dead baby jokes, since they seem to like carnage? After all, it would solve soo many problems! You'd have less population, less political unreast, less crowed cemetaries, and fewer jerks making dead baby jokes!!!

2. Population growth isn't important enough to kill someone else for. If you're really so concerned about it, you have two main options:

- Stop having sex. There, abortion controversy and population control issues solved.
- Volunteer yourself for an abortion (as in having you be aborted). Less population, abortions with the abortee having a say, and one less pro-abortion person.

3. No, I think someone dying before they have a chance at life, not to mention the incredible mental trauma that all concerned go through when an abortion occurs, are more consequences having a child to carry on your legacy. Oh, an more people having sex? Wouldn't that lead to more population, i.e. blatantly contradicting the main idea of your second point?

4. THE PEOPLE GAURANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN OUR NATION HAVE CHANGED, AND NOW IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO CHANGE AGAIN. Once, only white male landowners had rights and freedoms. Now, virtually everyone except for the unborn have protected rights and freedoms. Just because they aren't protected now doesn't mean they should never be protected. Or do you think that we should kill women and non anglo-saxons, because they haven't always had protected rights and freedoms?

5. Stem cell research is fundamentally flawed. Any research based on the destruction of human beings should be very illegal. Or would you support Hitler's research practices when he killed Jews brutally to further scientific knowlege? Besides, there are no guarantees in science. Everyone seems to think that stem cell research will cure cancer, et cetera, but we really have no idea what it can do, only what it may be able to do. Besides, is making something easier always the best way to go? Wouldn't life be easier if you were allowed to do whatever you want? Why can't we? Because, that's just plain stupid.

I'm sick and tired of this "choice" crap. Vote for life.

you know who else was "pro-life"? thats right! HItler! how you like it now, beyotch!!

No, no opinion should be legislated.

By the way, that's the most hypocritical thing i've seen in a long while. Aren't you legislation your opinion about the legislation of opinions?

By the way, that's the most hypocritical thing i've seen in a long while. Aren't you legislation your opinion about the legislation of opinions?
( sigh) no...the legislation of opinions, its proven it wont work, and will lead into chaos. saying thats my opinion is like saying " hitler may have not hated the jews, that your opinion! he actually loved them ( he had jewish blood himself! LOL) and wanted them to get to heaven quicker."

you know who else was "pro-life"? thats right! HItler! how you like it now, beyotch!!

You obviously missed the part where I mentioned Hitler. He was a concited, hypocritical bastard. And that's a phrase I don't use very often. He was a far cry from pro life.

I wish it were law but its not unfortunately. But you nor any other pro-choice person has shown me a legit reason for abortion other then it cuts down their apartment size and gives them reason to launch in any direction of their choosing. Let's make prostitution legal, lets make murder legal, lets make everything immoral legal, no wait, why even have laws? Laws are created on moral standards, i believe banning abortion is a moral standard. Just so you can have sex more is not justifiable nor moral.
Firstly they dont need to give you a legitimate reason. I dont need to give you a legitimate reason for anything I do, it is none of your business. Frankly I have no concerns if people choose to buy and sell services, murder of course if the business of the murdered and those who have an interest in them. A fetus has no interest of it's own and no one's interest is impinged to the point that the mother's is. Her interest has primacy for obvious reasons.

You may not like it but morals are not a constant. Proof that morals do not prove right from wrong is the fact that whole societies and cultures have ingrained morals that are contradictory to the morals of other societies and cultures. Since two contradictory things cannot both be right, morals do not tell us what is right.

Laws are not created for moral purposes in free societies, and indeed it would be very difficult to create any legal system that reflected the morality of every person in a society. Your moral notions are no more valid than mine, and since they contradict each other directly they cannot be relevent. I dont care about your beliefs more than I care about my own, but I am willing to conceed that my beliefs should not constrain your behaviour. The law is not there to favour the beliefs of one person or another, it is there to enable people to live together. If you have reasons for why a law should be so, I am happy to listen to reasoning, if you only have beliefs, that's nice but you should not expect anyone else to be bound by your belief anymore than you are willing to be bound by everyone elses, no one is forcing you to have an abortion or impregnate someone so that they might be in a position to. If you dont like abortion dont do anything that will eventuate in one, other than that you as an ex-partie dont have any legitimate interest in abortions.

By the way, that's the most hypocritical thing i've seen in a long while. Aren't you legislation your opinion about the legislation of opinions?

I suppose your right, in a way. My opinion on this matter, as well as alot of other matters, is that as long as there is no concrete proof for one side or the other, then neither side should be codified, and the right to abortion (if you want to call it a right; that's debatable) should not be denied to those who want it.

You obviously missed the part where I mentioned Hitler. He was a concited, hypocritical bastard. And that's a phrase I don't use very often. He was a far cry from pro life.

you know else sounds like a conceited, hypocritical bastard? you!
who else guided the government through moral principles alone? Thats right! HItler!
In fact...I bet youre hitler! yes, you never died!!

Shouldn't we be thinking about the unborn human beings who are being killed.

Fetus's aren't human beings if it is a being or human it has to be able to survive on it's own, and last i checked a fetus couldn't do that

[QUOTE=CRACKPIE]he had jewish blood himself! LOL)QUOTE]

Jewish blood? I hate to break it to you, but religion isn't genetic.

Furthermore, the statement "your opinion should not be legislated" is actually an opinion. See the word "should"? That makes it an opinion. Ask any English teacher.

By the way, are you planning on voting tomorrow?

[QUOTE=CRACKPIE]he had jewish blood himself! LOL)QUOTE]

Jewish blood? I hate to break it to you, but religion isn't genetic.

Furthermore, the statement "your opinion should not be legislated" is actually an opinion. See the word "should"? That makes it an opinion. Ask any English teacher.

By the way, are you planning on voting tomorrow?


but, by hitler reasoning, it was. See, what I mean was that, him going around killing all of those who had two or more jewish grandparents was hypocritical, since two of his own grandparents were jewish.
( It might be argued that the "jewish" race is actually the hebrew race, which has a few distinct characteristics to some, but to me youre all just white)

as for voting, I fear I cant, im nt a citizen yet. I have, however, done my part helping moveonPac and texans for truth,

Fetus's aren't human beings if it is a being or human it has to be able to survive on it's own, and last i checked a fetus couldn't do that

Who told you that? What is the fetus if it isn't a human? If it has human cells, human DNA, is the result of two humans having sex, it's certainly not a giraffe. Are you saying that people with medical conditions that make them rely on things like insulin shots or dialosis not human, because they can't live on their own? I hate to break it to you, but most humans can't live completely on their own until they are at least 5 years old

Who told you that? What is the fetus if it isn't a human? If it has human cells, human DNA, is the result of two humans having sex, it's certainly not a giraffe. Are you saying that people with medical conditions that make them rely on things like insulin shots or dialosis not human, because they can't live on their own? I hate to break it to you, but most humans can't live completely on their own until they are at least 5 years old
just so you kno, while I agree with these people, i laugh at their reasons. I just sit here and laugh.

Now your just being ridiculous. Alright, im not trying to be offensive, im tryiing to argue a point and give you a scenario, i'd appreciate it if you wouldnt mock me or insult me. I dont believe in abrotion, i dont believe in protection, i believe intercourse is a sacred thing. Obviously thats not a ideal shared these days so i wont argue there. Want to have sex all you want, use protection, birth control pills, i dont condone it, but anything is a better alternative to abortion at this point. There is no justifiable reason for abortion.

:werd:

Well, rape (which is the reason for maybe .5% of abortions) would be a somewhat justifiable reason. I can understand that.

BUT, isn't killing the baby like killing the only good thing that came out of a bad situation?

Just my .02.

And, btw, I am for the death penalty for people who have willfully committed brutal murders. I do not feel jail can rehabilitate these people, nor is it a strong enough punishment.

just so you kno, while I agree with these people, i laugh at their reasons. I just sit here and laugh.

I dislike abortions just as much as these people, but I don't think that that should have any bearing on someone else getting an abortion.

:werd:

Well, rape (which is the reason for maybe .5% of abortions) would be a somewhat justifiable reason. I can understand that.

BUT, isn't killing the baby like killing the only good thing that came out of a bad situation?

Just my .02.

And, btw, I am for the death penalty for people who have willfully committed brutal murders. I do not feel jail can rehabilitate these people, nor is it a strong enough punishment.
I am too. But how do you know for sure who did? how do you know who's innocent?

Guess what? There's nothing wrong with abortion. The baby isn't really alive and feeling pain when its just a fetus. but the main issue here is this: IT'S THE WOMAN'S CHOICE TO GET AN ABORTION! NOT YOURS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, NOT ANYONE ELSE'S CHOICE BUT THE WOMAN'S! I might not get an abortion. But don't tell me I can't if I do choose to. To all the idiots who say something like this: "Its the woman's fault she got pregnant. She was irresponsible." Or someething to that extent. Have younever ever ever made a mistake in your life??? Your perfect???? U have NEVER made a wrong choice? Wow this is amazing I've met a perfect person who has NEVER messed up and has NEVER made a wrong decision!! Then you must be G-d. Wow.

KERRy~EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

You can't be 100% sure about anything.

Who told you that? What is the fetus if it isn't a human? If it has human cells, human DNA, is the result of two humans having sex, it's certainly not a giraffe. Are you saying that people with medical conditions that make them rely on things like insulin shots or dialosis not human, because they can't live on their own? I hate to break it to you, but most humans can't live completely on their own until they are at least 5 years old
I dont think anyone is arguing that a human fetus is not human anymore than they would try to argue that a human corpse is not human, but frankly if you think being human makes you a human being you dont understand the difference between discriptive and noun. A human fetus is a fetus of the human variety (as a human corpse is a corpse of the human variety). An egg is not a chicken anymore than a feather is chicken and a fetus is not a human being anymore than a strand of hair is a human being. The fact is a human syphlus cyst has human cells, human DNA and can be the result of two humans having sex, exactly like a fetus, I would consider you frankly a bit unhinged if you argued that syphlus cysts should be considered to have the rights of human beings or should in any way shape or form be conceived of as human beings.

You might believe that a fetus is a human being, but this proves no more or less than the fact that many people believe a fetus is not a human being. Any argument that is premised on 'fetus humanity' fails until you substantiate that a fetus is a human being, and if that's obvious and true, one wonders why those who posit such arguments have never yet succeeded in proving so.

BUT, isn't killing the baby like killing the only good thing that came out of a bad situation?


Something I said in another thread that I'm too lazy to retype, so copy and paste it is:


I have a friend who was raped and impregnated and had an abortion. She hates that she had an abortion and wishes she didn't. But there are a thousand and one things that remind her of the man (a jealous ex-boyfriend), and whenever she is reminded of what happens, she breaks down and starts crying, and is inconsolable for days. I think if she had had the child, it would be a constant reminder of the trauma. And considering how she reacts to their song or the kind of flower he used to get her, I don't think having the child would have been too healthy for either of them.

Just because something has human cells doesn't make it human, and by living on it's own i did not mean take care of itself, i meant carry out basic living functions like breathing. A fetus can not breath on it's own, nor carry out any functions of life...as far as i'm concerned a fetus is a parasite

so infants in intensive care and need to have machines breathe for them are not humans? so those who have died are no longer human beings?

Guess what? There's nothing wrong with abortion. The baby isn't really alive and feeling pain when its just a fetus. but the main issue here is this: IT'S THE WOMAN'S CHOICE TO GET AN ABORTION! NOT YOURS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, NOT ANYONE ELSE'S CHOICE BUT THE WOMAN'S! I might not get an abortion. But don't tell me I can't if I do choose to. To all the idiots who say something like this: "Its the woman's fault she got pregnant. She was irresponsible." Or someething to that extent. Have younever ever ever made a mistake in your life??? Your perfect???? U have NEVER made a wrong choice? Wow this is amazing I've met a perfect person who has NEVER messed up and has NEVER made a wrong decision!! Then you must be G-d. Wow.

KERRy~EDWARDS
A STRONGER AMERICA

There's adoption.

What about the fetus's choice? Oh right, because it cant speak or talk like you and I then it isn't human. So would you saythat infants under 3 months should be killed? Surely they aren't conscious beings! Maybe people should take responsibility for their mistakes? Yes, there are flaws in pro-life ideology and I am in no way pro-life, but treating a fetus as an insignificant collection of cells seems disgusting. Especially when it's a HUMAN fetus we're talking about. Did the fetus consent to death? Did you consent to sex (in most cases, I understand rape, etc.)? Think about it.

This brings me to a completely different side of the story. A lot of people are arguing that babies don't have "rights" or fetus' don't have rights. Well what kind of rights can you give something that can not make it's own logical choices. It's not like the fetus can defend itself whether it is aborted or not. So is being altruistic the answer? No, altruism is in no way shape or form proper for any situation, giving anything based solely on need is not logical. Why does everyone need to make decisions for someone else when the only one in this matter that actually counts is the one carrying the fetus and the partner that they shared the moment with, in the case of rape, I say only the female maters as it was her body that was immorally used.

I dont think anyone is arguing that a human fetus is not human anymore than they would try to argue that a human corpse is not human, but frankly if you think being human makes you a human being you dont understand the difference between discriptive and noun. A human fetus is a fetus of the human variety (as a human corpse is a corpse of the human variety). An egg is not a chicken anymore than a feather is chicken and a fetus is not a human being anymore than a strand of hair is a human being. The fact is a human syphlus cyst has human cells, human DNA and can be the result of two humans having sex, exactly like a fetus, I would consider you frankly a bit unhinged if you argued that syphlus cysts should be considered to have the rights of human beings or should in any way shape or form be conceived of as human beings.

You might believe that a fetus is a human being, but this proves no more or less than the fact that many people believe a fetus is not a human being. Any argument that is premised on 'fetus humanity' fails until you substantiate that a fetus is a human being, and if that's obvious and true, one wonders why those who posit such arguments have never yet succeeded in proving so.

I'm glad to see that there are some people on this forum who don't rely completely on insulting someone who argues with them.

I think it's interesting that you say that I can not make an argument based on 'fetus humanity', because according to the old posts that I read before posting on this forum, I was going to have to provide some evidence that a fetus was human before posting. In that case, what AM I supposed to base my argument on?

On another note...

TRUTH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. Just because someone may think that something is true, and someone else may think the same thing isn't true, does not mean that they are both right. As a matter of fact, they cannot both be right. Someone is in agreement with the absolute truth, and someone is not. Just because people will probably always disagree doesn't mean we should stop looking for the absolute truth. In fact, we should intensify our search, so that the argument will be solved peacefully once one side is soundly defeated. To say that "You might believe that a fetus is a human being, but this proves no more or less than the fact that many people believe a fetus is not a human being" and make that into a case for my entire argument being fallacious, simply because "people have their own opinions" is pure insanity.

There's adoption.

What about the fetus's choice? Oh right, because it cant speak or talk like you and I then it isn't human. So would you saythat infants under 3 months should be killed? Surely they aren't conscious beings! Maybe people should take responsibility for their mistakes? Yes, there are flaws in pro-life ideology and I am in no way pro-life, but treating a fetus as an insignificant collection of cells seems disgusting. Especially when it's a HUMAN fetus we're talking about. Did the fetus consent to death? Did you consent to sex (in most cases, I understand rape, etc.)? Think about it.

and by all means you be the person to tell the child when they want to know who their real father and mother is that they were an accident after a rape..that would be great for the childs esteem.

and by all means you be the person to tell the child when they want to know who their real father and mother is that they were an accident after a rape..that would be great for the childs esteem.

And by all means, you be the one to kill the child, so he/she won't have to go through the trauma of finding that out, because we all know that the tragedy of not being allowed to experience life in the first place isn't really all that bad.

so infants in intensive care and need to have machines breathe for them are not humans? so those who have died are no longer human beings?
You are half right at least, those who have died are indeed not human beings.

There's adoption.
The fact that adoption exists is not materially relevent.

What about the fetus's choice?
If you can somehow prove what a fetus's choice is you might be able to form an argument around that. Let us know if you ever find a way to do that...

Oh right, because it cant speak or talk like you and I then it isn't human.
No, whatever gives you that idea, my cat's inability to talk like me is not what makes my cat 'not a human being', the fact that my cat is not a human being is what makes my cat not a human being.

So would you saythat infants under 3 months should be killed?
Not if they are human infants.

Surely they aren't conscious beings!
Infants are most certainly concious beings.

Maybe people should take responsibility for their mistakes?
Of course people should take responsibility for their mistakes, that is not relevent to whether the means of doing so should include or exclude abortion.

Yes, there are flaws in pro-life ideology and I am in no way pro-life, but treating a fetus as an insignificant collection of cells seems disgusting. Especially when it's a HUMAN fetus we're talking about. Did the fetus consent to death? Did you consent to sex (in most cases, I understand rape, etc.)? Think about it.
You have given no reason why it seems disgusting so I can only assume it just 'feels' that way to you, are you willing to subvert your freedom to someone else's 'feeling'? As to the fetus's consent you have no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that there is one. We dont get consent from trees, computers, bacteria, kittens, because we dont recognise that they have consent. If you can demonstrate that a fetus is capable of forming consent, then we can consider whether or not their consent should be given some form of legislative protection or consideration and what form that should take.

And by all means, you be the one to kill the child, so he/she won't have to go through the trauma of finding that out, because we all know that the tragedy of not being allowed to experience life in the first place isn't really all that bad.

it's not my choice to "kill" the FETUS (since it isn't a child yet), really everyone, get your words correct. You can't say something is a fetus then call it a child or baby, they are completely different.

The child's choice... let's think long and hard on this one... :headbang:

Have you ever heard the phrase, innocent until guilty? Well, the same concept applies here. You can't assume the infant wants death, because death isn't something you can undo. Since you have no way of knowing what the child's choice is, you have to assume it wants to live, at least until it can tell you it doesn't

Even so whether you are pro-life or firmly hold on to the belief of no abortion should be done, where do you draw the line. Why should something that can make no rational thought take presidence over an adult who can make rational thoughts? If we abolish abortion, what happens if the mothers life is at risk? Do we say oh well the law says we can't get rid of the fetus so you have to die for the fetus' sake? Argue that one, and if you say well then there has to be exceptions to the rule, well sitting on the fence will only lead to loopholes being manipulated and a whole lot of red tape and misery for the Medical Professionals to work out with insurance companies and then the government has to get involved and lets face it, the government already gets involved in plenty of matters it doesn't belong in.

The child's choice... let's think long and hard on this one... :headbang:

Have you ever heard the phrase, innocent until guilty? Well, the same concept applies here. You can't assume the infant wants death, because death isn't something you can undo. Since you have no way of knowing what the child's choice is, you have to assume it wants to live, at least until it can tell you it doesn't

How can you say that it DOES want to live? so just because you have no way of knowing it HAS to be life? i say since you have no way of knowing the one who is a rational thinker decides

it's not my choice to "kill" the FETUS (since it isn't a child yet), really everyone, get your words correct. You can't say something is a fetus then call it a child or baby, they are completely different.

I know it's not your choice. I never said it was. I was parodying your comment (the one I quoted).

As for your second point, I will correct my languge. From now on, to keep the confusion to a minimum, I will call the child a child, since "Fetus", "Embryo", and "Zygote" are just terms used to distinguish which stage of development the child is in inside the womb, much like "Infant", "Newborn" and "Toddler" are used to distinguish the child's stage of development outside of the womb.

As far as being "completely different" is concerned, black and white are completely different. "Fetus" is merely a more descriptive form of the word child. It is used to show that he/she is fairly well-developed, but still within the womb.

How can you say that it DOES want to live? so just because you have no way of knowing it HAS to be life? i say since you have no way of knowing the one who is a rational thinker decides

I'm just saying that neither you, nor anyone else, should be able to decide who lives and who dies. I'm also saying that it's best to go with the solution that is revesible, instead of the one that is irreversible.

Infants are most certainly concious beings.

Prove that an 8-month old fetus isn't conscious and a 3-month infant is conscious.

I'm glad to see that there are some people on this forum who don't rely completely on insulting someone who argues with them.

I think it's interesting that you say that I can not make an argument based on 'fetus humanity', because according to the old posts that I read before posting on this forum, I was going to have to provide some evidence that a fetus was human before posting. In that case, what AM I supposed to base my argument on?
You may find it interesting, but I guess the significance hasnt quite caught you the way it grabs me. An argument doesnt make something true, it gives us something with which to search and measure trueness, chances are if you cant find anything to base your argument on, it's because there's nothing there to measure, you're searching in the wrong place. I'm not saying this is so in this case, but I'm saying that on the balance of evidences presented that is probably the case. Because a sound argument is always true, if what you are arguing is not true, you wont have a sound argument for it, it may be that you cant find anything to base your argument on, because your argument is baseless.



TRUTH IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. Just because someone may think that something is true, and someone else may think the same thing isn't true, does not mean that they are both right. As a matter of fact, they cannot both be right. Someone is in agreement with the absolute truth, and someone is not.
This is very close to the truth I was trying to point out. You see you brought morals in, morals are not 'truth indicators' because as you point out truth is not subjective, morals are. As it happens the above description you gave is only correct if the two people have contradictory opinions, in the case of contrary opinions they might both be wrong.

Just because people will probably always disagree doesn't mean we should stop looking for the absolute truth. In fact, we should intensify our search, so that the argument will be solved peacefully once one side is soundly defeated.
Exactly, and we have already established that morals are not truth indicative, however reasoning is, reasoning can be shown through arguments, we can prove things through deductive arguments are show that something is very likely to be true through non-deductive arguments. This is how we test and measure when we search for the truth (after all it's pointless finding something you were looking for if you fail to recognise it, throw it away and keep searching). This means of measuring allows people to consider your rationals and reason out their value in terms of truth. The onus of evidence is on proving what is, not what isnt, because it is easier to prove what is than what isnt. The kind of argument you need to produce to substantiate 'a fetus is a human being' is the kind of argument that would convince you 'a fetus is not a human being', I think you will agree that any argument 'a fetus is not a human baby' that you can easily supply a counter-argument to, will not convince you, the same works back the other way with convincing others that a fetus is a human being.


To say that "You might believe that a fetus is a human being, but this proves no more or less than the fact that many people believe a fetus is not a human being" and make that into a case for my entire argument being fallacious, simply because "people have their own opinions" is pure insanity.
That's not what I have done though. I have pointed out the seperate strands of your argument. You argued from morals and feelings, but these are subjective and truth is not, so they are not the same thing and can be contrary or contradictory to one another. Any argument that relies on something that proves nothing for it's proof is fallacious.

How can you say that it DOES want to live? so just because you have no way of knowing it HAS to be life? i say since you have no way of knowing the one who is a rational thinker decides

In my belief, life begins at conception. Based it on that logic, that means if you legalize abortion you would have to legalize suicide and enthusia. Wether you think that is bad or not is up to you.

4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.

This is the core of the "pro choice" (hence the name) argument, and yet I fail to see where, in supporting the birth of a child, pro life "damages freedom of choice." In order for anyone to be "eligible" for an abortion, they had to make a choice. That choice had uncertain repercussions, which could have been anticipated. I don't understand why one's child has to die because one chose to have sex without being ready to accept the possibility of pregnancy.

As a parallel to this argument: I smoke cigarettes. Every time I light up, I think about the possibility that I will get cancer. (My Grandfather died of lung cancer when I was 2). Because of my concious choices now, I may suffer consequences later.

Even so whether you are pro-life or firmly hold on to the belief of no abortion should be done, where do you draw the line. Why should something that can make no rational thought take presidence over an adult who can make rational thoughts? If we abolish abortion, what happens if the mothers life is at risk? Do we say oh well the law says we can't get rid of the fetus so you have to die for the fetus' sake? Argue that one, and if you say well then there has to be exceptions to the rule, well sitting on the fence will only lead to loopholes being manipulated and a whole lot of red tape and misery for the Medical Professionals to work out with insurance companies and then the government has to get involved and lets face it, the government already gets involved in plenty of matters it doesn't belong in.

Trust me, you won't accuse me of "sitting on the fence". As a devout Catholic, I am against abortion in all its forms. I am also against contraceptives. I am also against any form of sex except vaginal between one man and one woman in Marriage. I don't think that can be considered "sitting on the fence".

The main distinction that needs to be made is that they are cases where the mother's life is at RISK. I do appreciated you taking your own advice and choosing your words carefully, because we cannot know whether or not the mother will actually die if she has the child. Death is a risk, unless an abortion occurs. In that case, death is a certainty. In any successful abortion, at least one person dies.

Firstly they dont need to give you a legitimate reason. I dont need to give you a legitimate reason for anything I do, it is none of your business. Frankly I have no concerns if people choose to buy and sell services, murder of course if the business of the murdered and those who have an interest in them. A fetus has no interest of it's own and no one's interest is impinged to the point that the mother's is. Her interest has primacy for obvious reasons.

You may not like it but morals are not a constant. Proof that morals do not prove right from wrong is the fact that whole societies and cultures have ingrained morals that are contradictory to the morals of other societies and cultures. Since two contradictory things cannot both be right, morals do not tell us what is right.

Laws are not created for moral purposes in free societies, and indeed it would be very difficult to create any legal system that reflected the morality of every person in a society. Your moral notions are no more valid than mine, and since they contradict each other directly they cannot be relevent. I dont care about your beliefs more than I care about my own, but I am willing to conceed that my beliefs should not constrain your behaviour. The law is not there to favour the beliefs of one person or another, it is there to enable people to live together. If you have reasons for why a law should be so, I am happy to listen to reasoning, if you only have beliefs, that's nice but you should not expect anyone else to be bound by your belief anymore than you are willing to be bound by everyone elses, no one is forcing you to have an abortion or impregnate someone so that they might be in a position to. If you dont like abortion dont do anything that will eventuate in one, other than that you as an ex-partie dont have any legitimate interest in abortions.

Abortion should be illegal because it is human life. If i came up and shot you in the head in public, i would get the death penalty, but if i caught your mother and aborted you, i could prance around holding your fetus in the air and nothing will happen to me. Doesnt matter if you are one and the same, the only difference is you arent an adult, your a fetus, regardless if its you or not. So how is that? I kill you at your current age and get the death penalty but if i kill you at the fetus stage, i can chuck your fetus and the courthall and not be touched? Its a contradiction because the fetus is human, just not a developed human, but its human nonetheless. Its not a animal, its not a rock, its not an egg, its a seed, a living developing, growing seed. More specifically however its designated a "human seed" human being the key term. That rational brain of yours came from the seed you once were. In the end, the grown up you i could kill and get the death penalty, is the uman seed you that i could kill and get away with. Its human life at any stage, if i kill you at your current age and get the death penalty i should get the same penalty if i kill you at your fetus stage because its you at "any stage". You cant be robbed of your identity because your not full-term. Its murder.

The child's choice... let's think long and hard on this one...

Have you ever heard the phrase, innocent until guilty? Well, the same concept applies here. You can't assume the infant wants death, because death isn't something you can undo. Since you have no way of knowing what the child's choice is, you have to assume it wants to live, at least until it can tell you it doesn't
Carrying a child to full term and giving birth is not something you can undo either.

The only reason you cant assume a fetus wants death, is because you cant assume a fetus wants. You suggest that we have no way of knowing what a fetus's choice is, but that's like suggesting we dont know what colour car a person owns when we dont even know if the person has a car. If you dont know someone has a car, speculating about the colour of a car which may not exist is a bit redundant. If you can establish that a fetus has wants, and can form a choice, then we can consider the implications of that. Evidently your argument is further flawed because if a fetus is allowed to gestate and becomes a human being and reaches achieves 'full consent' and they want to not live, the law doesnt give them the option of opting out.

I'm just saying that neither you, nor anyone else, should be able to decide who lives and who dies. I'm also saying that it's best to go with the solution that is revesible, instead of the one that is irreversible.

Neither is reversable.

Prove that an 8-month old fetus isn't conscious and a 3-month infant is conscious.

I dont need to. You see I dont need to prove that what you suggest is impossible to establish that you have not proved that it is true. If you wish to convince someone that an argument that materially requires a fetus to be concious is true, then you need to substantiate that the materially required premise is true, otherwise the argument cannot be. The burden of proof is on the affirmative.

Nice try at dodging the question. You made the assertion that a 3-month old is conscious. Prove it. I never said a human needed to be conscious if you read carefully. It's a human life irregardless, 'conscious' or not.

Trust me, you won't accuse me of "sitting on the fence". As a devout Catholic, I am against abortion in all its forms. I am also against contraceptives. I am also against any form of sex except vaginal between one man and one woman in Marriage. I don't think that can be considered "sitting on the fence".

The main distinction that needs to be made is that they are cases where the mother's life is at RISK. I do appreciated you taking your own advice and choosing your words carefully, because we cannot know whether or not the mother will actually die if she has the child. Death is a risk, unless an abortion occurs. In that case, death is a certainty. In any successful abortion, at least one person dies.
Ah, so wouldn't give the morning after pill to a raped 13 year old girl (cause her life isn't threatened)?

You may find it interesting, but I guess the significance hasnt quite caught you the way it grabs me. An argument doesnt make something true, it gives us something with which to search and measure trueness, chances are if you cant find anything to base your argument on, it's because there's nothing there to measure, you're searching in the wrong place. I'm saying this is so in this case, but I'm saying that on the balance of evidences presented that is probably the case. Because a sound argument is always true, if what you are arguing is not true, you wont have a sound argument for it, it may be that you cant find anything to base your argument on, because your argument is baseless.

If you would kindly list for me the bases of your own argument, I will gladly demolish them for you.

This is very close to the truth I was trying to point out. You see you brought morals in, morals are not 'truth indicators' because as you point out truth is not subjective, morals are. As it happens the above description you gave is only correct if the two people have contradictory opinions, in the case of contrary opinions they might both be wrong.

I do not see that I brought morals in. At no point in any of my posts have I mentioned morals. The only person bringing morals into our conversation is you.

Exactly, and we have already established that morals are not truth indicative, however reasoning is, reasoning can be shown through arguments, we can prove things through deductive arguments are show that something is very likely to be true through non-deductive arguments. This is how we test and measure when we search for the truth (after all it's pointless finding something you were looking for if you fail to recognise it, throw it away and keep searching). This means of measuring allows people to consider your rationals and reason out their value in terms of truth. The onus of evidence is on proving what is, not what isnt, because it is easier to prove what is than what isnt. The kind of argument you need to produce to substantiate 'a fetus is a human being' is the kind of argument that would convince you 'a fetus is not a human being', I think you will agree that any argument 'a fetus is not a human baby' that you can easily supply a counter-argument to, will not convince you, the same works back the other way with convincing others that a fetus is a human being.

I will agree that morals are not truth indicators. This should be obvious, because people have different morals, even though there is only one truth for any situation. You should also remember that reasoning itself can be warped, or else there wouldn't be arguments that appear correct arguing for both sides of certain issues.

That's not what I have done though. I have pointed out the seperate strands of your argument. You argued from morals and feelings, but these are subjective and truth is not, so they are not the same thing and can be contrary or contradictory to one another. Any argument that relies on something that proves nothing for it's proof is fallacious.

In any event, you made that point as the basis for a counter to at least part of my argument, or else you would not have mentioned it.

As far as you accusing me of basing my argument on "morals and feelings", I have mentioned neither of these things until this post. And yet, you insist that I have based my argument on these things, even thought I haven't even supported my argument with such things. Still, you use this theme in an attempt to debase my argument.

Abortion should be illegal because it is human life. If i came up and shot you in the head in public, i would get the death penalty, but if i caught your mother and aborted you, i could prance around holding your fetus in the air and nothing will happen to me. Doesnt matter if you are one and the same, the only difference is you arent an adult, your a fetus, regardless if its you or not. So how is that? I kill you at your current age and get the death penalty but if i kill you at the fetus stage, i can chuck your fetus and the courthall and not be touched? Its a contradiction because the fetus is human, just not a developed human, but its human nonetheless. Its not a animal, its not a rock, its not an egg, its a seed, a living developing, growing seed. More specifically however its designated a "human seed" human being the key term. That rational brain of yours came from the seed you once were. In the end, the grown up you i could kill and get the death penalty, is the uman seed you that i could kill and get away with. Its human life at any stage, if i kill you at your current age and get the death penalty i should get the same penalty if i kill you at your fetus stage because its you at "any stage". You cant be robbed of your identity because your not full-term. Its murder.

Any argument premised on a fetus being human is not any argument at all unless you can substantiate that a fetus is human. Otherwise I could argue that you should sit on a chair without asking it's permission because it is a form of assault to impose yourself physically on human being. Such an argument is unsound because a chair is not a human being. If what you say relies on a fetus being a human being, and a fetus is not a human being, then what you say is without merit. So its 50/50 you are either right or wrong, but we could have worked that out even if you said nothing at all....

Evidently you cannot catch a mother and abort her fetus without facing legal sanctions. So your argument is first reliant on an unproven premise and then supported by a blatantly false premise whose purpose is to 'imbue' the unproven premise with legitimacy through analogy.

You keep saying a fetus is human, but you are ignoring that being human is not being a human being. If I cut off your head I will be charged with murder because I have unlawfully taken the life of a human being, I would not be charged with murder for cutting the head off a human corpse. A human fetus like a human hair is a thing of a human variety but not a human being. A business suit is not a business a fishing line is not a fish and a human fetus is not a human being by virtue of being of the human variety. A human fetus may or may not be a human being, but so far no one has substantiated that it is. We dont pass laws that legislate human being protection for things we dont know are human beings...we dont intervene in the freedom of human beings for the purpose of furthering interests we have not established exist or established as being materially possible.

Ah, so wouldn't give the morning after pill to a raped 13 year old girl (cause her life isn't threatened)?

No, I wouldn't give it to her, even if her life was threatened. You cannot end one unconsenting life, even to save another.

In my belief, life begins at conception. Based it on that logic, that means if you legalize abortion you would have to legalize suicide and enthusia. Wether you think that is bad or not is up to you.
Since when is suicide illegal? And how do they punish these criminals? :p

Pro-abortion (choice...) and pro-voluntary (implying that the person is competent and able to make a sound decision) assisted euthanasia here.

Any argument premised on a fetus being human is not any argument at all unless you can substantiate that a fetus is human.

An argument premised on a child in the womb not being human is not any argument at all unless you can substantiate that a child in the womb is not human. So far, you haven't given any conclusive evidence supporting your thesis that a child in the womb is not human. All you've done is compaired unborn children to dead bodies (unborn children are living), and hair (unborn children are whole human beings, while human hair is a part of a human being).

look at it this way. At conseption it is only two cells. not enough to reason. It doesn't have a brain. I would say that masturbation is abortion then. because all those sperm died. when they still had a chance to grow. I mean come on. Make it illigal after a certain amount of time. Also allow it if it means death to the parent. special occasions like that.

No, I wouldn't give it to her, even if her life was threatened. You cannot end one unconsenting life, even to save another.
What if she was your own daughter, raped by her uncle?

Surely your answer must be the same.

What if she was your own daughter, raped by her uncle?

Surely your answer must be the same.

Indeed it is. What sane person would make an exception to their own ethics, especially in a situation as grave as the one you describe?

Indeed it is. What sane person would make an exception to their own ethics, especially in a situation as grave as the one you describe?
Hey, why Kill the girl to save the fetus huh. Do you see it that way. don't end one life to save another. your gunna be doin that one way or another. Also if she were to have a child from an uncle there could be a "stop" in the genetics causing the child to die before or shortly after birth.

Hey, why Kill the girl to save the fetus huh. Do you see it that way. don't end one life to save another. your gunna be doin that one way or another. Also if she were to have a child from an uncle there could be a "stop" in the genetics causing the child to die before or shortly after birth.
Not to mention the emotional and psychological consequences for the girl and the child. That's be one dysfunctional "family."

look at it this way. At conseption it is only two cells. not enough to reason. It doesn't have a brain. I would say that masturbation is abortion then. because all those sperm died. when they still had a chance to grow. I mean come on. Make it illigal after a certain amount of time. Also allow it if it means death to the parent. special occasions like that.

Masturbation isn't abortion. I'm completely against it, but it isn't abortion. Sperm don't die in masturbation, because they aren't alive.
Also, at conCeption, the child is one cell, not two. The haploid egg and the haploid sperm fuse to form one diploid cell, and life begins.
Finally, no matter how bad the situation may appear, death is NEVER guaranteed. You cannot say that giving birth will mean death to a parent, because there is no situation where you can be absolutely sure that it will.

Indeed it is. What sane person would make an exception to their own ethics, especially in a situation as grave as the one you describe?
Then you are a sick fuck. You would ruin the life of your own daughter you heartless bastard. You might as well kill her yourself. Birth at that such a young age could very possibly ruin her reproductive system for the rest of her life. You would have a very possibly deformed baby, courtesy of a little incestual rape, a 13 year old daughter now forced to drop out of school. You would destroy her dreams and hopes. And what makes me even angrier is I know you are lying. If that girl was your daughter you would give her the morning-after pill and try to rationalize it to yourself as "not really being abortion", but if it were someone else you would chant from your pulpit about sancity of life as you destroy her life. And you look into her eyes and tell her that single cell inside of her is more important than her well-being. And when that baby is born, and most likely given up for adoption (how the hell can she raise it?), you pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for saving a life.

You cannot say that giving birth will mean death to a parent, because there is no situation where you can be absolutely sure that it will.
(cough) ummmm. there are cases. Do you research.

Masturbation isn't abortion. I'm completely against it
ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Why?
Are you aware that masturbation is considered pretty healthy and part of a normal life?

ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Why?
Are you aware that masturbation is considered pretty healthy and part of a normal life?
LOL

Nice try at dodging the question. You made the assertion that a 3-month old is conscious. Prove it. I never said a human needed to be conscious if you read carefully. It's a human life irregardless, 'conscious' or not.
Not sure if this comment was referring to what I said; I made the assertion that a 3month old is a human being.

If you would kindly list for me the bases of your own argument, I will gladly demolish them for you.
I dont need an argument. This is where some confusion seems to lie, you dont need to provide an argument proving the rightness, or goodness or lack of evil in going for a game of bowling if I wish to have going bowling legisilated against, in a free society if you want laws passed restricting anyone else's freedom then the onus of proof is on you, that is in fact the premise of a free society.

I do not see that I brought morals in. At no point in any of my posts have I mentioned morals. The only person bringing morals into our conversation is you.
No you didnt, the person that I had replied to in my comments to which you replied brought in morals. (I didnt look closely enough at the name when I posted my subsequent response). The only assertion being made in the comments that you responded to is that subjective morals cannot be a measure of indicator of objective truth, and apparently we agree on that anyway.

I will agree that morals are not truth indicators. This should be obvious, because people have different morals, even though there is only one truth for any situation. You should also remember that reasoning itself can be warped, or else there wouldn't be arguments that appear correct arguing for both sides of certain issues.
Well we agree on the moral bit...(nice) ;)
...as for reasoning, what else do we have for measuring and finding truth that is not inherently inferior to reasoning? The fact is reasoning can be twisted and untwisted again. An argument that appears to be correct but isnt, is not correct. The misapplication of reasoning is both not the fault of reasoning, and detectable. So while an argument that can appear correct isnt, it also can be detected as being incorrect.

In any event, you made that point as the basis for a counter to at least part of my argument, or else you would not have mentioned it.
I'm sorry but you will need to be more specific, as you can see I replied to a couple of lots of comments in this thread and apparently had some of yours comments confused with someone elses, if you can refer me more specifically, I can post the reasoning behind my comments.

As far as you accusing me of basing my argument on "morals and feelings", I have mentioned neither of these things until this post. And yet, you insist that I have based my argument on these things, even thought I haven't even supported my argument with such things. Still, you use this theme in an attempt to debase my argument.

Not an accusation, but rather a factual observation materially relevent to determining the soundness of an offered argument, as it happens the factual observation was not (factual) in that the comments (re morals) I was referring to were someone elses and not yours... :rolleyes:

I cannot evidently debase your argument (although I could if I were relative skilled enough manufacture an appearence of debasement). The argument either has a base or not, and that base or lack of base is inherent to the argument regardless of my own comments. I can merely draw attention to what is there within the argument, or attempt to mislead others as to what is there in the argument....which is of course besides the point if comments you didnt make are being attributed to you, and especially so if the comments attributed to you imply things that you actually dont believe and so would never have argued (such as morality implying truth)........whoops.... :p

I'll pay more attention to poster name next time.... :(

Then you are a sick fuck. You would ruin the life of your own daughter you heartless bastard. You might as well kill her yourself. Birth at that such a young age could very possibly ruin her reproductive system for the rest of her life. You would have a very possibly deformed baby, courtesy of a little incestual rape, a 13 year old daughter now forced to drop out of school. You would destroy her dreams and hopes. And what makes me even angrier is I know you are lying. If that girl was your daughter you would give her the morning-after pill and try to rationalize it to yourself as "not really being abortion", but if it were someone else you would chant from your pulpit about sancity of life as you destroy her life. And you look into her eyes and tell her that single cell inside of her is more important than her well-being. And when that baby is born, and most likely given up for adoption (how the hell can she raise it?), you pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for saving a life.

1. Watch your language. I've been clean in my arguments, I expect some descecncy in return.

2. It's not gauranteed she would get pregnant.

3. What about the (possible) child's hopes and dreams?

4. Isn't it a lovely world, where we can accuse someone of lying, just because we can't understand why they would do what they claim they would do in a difficult situation.

5. I know I would be condemned to Hell if I gave someone contraceptives or provided for an abortion after speaking out against such things so strongly.

6. Who is more of a "sick fuck", the person who will not compromise his morals, or the person who makes dead baby jokes?

5. I know I would be condemned to Hell if I gave someone contraceptives or provided for an abortion after speaking out against such things so strongly.
You're against contraception too? Gee, women really get no control over their bodies in your world.

ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Why?
Are you aware that masturbation is considered pretty healthy and part of a normal life?

I know that it is CONSIDERED pretty healthy, and part of a normal life. And that knowledge sickens me.

An argument premised on a child in the womb not being human is not any argument at all unless you can substantiate that a child in the womb is not human. So far, you haven't given any conclusive evidence supporting your thesis that a child in the womb is not human. All you've done is compaired unborn children to dead bodies (unborn children are living), and hair (unborn children are whole human beings, while human hair is a part of a human being).
Obviously any argument that relies on proving that a fetus is not a human being, is no arguement at all unless it can be established that a fetus is not a human being.

As it happens I have not posited a thesis, so I dont need to offer conclusive support for anything. I dont have to prove what the case is to prove that you have not proven what the case is. My current opinion on the matter of abortion is not premised on the argument 'a fetus is not a human being' so I have no reason to attempt to prove that a fetus is not a human being.

I know that it is CONSIDERED pretty healthy, and part of a normal life. And that knowledge sickens me.
Why? :confused:

You're against contraception too? Gee, women really get no control over their bodies in your world.

Another good point. These aren't our bodies. We don't own them. They're God's property.

Why? :confused:

Because, according to my set of morals (Catholic), masturbation is a sin. As such, it sickens me to see it promoted, and considered "normal". It's an abomination.

Another good point. These aren't our bodies. We don't own them. They're God's property.
What about people who don't believe in God, or believe in a different God, surely you can't take the choice away from them? Imposing your beliefs on people is wrong IMO. People should have the choices before them. (This is remindng me of my ethics classes! Paternalism is baaaad)

1. Watch your language. I've been clean in my arguments, I expect some descecncy in return.
You've been an asshole in your arguments. Your kind are the ones that ruin the lives of girls my age and younger. You deny both contraception and abortion, and RUIN THEIR LIVES. You preach about sanctity of "potential" or "future" life but you couldn't give a fuck about real life.

2. It's not gauranteed she would get pregnant.
Good point! :p

3. What about the (possible) child's hopes and dreams?
There are an infinite number of possible children. If you choose not to procreate, you have just terminated that possible child, and it's possible children, and so on into absurdity. I couldn't give a fuck about potential life. I care about REAL LIFE.

4. Isn't it a lovely world, where we can accuse someone of lying, just because we can't understand why they would do what they claim they would do in a difficult situation.
You are lying. No sane father would force his incestually raped 13 year old daughter to give birth at extreme risk to her health. Then again, I take that back. Maybe you aren't lying. Maybe you are just a monster.

5. I know I would be condemned to Hell if I gave someone contraceptives or provided for an abortion after speaking out against such things so strongly.
Well then, 99% of us will see you there too.

6. Who is more of a "sick fuck", the person who will not compromise his morals, or the person who makes dead baby jokes?
Hey, why do they boil water when a baby is being born?

In case it's born dead, they can make soup.

Has it occurred to any of the guys posting on this thread that whether you're for or against a woman's Right to Choose, you're overextending your privilege as members of the opposite sex by even discussing this? Think about that for a minute. Your sense of entitlement stops at my sisters' uterus, guys. That belongs to her. Just 'cause you might have left something behind doesn't mean you own it or operate it. She does.

So why not do yourselves a favour and stop blathering on about things you'll never personally have to contend with? I know several women who opted to terminate their pregnancies, and all of them wrestled with their conscious before making that decision. It was hard enough for them to do without enduring harassment and intimidation from aggressive anti-Choice advocates outside the clinic they used.

If you wanna talk about this further, might I suggest you grow your own functional uterus first, or mind your limited point of view a little more closely?

I must know very different Catholics to you. Or maybe Catholics in South Africa and Australia are generally more relaxed... :p
But I don't understand WHY masturbation or contraception are wrong. Because God said so doesn't cut it with me, and I know it does with you, so there's no point arguing with you. :p
But it's not harming anyone, unless you go on the pill and gain loads of weight...

But "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is gooood. When a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!" I love Monty Python and couldn't resist.

Think about that for a minute. Your sense of entitlement stops at my sisters' uterus, guys. That belongs to her. Just 'cause you might have left something behind doesn't mean you own it or operate it. She does.
If I put a quarter into a vending machine, does the soda belong to me or the machine?

Has it occurred to any of the guys posting on this thread that whether you're for or against a woman's Right to Choose, you're overextending your privilege as members of the opposite sex by even discussing this? Think about that for a minute. Your sense of entitlement stops at my sisters' uterus, guys. That belongs to her. Just 'cause you might have left something behind doesn't mean you own it or operate it. She does.

So why not do yourselves a favour and stop blathering on about things you'll never personally have to contend with? I know several women to opted to terminate their pregnancies, and all of them wrestled with their conscious before making that decision. It was hard enough for them to do without enduring harassment and intimidation from aggressive anti-Choice advocates outside the clinic they used.

If you wanna talk about this further, might I suggest you grow your own functional uterus first, or mind your limited point of view a little more closely?

I'm a woman. I can stay, right? *argues with self*

If I put a quarter into a vending machine, does the soda belong to me or the machine?

Nasty analogy. Very nasty indeed.

Nasty analogy. Very nasty indeed.
With as much crap as you've been shoveling I thought you would have learned to take some by now.

If I put a quarter into a vending machine, does the soda belong to me or the machine?
Depends, if the machine doesnt spit it out I guess the soda belongs to neither, but rather remains the property of the current owner, although you could possibly get the owner or an agent to concede ownership to you if you took your case to them, alternatively you could seek title through the courts, but if you dont have witnesses you would be unlikely to establish title...

Depends, if the machine doesnt spit it out I guess the soda belongs to neither, but rather remains the property of the current owner, although you could possibly get the owner or an agent to concede ownership to you if you took your case to them, alternatively you could seek title through the courts, but if you dont have witnesses you would be unlikely to establish title...
Well generally you just kick the machine until the soda falls out. And if it doesn't, you swear and get a manager.

With as much crap as you've been shoveling I thought you would have learned to take some by now.

Mmm, running low on coffee, sweetie? You sound edgy.

Take care of your silly old self, you rascal, you.

*hugs*

In response to Chodolo

1. I really don't understand why sticking with your beliefs makes me an asshole, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I was refering to your colorful word choice.

2 + 3 Possible children are not my concern. I said possible to emphasize my second point, that she may not become pregnant.

4. Great, so now i'm lying and a monster. I don't care what you call me. I just hope I have enough faith to remain strong in my conviction, even if someone decides that I should be known as a martyr.

5. I'm trying to rectify that, but, as you can see, it isn't easy.

6. I'm going to ignore that and instead let all of you know that i'm going to bed.

I just hope that someone else will come along and carry on until I can get back online.

Good night.

If I put a quarter into a vending machine, does the soda belong to me or the machine?
well, that depends how you view women. If you view them as your vending machine, then yeah, it's your soda. If you view them as more than that, then its not so clear.

Mmm, running low on coffee, sweetie? You sound edgy.

Take care of your silly old self, you rascal, you.

*hugs*
Bah, I would never drink coffee. But thanks for the lovin', you've changed my views on homosexual marriage ;)

well, that depends how you view women. If you view them as your vending machine, then yeah, it's your soda. If you view them as more than that, then its not so clear.
I wasn't being totally serious, what I meant was that it's disgusting to give the father no say in the matter.

I'm a woman. I can stay, right? *argues with self*

Preebles, I apologize for treading on this topic, it just got under my skin and I wanted to say my piece. See you around. Bye...

I wasn't being totally serious, what I meant was that it's disgusting to give the father no say in the matter.
I still don't believe the father can force the mother to incubate the fetus.

I still don't believe the father can force the mother to incubate the fetus.
And I don't think a mother should be allowed to force a father to watch his child die. If you don't give a father a say, you're doing exactly what you accuse pro-lifers of doing, forcing your morals on someone else.

Well generally you just kick the machine until the soda falls out. And if it doesn't, you swear and get a manager.
More people are killed in the US by vending machines every year than are killed by sharks throughout the entire world, you may want to re-think that soda strategy, particularly in light of your pro-life stance...

As it happens the scenario was if the can does not come out (if it comes out when you kick the vending machine, then clearly it's out), that the only way to 'own' the soda is to have the title remitted to you either by the owner or an agent of the owner (ie the manager you refer to seeking recourse from) or by the courts. In other words your comments dont add anything I have not already covered, but they did provide an opportunity to warn of the dangers of vending machine assault....apparently they are somewhat more dangerous than they appear, cross them at your risk ;) :p ...

More poeple are killed in the US by vending machines every year than are killed by sharks throughout the entire world, you may want to re-think that soda strategy, particularly in light of your pro-life stance...

As it happens the scenario was if the can does not come out (if it comes out when you kick the vending machine, then clearly it's out), that the only way to 'own' the soda is to have the title remitted to you either by the owner or an agent (ie the manager to refer to seeking recourse from) or by the courts. In other words your comments dont add anything I have not already covered, but they did provide an opportunity to warn of the dangers of vending machine assault....apparently they are somewhat more dangerous than they appear, cross them at your risk ;) :p ...
Haha, ok you win. I'm done at trying to derail this thread, continue on which your silly debates ;)

And I don't think a mother should be allowed to force a father to watch his child die. If you don't give a father a say, you're doing exactly what you accuse pro-lifers of doing, forcing your morals on someone else.
Rather than forcing my morals, it's more like completely stepping away entirely, no morals at all. You have a woman impregnated with a child she doesn't want. You have the father who wants her to give birth. It's a terrible situation. But ultimately, I think the mother's rights prevail against the father's rights, by nature of who is incubating the fetus. This is not forcing morals. This is trying to look at the situation from a non-moral position, and judge who has greater claim on the fetus. Obviously it is the one incubating it.

Rather than forcing my morals, it's more like completely stepping away entirely, no morals at all. You have a woman impregnated with a child she doesn't want. You have the father who wants her to give birth. It's a terrible situation. But ultimately, I think the mother's rights prevail against the father's rights, by nature of who is incubating the fetus. This is not forcing morals. This is trying to look at the situation from a non-moral position, and judge who has greater claim on the fetus. Obviously it is the one incubating it.
Both are equally liable for putting it there. It's not the father's fault he wasn't born with a uterus. Nor is it the father's fault the woman chose to engage in intercourse. She has no more claim to it than he does.

I became a vegetarian to stop thought like yours. We must protect the sanctity of all life! Animal and Plant!

You'd better get off your electricity-hogging computer then moron. It's poisoning us all as we speak, including the animals and plants you profess to care so much about. Hope you don't drive, either, since plants and animals were KILLED to provide you paved roads. :rolleyes:

And if you think you're 'at least doing your part to help', well, if I don't eat meat for one day a year, does that give me an excuse to get on a high horse and bitch at other people? I think not. No different for you. You are not doing everything you could be, so keep your self-satisfaction to yourself, 'k?

Oh, and let's not forget that a) farmed animals are treated humanely, and death is (in most cases) painless and stressless.

b) hunted animals normally HAVE to be hunted because otherwise they have a population boom and STARVE to death. Slowly. Over years, sometimes. I think shooting is about a thousand times more humane that condemning them to that.

Ohhh, wait, it's not about quality of life, it's allllll about quantity. Silly me, forgetting what I was arguing with.


-------------
*repeated from one thread to this one, because it's relevant and typing it up again would be a complete waste*

There is no 'child' involved in abortions, because the correct term is fetus, embryo, zygote. If you are referring to all inter-womb stages in general, using 'infant' will help you avoid looking like a brainwashed fool (same applies to the use of 'baby'.

There is no 'victim' involved in abortion, because to be a victim you must be aware that 'bad things' are happening to you. All non-health-related abortions occur before the fetus HAS A BRAIN, so it is not a victim.

Abortion is not murder, because murder a) must be illegal (abortion isn't), b) must be of a human being (debate exists as to whether fetuses are) and c) must be against the 'victim's' will (see point above).

A woman cannot be forced to donate an organ to save a life, unless we make EVERYONE donate organs to save lives, even if they do not consent and actively seek to NOT donate organs. Same for blood, while we're at it.

for my self I don't claim to be pro anything. as I do belive there is a time and place for bouth sides of the issue.

however I do aggree that using abortion as a form of birth control is wrong.
And Regardless of wether we are killing a sentiant beeing or not during the abortion, there still is another issuse having easy abortions brings to the table.

it's the total loss of accountability, that comes with this Idea of disposable babies. I would aggree that having abortions allow for more sex, with less worries. but people aren't going to stop there, and it's not going to be some big mood lifter; at least not for verry long. It will get old hat or comon place amoung those who get into that kind of stuff and then it won't be as much of a thrill anymore, and people will get into even stranger things to try to get that same thrill again. even if I'm wrong about the thrill seeker part. still there's the problem of stds, the more people mix up with eachother the more likely those are to spread. you also have people thinking less about what their actions will mean latter on. pretty soon you'll get much more (than usal) people with the attiude why should I care? why should I study for the test I'll just pay off or threated hard enough some local nerd untill they give me the answers, or mabie i cold steal them my self and save that hassle. Or oh I know this money is susposed to go to the bank on thrusday, but I get paied on wednesday and i really want that thing now I'll just barrow some money they wount miss it. even if she starts to wonder I'll just have sex with her to distract the issue. then I'll put the money back and allws well.. now when wednesday does roll arround how much of that "loan" is going to be repaid? it's the same kind of mentality.. I can barrow this because I need it more then them, College is just about how well you can work the system to get though it, it's not about trying to learn anything, I can have sex when ever I want to if I end up getting myself or someone else pregnant I'll just have to pay the disposal fee and everythings fine.

1. The same ppl who are against the death penalty for murderers and rapist, are for the death penalty of innocent babies.

2. I think its funny how all of the ppl who are pro-choice have been born.

Hey, here's some mind-blowing irony for you: BOTH MY PARENTS ARE ALSO PRO-CHOICE. And also my grandma (not my silly, uptight, American, Catholic grandpa, but he's just been brainwashed by my grandma-in-law).

See, pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

And I would have no problem if I'd been aborted. Know why? There wouldn't be a 'me' to have a problem. I simply wouldn't exist. And, since I'm an atheist, I'm quite, quite comfortable with the idea of ceasing to exist.

Hey, here's some mind-blowing irony for you: BOTH MY PARENTS ARE ALSO PRO-CHOICE. And also my grandma (not my silly, uptight, American, Catholic grandpa, but he's just been brainwashed by my grandma-in-law).

See, pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. It's pro-choice.

And I would have no problem if I'd been aborted. Know why? There wouldn't be a 'me' to have a problem. I simply wouldn't exist. And, since I'm an atheist, I'm quite, quite comfortable with the idea of ceasing to exist.
Well not everyone subsribes to your moral views. Why are your views better than anyone else's? If your life doesn't matter, why allow atheists to exist at all?

Well not everyone subsribes to your moral views. Why are your views better than anyone else's? If your life doesn't matter, why allow atheists to exist at all?

I think you mean 'philosophical viewpoint', honey. Is it really a question of 'whose is better', or did you just stuff a hanky down your y-fronts? And of course her life matters, what you've speculated on as regards atheism is poorly conceived twaddle, and I think you're just trying to egg people on...I'm unconvinced that you actually believe most of what you say.

Sweetie.

I think you mean 'philosophical viewpoint', honey. Is it really a question of 'whose is better', or did you just stuff a hanky down your y-fronts? And of course her life matters, what you've speculated on as regards atheism is poorly conceived twaddle, and I think you're just trying to egg people on...I'm unconvinced that you actually believe most of what you say.

Sweetie.
Laws are based on morality, not philosophy.

Both are equally liable for putting it there. It's not the father's fault he wasn't born with a uterus. Nor is it the father's fault the woman chose to engage in intercourse. She has no more claim to it than he does.
Of course, in the instance of rape, this is all moot. No one (except for Hesparia) would argue that a man, raping a woman, has an equal claim to the zygote. So then it goes back to, what bearing at all does the consensuality of the intercourse have on the worth or non-worth of the zygote? Contradictions pile up everywhere.

(I say zygote instead of fetus because it is easier to argue against a single cell, and because these types of pregnancies can be ended literally the day afterwards.)

Of course, in the instance of rape, this is all moot. No one (except for Hesparia) would argue that a man, raping a woman, has an equal claim to the zygote. So then it goes back to, what bearing at all does the consensuality of the intercourse have on the worth or non-worth of the zygote? Contradictions pile up everywhere.

(I say zygote instead of fetus because it is easier to argue against a single cell, and because these types of pregnancies can be ended literally the day afterwards.)
A rapist, in this example, and only in this example, is like a man robbing a bank. He has no claim to what he absconded with. But I believe in the other 99% of cases, the father should have a say in the proceedings.

Laws are based on morality, not philosophy.

That would depend on the scope of your outlook, tiger. am I the only one who notices that Arammanar's analogies share a common trait - they all dehumanize women and reconstruct them as commodities or automatons?

That would depend on the scope of your outlook, tiger.
Why is murder wrong? Because people have a moral qualm with it, or a philosophical qualm with it? How many people can even spell "philosophical"?

am I the only one who notices that Arammanar's analogies share a common trait - they all dehumanize women and reconstruct them as commodities or automatons?
Only in this thread. And it's no different than you dehumanizing humans and proclaiming the sovereignty of your sister's uterus. You have some weird hang-ups man.

How many people can even spell "philosophical"?

Most anyone who cares to use it often enough, you hot-blooded thing, you.

Both are equally liable for putting it there. It's not the father's fault he wasn't born with a uterus. Nor is it the father's fault the woman chose to engage in intercourse. She has no more claim to it than he does.
It's not about claim of ownership unless you can prove that a fetus is not a human being, human beings are not subject to ownership in free societies such as the US. You can only argue father-ownership if the fetus is something that can be owned, and human beings are not something can be owned so either there is no father-ownership of a fetus, or a fetus is not a human being.

it's the total loss of accountability, that comes with this Idea of disposable babies. I would aggree that having abortions allow for more sex, with less worries.
I dont agree that it has been established that abortion is necessarily an advocation or causitive of an advocation of accountability. Your following premise is flawed as a result. It is people who choose to be accountable and responsible, not abortions. The fact is prior to abortion the majority of women who got pregnant could count on being married, their own and the father's family (and in many instance the local community) would demand it. To some woman getting married and being financially supported in return for nurturing a child that they expected to have in the foreseeable future (remember that prior to abortion the primary mode of life way for females was marraige and family rearing) anyway is not onerous and wasnt something that could be construed as an 'accounting' in the manner to which you are referring. Really if inevitably you are going to marry some bloke and raise his kids, why is doing so a little earlier such a huge accounting? To some women it would be, but to some it's would not have been viewed as any hassle at all, and the same goes for abortion, for some women it's not a huge deal and for others it is. Accountability is not diminished or increased by abortions, but rather chosen or not by people.

Being accountable is dependent on being able to make choices, you cannot be accountable if you have not made a choice to be accountable for (note choosing not to choose is a choice). Suggesting that adding choices diminishes accountability is self contradictory. It is how people respond to those choices that matters. While I appreciate that your argument is premised on the choices you perceive would be made by people, I'm really not convinced that the large majority of women veiw abortion as a 'non-consequence' or that the large majority of women who once in this position would have been 'married off' by their communites necessarily found the marraige and child rearing they were all along destined for (regardless of accidental pregnancy) less onerous than their modern equivalents find abortion.

It's not about claim of ownership unless you can prove that a fetus is not a human being, human beings are not subject to ownership in free societies such as the US. You can only argue father-ownership if the fetus is something that can be owned, and human beings are not something can be owned so either there is no father-ownership of a fetus, or a fetus is not a human being.


Well then, it's either
A) A human being, that you can't kill, or
B) Someone's joint property, that you can't destroy.

A rapist, in this example, and only in this example, is like a man robbing a bank. He has no claim to what he absconded with. But I believe in the other 99% of cases, the father should have a say in the proceedings.
Well, then you get into the fine lines between outright rape and totally consensual sex (and, what happens if a woman rapes a man? Maybe he wants nothing to do with the child at all?) Suppose the woman gets drunk and is sort of taken advantage of. Or maybe the condom breaks. Or maybe it's consensual up to a point and then the man goes too far. Perhaps no one really remembers what happened. It just seems strange legislating on the "consensualness" of the sex.

Well, then you get into the fine lines between outright rape and totally consensual sex (and, what happens if a woman rapes a man? Maybe he wants nothing to do with the child at all?) Suppose the woman gets drunk and is sort of taken advantage of. Or maybe the condom breaks. Or maybe it's consensual up to a point and then the man goes too far. Perhaps no one really remembers what happened. It just seems strange legislating on the "consensualness" of the sex.
I can't imagine how a woman would rape a man, thankfully, they have erection protection if they don't desire her. If a woman is drunk, and kills someone, is she any less guilty of murder? If a woman is driving her car, hits a wall, and the airbag doesn't deploy, is it her fault for hitting the wall or the airbag's fault for not deploying?

I can't imagine how a woman would rape a man, thankfully, they have erection protection if they don't desire her. If a woman is drunk, and kills someone, is she any less guilty of murder? If a woman is driving her car, hits a wall, and the airbag doesn't deploy, is it her fault for hitting the wall or the airbag's fault for not deploying?
The point I'm trying to make is that sex is not cut and dry, consensual vs. not consensual. A common argument against abortion is that the woman should learn to keep her legs closed or something similar...this obviously does not apply if the woman is drunk or the condom rips. There are so many shades to it. I don't like the idea of legislating based on how "consensual" the sex was. Another disturbing trend I notice is thinly veiled misogyny underneath the "close your legs you whore" ranting anti-abortion crowd. This is not everyone, but it seems to be a large amount of resistance to abortion stems from this distorted view of *sluts* constantly getting pregnant and having 6 month abortions.

Well not everyone subsribes to your moral views. Why are your views better than anyone else's? If your life doesn't matter, why allow atheists to exist at all?
Pro-choicers preferences in this matter dont require anyone else to subscribe to their morals or to their behaviour bound by their morals, the same can not be said of pro-lifers.
The posters comments do not suggest that their life does not matter, nor that the lives of atheists do not matter.

Laws are based on morality, not philosophy.
No they are not, we can ascertain this by comparing the law to morality. We find that even though some people claim the law is inconsisitent it is far more consistent than morality. If it were not the law would be utterly contradictory, there would for instance be a law banning masterbation and a law insisting that no one could prevent someone from masterbating.

Why is murder wrong? Because people have a moral qualm with it, or a philosophical qualm with it?
Neither, if murder is wrong (and I contend that it is) it is wrong because murder is wrong.

Well then, it's either
A) A human being, that you can't kill, or
B) Someone's joint property, that you can't destroy.

Er if it is a human being of course you can kill it, although there may be a sound argument proving that you should not. Presuming that this is what you are referring to, this is not definitive either, according to law and to a great many people you shouldnt kill a person......except when you should or when you should be excused from this general but qualified prinicipal.
As for being property, ownership is not that simple. Joint ownership is not always veiwed as practical by courts (particulary where the interests of the possible owners conflict).

The point I'm trying to make is that sex is not cut and dry, consensual vs. not consensual. A common argument against abortion is that the woman should learn to keep her legs closed or something similar...this obviously does not apply if the woman is drunk or the condom rips. There are so many shades to it. I don't like the idea of legislating based on how "consensual" the sex was. Another disturbing trend I notice is thinly veiled misogyny underneath the "close your legs you whore" ranting anti-abortion crowd. This is not everyone, but it seems to be a large amount of resistance to abortion stems from this distorted view of *sluts* constantly getting pregnant and having 6 month abortions.
I do not feel alcohol should be an excuse for anything. Nor should a broken condom excuse anything, they are not guaranteed for a reason. Risks are taken every day, and risks have consequences. If a woman is raped, then no, the man has no claim on her child, but if she agreed to have sex, whether drunk, or with a condom, or on the pill, or whatever, then she put herself in a place where she was subject to trouble. If someone stands on a rafter, and falls off, you first help him, but don't excuse him since it was his fault he was standing on it. I don't think guys are blameless in unwanted pregnancies, but nor should they be excluded from handling it.

Neither, if murder is wrong (and I contend that it is) it is wrong because murder is wrong.

Then abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong. See where that line of thinking gets you? Slavery is right because slavery is right...

Arammanar, I'd impregnate you if I could.

Arammanar, I'd impregnate you if I could.
No, because I would choose not to have sex with you. Because hey, if I was capable of getting pregnant, I would definitely not want my child to share any genes with you.

Then abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong. See where that line of thinking gets you? Slavery is right because slavery is right...
Yes I do see, which is why I object to it. Murder being wrong because it is wrong doesnt make abortion wrong, it would only mean that if abortion were wrong it would be wrong because it is wrong. Basically I'm saying that things are what they are, it's not huge a revelation, and it is true.

If abortion is wrong then it is wrong, this would still not mean that it should be illegal. A lot of people think lying is wrong but dont think that lying should be illegal. As it happens we dont know that abortion is right or wrong (although many have very heart felt opinions on the issue), but if it is wrong it will not be because of subjective individually varied and unquanitafible ideas about the world known as 'morals'. Indeed if morals determined the rightness or wrongness of abortion we would (since everyone has morals) already all agree on the rightness or wrongness involved (since our morals being indicitive of absolute right and wrong would be identical from one person to the next).

We know morals do not indicate what is right and wrong because morals contradict morals.

Yes I do see, which is why I object to it.
Evidently not, since that was the argument you used.

Murder being wrong because it is wrong doesnt make abortion wrong, it would only mean that if abortion were wrong it would be wrong because it is wrong. Basically I'm saying that things are what they are, it's not huge a revelation, and it is true.
Abortion is wrong because it is murder. And murder is wrong becaues it is wrong. QED.

If abortion is wrong then it is wrong, this would still not mean that it should be illegal. A lot of people think lying is wrong but dont think that lying should be illegal.
It is, it's called libel, slander, perjury, fraud, or anything else.

As it happens we dont know that abortion is right or wrong (although many have very heart felt opinions on the issue), but if it is wrong it will not be because of subjective individually varied and unquanitafible ideas about the world known as 'morals'. Indeed if morals determined the rightness or wrongness of abortion we would (since everyone has morals) already all agree on the rightness or wrongness involved (since our morals being indicitive of absolute right and wrong would be identical from one person to the next).
See below.

We know morals do not indicate what is right and wrong because morals contradict morals.
No, people compromise morals. Everyone agrees murder is wrong, yet many fail to accept that killing a child is murder.

Evidently not, since that was the argument you used.
No it is not the argument I used. The argument you are positing is 'X is wrong because X is wrong', I am telling you as a matter of emprical fact that 'if X is wrong, X is wrong because X is wrong', this is like me telling you that if you are a male you are a male because you are. It is a tautological deductive truth. It tells us nothing about which things are right or wrong, it merely points out that the rightness or wrongness belongs to the thing that is right or wrong.


Abortion is wrong because it is murder. And murder is wrong becaues it is wrong. QED.
No abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful unmitigated killing of a human being, if abortion is not illegal then it is not murder.

It is, it's called libel, slander, perjury, fraud, or anything else.
No lying is not libel, slander, perjury or faud or anything else. Lying is saying something you know to be untrue. If I tell my freind her hair cut looks great when I know it looks like crap, I have lied but I have not commited libel, slander, perjury, fraud or anything else. Libel is not evidently a crime it is a breach of torts, same goes for slander. Both cases require that certain factors other than lying be present, it is not the lie that breaches tort, but the effects of the lie. Perjury and fraud are crimes, however in neither case is the crime 'telling a lie' in the case of perjury the crime is 'lying in sworn testamony' and in the case of fraud the crime is 'lying in order to unlawfully deprive someone else of their property'.

No, people compromise morals. Everyone agrees murder is wrong, yet many fail to accept that killing a child is murder.
It is morally unacceptable to many people for a husband to not do his duty by physically reprimanding his wife, to many people it is morally unacceptable for a husband to physically reprimand his wife. So not beating your wife and beating your wife are both moral standards, yet only one of these can be right, ergo morals do not tell you what is right. You like me may agree that it is immoral for a husband to beat his wife, or you might believe it is immoral for a husband to not beat his wife, but whichever of the two morals described coincides with your own, the other still exists and is directly contradictory.

Morals are subjective, truth is objective, ergo they have no consistent relationship meaning that there is no cause effect relationship(because that is a consistent relationship) between them, and meaning that we cannot extract information about truth (such as what is right) from morals.

No it is not the argument I used. The argument you are positing is 'X is wrong because X is wrong', I am telling you as a matter of emprical fact that 'if X is wrong, X is wrong because X is wrong', this is like me telling you that if you are a male you are a male because you are. It is a tautological deductive truth. It tells us nothing about which things are right or wrong, it merely points out that the rightness or wrongness belongs to the thing that is right or wrong.
People are male because of specific biological components that can be measured; these components make up maleness. To be a male, you have to have certain things, and lack certain things. My argument is that abortion is wrong because I believe it is wrong to kill a human being. It is wrong to kill a human being because such a thing is universally frowned upon.


No abortion is not murder. Murder is the unlawful unmitigated killing of a human being, if abortion is not illegal then it is not murder.
Morals should make the law, not the other way around. If a law was passed that allowed murder, would it no longer be murder?

No lying is not libel, slander, perjury or faud or anything else. Lying is saying something you know to be untrue. If I tell my freind her hair cut looks great when I know it looks like crap, I have lied but I have not commited libel, slander, perjury, fraud or anything else. Libel is not evidently a crime it is a breach of torts, same goes for slander. Both cases require that certain factors other than lying be present, it is not the lie that breaches tort, but the effects of the lie. Perjury and fraud are crimes, however in neither case is the crime 'telling a lie' in the case of perjury the crime is 'lying in sworn testamony' and in the case of fraud the crime is 'lying in order to unlawfully deprive someone else of their property'.
The fact remains lying is universally frowned upon. If someone had to pick between a liar, X, and a non liar, -X, they would invariably pick -X.

It is morally unacceptable to many people for a husband to not do his duty by physically reprimanding his wife, to many people it is morally unacceptable for a husband to physically reprimand his wife. So not beating your wife and beating your wife are both moral standards, yet only one of these can be right, ergo morals do not tell you what is right. You like me may agree that it is immoral for a husband to beat his wife, or you might believe it is immoral for a husband to not beat his wife, but whichever of the two morals described coincides with your own, the other still exists and is directly contradictory.
Is it moral to punish your equal? No, you can only judge those beneath you. Therefore, beating your wife is contingent on whether or not you find her equal to yourself, not to whether or not you find it to be morally correct.

Morals are subjective, truth is objective, ergo they have no consistent relationship meaning that there is no cause effect relationship(because that is a consistent relationship) between them, and meaning that we cannot extract information about truth (such as what is right) from morals.
Truth is consistent, if something is X it must always be X, and not -X. If it is both, it is untrue. Morals are the same way, no one advocates both stealing and not stealing, it's one or the other. Intrapersonally, morals are the same. Interpersonally, things such as murder, thieving, and rape are universally frowned upon, and things such as charity, kindness, and helpfullness are universally appreciated.

Let me also say that overall, I think you are being mature about this, and reasoning well. Though I don't agree with you, I would prefer that more posters be like you.

What is wrong with abortions? Think of the positives:
1. It will give doctors more money if they are permitted so.
2. It will help keep control over the huge population.
3. More sex! Yes, there will be more sex! Awesome, it will put people back to work, or school, in a much better mood, its a moral booster!
4. It doesnt damage our freedom of choice.
5. It would allow stem cell research.
6. Did I mention the sex?

Lets try to think of more people, starting with 7!
the right to abortion protects the right of all persons to control what happens to their own body. just as i have the right to refuse to donate blood, any woman has the right to refuse to donate her tissues for the maintenance of a fetus. all men and women should be free to decide what happens to their own body, and should be free to deny the use of that body for purposes that are against their wishes...i consider that a basic right, and to undermine it is to support slavery.

the right to abortion protects the right of all persons to control what happens to their own body. just as i have the right to refuse to donate blood, any woman has the right to refuse to donate her tissues for the maintenance of a fetus. all men and women should be free to decide what happens to their own body, and should be free to deny the use of that body for purposes that are against their wishes...i consider that a basic right, and to undermine it is to support slavery.

Bottle, can I just say:

thank god you joined this thread. I was starting to go batty from people ignoring/twisting my points over and over and over again. 's always nice when you come to rescue by saying what I'm *trying* to say, in a way that actually makes sense.

I'd give you a cookie, but I have none... would hot chocolate/icecream (depending on weather where you are) do instead?

Bottle, can I just say:

thank god you joined this thread. I was starting to go batty from people ignoring/twisting my points over and over and over again. 's always nice when you come to rescue by saying what I'm *trying* to say, in a way that actually makes sense.

I'd give you a cookie, but I have none... would hot chocolate/icecream (depending on weather where you are) do instead?

I see you've learnt your lesson with the cake business. Very good.

I see you've learnt your lesson with the cake business. Very good.

Oh, my goodness yes.

In fact, it's quite possible I'm now scarred for life. I can't even *look* at cake anymore.




:p

Oh, my goodness yes.

In fact, it's quite possible I'm now scarred for life. I can't even *look* at cake anymore.




:p


Ah, you're coming along nicely.

You Kill a childe. Note the word KILL a childe.

You Kill a childe. Note the word KILL a childe.

Note the spelling of child

Note the fact that not everyone agrees an embryo/fetus is a child

Note the fact that you can KILL a child by refusing to donate an organ... perfectly legal to... unless you're a pregnant woman, according to anti-abortioners (anyone up for explaining this? Eh?)

Note the spelling of child

Note the fact that not everyone agrees an embryo/fetus is a child

Note the fact that you can KILL a child by refusing to donate an organ... perfectly legal to... unless you're a pregnant woman, according to anti-abortioners (anyone up for explaining this? Eh?)

All I know is that if I was in the middle of eating lemon meringue, I would not abort half-way through. I would digest the whole thing because as food it has the right to become assimilated into my bodily chemicals in entirity.

Note the spelling of child

Note the fact that not everyone agrees an embryo/fetus is a child

Note the fact that you can KILL a child by refusing to donate an organ... perfectly legal to... unless you're a pregnant woman, according to anti-abortioners (anyone up for explaining this? Eh?)

Childe: The e is there for a reason.

And any life you happen to create, you are responsible for. Man or woman.

*It is her body though*

Welcome to godhood.*evil grin*

Anyone up for dead baby jokes?

:D

I'm sick, I know, but I love dead baby jokes. I once spent like 20 minutes telling them to myself in the mirror.

Ah...good times....good times.

I haven't taken a glance at the other posts, as the comp is slow, so i'll just post my opnions......

First, abortion is wrong. Why? because it's killing human life. after all, according to science itself anything living is growing, and if a living being with human cells and DNA is growing, logistically it's human life. Furthermore, I hear a lot of stuff about how it's the women's right to choose. It's not, because she can't own a human baby, since it's slavery, and that ended a long time ago. Not only that, but by this logic, since the baby came from the women's body and henceforth is her property, any mother in the world can abort her child, even if he/she is an adult or teenager. After all, it's her right to choose*sarcasm*.

i am very against abortions. if you want to have sex, you better be ready for the consequences. and if you dont want the baby dont freakin kill it. theres a reason why adoption exists. i dont see why people dont think of adoption as more of an answer than abortion. why would you want to kill someone? and i think that the only excusable reason for an abortion is in cases where the mothers health is seriously at risk, and possibly for incest. but i dont even think that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, just because someone does something horrible to you, doesnt mean you should do something horrible to someone else. and less than 2% of abortions are because of health/rape reasons. the rest of peope are just using it as a form of birth control.

i am very against abortions. if you want to have sex, you better be ready for the consequences. and if you dont want the baby dont freakin kill it. theres a reason why adoption exists. i dont see why people dont think of adoption as more of an answer than abortion. why would you want to kill someone? and i think that the only excusable reason for an abortion is in cases where the mothers health is seriously at risk, and possibly for incest. but i dont even think that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, just because someone does something horrible to you, doesnt mean you should do something horrible to someone else. and less than 2% of abortions are because of health/rape reasons. the rest of peope are just using it as a form of birth control.
I concur.

I think you're all missing the point here. How much lemon meringue is it humanly possible to consume for a male of average height and weight?

I think you're all missing the point here. How much lemon meringue is it humanly possible to consume for a male of average height and weight?
probably alot. not sure, but refused party program is an awesome song

This is what's wrong with abortions.
http://www.peopleforlife.org/images/malachi.jpg

I think you're all missing the point here. How much lemon meringue is it humanly possible to consume for a male of average height and weight?


I don't know about anyone else, but I am am a human male of average weight and slightly above average height and I can get down about a pie and a half worth on an empty stomach.

probably alot. not sure, but refused party program is an awesome song

Refused Party Program is not just a song. It is a state of mind, a lifestyle, a philosophy. Essentially, everyone has Refused Party Program in them. They just have to find it.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am am a human male of average weight and slightly above average height and I can get down about a pie and a half worth on an empty stomach.

What is the diameter of the pie?

This is what's wrong with abortions.
http://www.peopleforlife.org/images/malachi.jpg
And that has absolutely nothing to do with abortions.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with abortions.

Then you are a fool.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti2.gif

Then you are a fool.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti2.gif

And you are repellant.

Then you are a fool.
http://www.ltia.org/abortion/aborti2.gif
I believe we are talking about abortions where the mother doesn't want to have the baby. Those abortions are made before 12th week of pregnancy. They scratch or suck the small fetus from womb. It takes about 5 minutes. Those pictures give you a wrong impression. Those babies have been aborted (if they've been aborted, ever heard of forced labour) because of a) the mother has been in great danger b) the baby has already died.

This is what's wrong with abortions.
http://www.peopleforlife.org/images/malachi.jpg
Looks like it unfortunately died in the womb and had to be removed to protect the mother's health. Sad, but that's what sometimes happens.

the right to abortion protects the right of all persons to control what happens to their own body. just as i have the right to refuse to donate blood, any woman has the right to refuse to donate her tissues for the maintenance of a fetus. all men and women should be free to decide what happens to their own body, and should be free to deny the use of that body for purposes that are against their wishes...i consider that a basic right, and to undermine it is to support slavery.
What if the woman already donated her tissues to someone, then four months later said, "Oh wait, I want them back. Looks like you have to die now." Undermining abortion is undermining murder.

What is the diameter of the pie?

Standard 8" pie tins (if I remember correctly from HomeEc class).

You know who gets abortions? The people who can't support kids. When you fools force them to have kids, you bring another unwanted person into this world. The parents can't afford to care for the kid, nor do they want to, so they get (more) welfare to cover the costs. I'm guessing most of you stupid 14 year-old brats don't pay taxes, so you don't care. You are also so weak and pathetic that you place value on an incomplete life not even parents value. You are all stupid bags of shit and i wish someone had aborted you!

What if the woman already donated her tissues to someone, then four months later said, "Oh wait, I want them back. Looks like you have to die now."More like if that woman (or a man) was running a two-way transfusion line to someone for some reason, perhaps so her liver could clean their blood or provide it with nutrients/oxygen/whatever, then she has the right to say she's fed up with the inconvenience. Comparing this with donating (say) a kidney, where there's inconvenience to the donor but it doesn't require the constant support of the donee, is basically off-target.

I've heard of someone (perhaps a mother) donating a kidney to a relative (daughter?) then finding that her remaining kidney had gone wrong, while the donated kidney was working Ok. I can't recall the exact circumstances, but I imagine that there medical opinion ruled out the return of the kidney. (Apart from anything, it was third-hand now, even though it was a perfect match for the original donor, I think she received one from elsewhere.)

Regarding the hypothetical perpetual transfusion dependency link I mentioned above, I am even more against the forcing of someone to undergo the above practice (not medically feasible anyway, I would imagine) than I am for abortion. I consider (elective) abortion to be an option only while a child has not yet entered that part of its development where it becomes an individual (20-something weeks plus, by my reckoning, but there's plenty of arguments already batting around about that so I won't go into particulars) whereas I would say that a person dependant upon a "permament-transfusion" can be 'let loose' by the donor at any time down the line, be it 30 minutes, 30 days or 30 years after the original procedure. Maybe I'm more sever with this because of the possibility of other donors or technological aids. Certainly if other reliable methods of gestation were made available, I wouldn't have a problem with an 8.5 month foetus transfered out of the mother to one, should it be available and low enough risk.

Undermining abortion is undermining murder.I reakky don't understand this. Undermining abortion is a bad thing, undermining murder is a good thing.

You know who gets abortions? The people who can't support kids. When you fools force them to have kids, you bring another unwanted person into this world. The parents can't afford to care for the kid, nor do they want to, so they get (more) welfare to cover the costs. I'm guessing most of you stupid 14 year-old brats don't pay taxes, so you don't care. You are also so weak and pathetic that you place value on an incomplete life not even parents value. You are all stupid bags of shit and i wish someone had aborted you!

Wow, what a nice guy.

You know who gets abortions? The people who can't support kids. When you fools force them to have kids, you bring another unwanted person into this world. The parents can't afford to care for the kid, nor do they want to, so they get (more) welfare to cover the costs. I'm guessing most of you stupid 14 year-old brats don't pay taxes, so you don't care. You are also so weak and pathetic that you place value on an incomplete life not even parents value. You are all stupid bags of shit and i wish someone had aborted you!Wow, what a nice guy.A little extreme, but there are a large number of abortions based upon "I can't afford to have this kid, this kid will not be welcome, this kid was not intended", etc. While I don't agree with the full tirade, his missive contains a valid point at its core, IMHO.

I've been cruising the other abortion related forums, and I want to say that I have seen extreme opinions from both sides, presented in the form of ranting arguments.

I hope that, even though my position on abortion is about as extreme as one can be, my arguments haven't come off as the ravings of a lunatic. If they have, let me know, preferably in a more amicible fashion than calling me a (or comparing me to):

1. Flagrant, hypocritical liar (because "no one" could possibly actually have the stance on abortion that I do)

2. Monster (Becuase, if i'm not lying, I am of course some sort of satanic demon for not compromising in my opinion)

3. Adolf Hitler (I really am not sure how I am related in my arguments to this bastard)

4. Someone insane (This one is tied in with all three. I guess it's just a blend.

Anyways, for those who don't know where I stand, I am against abortions:

- when used as a form of birth control
- in cases where the mother's life is threatend :eek:
- in cases of rape/incest :eek:
- in any other regrettable situation that could possibly be imagined :eek:

No exceptions, no compromise. :mad:

People are male because of specific biological components that can be measured; these components make up maleness. To be a male, you have to have certain things, and lack certain things. My argument is that abortion is wrong because I believe it is wrong to kill a human being. It is wrong to kill a human being because such a thing is universally frowned upon.
Your argument includes an unproven premise (that a fetus is a human being). Morals dont prove that premise. If you want to convince others that your conclusion is sound, then you need to prove that the premises on which it is based are true. Morals do not prove what is true, because morals are subjective and truth is objective. Whether or not a abortion is killing a human is central to your argument, if you cant prove a fetus is a human being, then you cant substantiate your argument.

Morals should make the law, not the other way around. If a law was passed that allowed murder, would it no longer be murder?
No morals should not make the law. Morals are personal beliefs about right and wrong, and persons do not all have the same beliefs about right and wrong, yet we would hope that the law was the same for everyone. So who's morals are going to make the law? The morals of those who think that not beating your wife is immoral or the morals of those who think beating your wife is immoral, either way the law will directly contradict morals even when it directly reflects morals.

Evidently if a law was passed so that it was not unlawful in any circumstance to take a human life, then where-ever that law was in effect, there would be no such thing as murder. In such a case any killing that would otherwise (if the law provided for it) be murder would not be any more wrong or right, regardless of the moral beliefs of those involved.

The fact remains lying is universally frowned upon. If someone had to pick between a liar, X, and a non liar, -X, they would invariably pick -X.
No lying is not universally frowned on regardless of circumstances. However it is very widely frowned apon. Generally speaking in the US for instance the majority of people would I suspect concede that lying is immoral yet lying is not a crime. This supports what I have been saying and negates your own view that the law simply reflects the morals of the society in which it arises. The fact is law attempts to be consistent, however morals are not societally consistant, what is moral to one person directly conflicts with the morals of others in their society, but the law does not contain the level on contradiction that occurs between the morals of it's constituents. How can the law be made by morals if the law is not different for every person, but morality is?

Is it moral to punish your equal? No, you can only judge those beneath you.
Of course you can judge your equals, you can also judge your superiors. Aside from 'can' there is a fundamental premise in the US justice system that you should. That's why today there are a whole lot of people lined up outside poll-booths, and that's why in a trial you have the right to be judged by a panel of your peers. People judging their equals is a fundamental premise of the US justice system.

Therefore, beating your wife is contingent on whether or not you find her equal to yourself, not to whether or not you find it to be morally correct.
Therefore morals are not objective and absolute, they dont tell us what is right or wrong, and the fact that one person believes that something is moral doesnt indicate whether or not they are right to believe it is moral and so the fact that many people believe something is moral does not tell us whether they are right about it being moral. Morals do not tell us anything about right or wrong or truth, rather what we think about right and wrong and truth defines what we believe morally. To suggest that right and wrong stem from morality is to misunderstand the directional flow of cause and effect. Evidently your suggesting that believing yourself superior would equate to believing it is moral to beat the person you feel superior to is flawed. I believe that more people would agree that the Pope is superior to a homeless bum, than would agree that the Pope has a moral obligation to beat a homeless bum. Being superior (or percieving yourself as such) is not the same as percieving that the superiority requires you to physically assault those you consider inferior.

Truth is consistent, if something is X it must always be X, and not -X. If it is both, it is untrue. Morals are the same way, no one advocates both stealing and not stealing, it's one or the other. Intrapersonally, morals are the same. Interpersonally, things such as murder, thieving, and rape are universally frowned upon, and things such as charity, kindness, and helpfullness are universally appreciated.
Wrong, interpersonally murder is not always murder, theiving is not always theiving, rape is not always rape and such things as charity and kindness and helpfullness are not universally always accepted as being acceptable. You see in truth physically forcing a women to endure your sexual advances either is or is not always rape, yet in law and according to morals, sometimes it is rape and sometimes it is not rape. In England if the state executed someone for commiting murder, that would be murder (because it would be taking human life without lawful cause or mitigation), yet in many states in America the exact same act (executing someone for committing murder) is not murder because it isnt the unlawful taking of human life.

Let me also say that overall, I think you are being mature about this, and reasoning well. Though I don't agree with you, I would prefer that more posters be like you.
It takes 2 to have a reasonable conversation. ;)

First, abortion is wrong. Why? because it's killing human life. after all, according to science itself anything living is growing, and if a living being with human cells and DNA is growing, logistically it's human life. Furthermore, I hear a lot of stuff about how it's the women's right to choose. It's not, because she can't own a human baby, since it's slavery, and that ended a long time ago. Not only that, but by this logic, since the baby came from the women's body and henceforth is her property, any mother in the world can abort her child, even if he/she is an adult or teenager. After all, it's her right to choose*sarcasm*.
You have (like many others) failed to substantiate that a fetus is a human being. By the criteria you have named a syphilus cyst is a human being, sorry but I am not ready to grant human rights to syphilus cysts.
The right of a woman to choose is not based on ownership rights of the fetus, but rather on her inherent right to make determinations about her own body.

i am very against abortions.
Then I suggest you dont have one.

if you want to have sex, you better be ready for the consequences.
Ready or not the consequences will arise. Readiness is not relevent to what form the consequences take. Even if you are not ready the consequences will follow. They may be minimal or significant.

and if you dont want the baby dont freakin kill it.
What baby, we are discussing abortions, not killing babies.

theres a reason why adoption exists.
More than one reason I would suggest.


i dont see why people dont think of adoption as more of an answer than abortion.
I dont see why some people like to eat tomatoes, but I'm not jumping up and down expecting a law to be made about that. Your understanding or lack there of is no justification for the restriction of someone else's freedom.

why would you want to kill someone?
Many reasons, a lot of them in my opinion very crappy ones, although at times I concede that it is justified, however this is not relevent to abortion since no one has established yet that a fetus is 'someone'.

and i think that the only excusable reason for an abortion is in cases where the mothers health is seriously at risk, and possibly for incest.
I think the only reasonable excuse for eating tomatoes is that you'll starve to death if you dont, but once again, I'm not expecting other people's right to make their own determination on this be curtailed because of my opinion.

but i dont even think that abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, just because someone does something horrible to you, doesnt mean you should do something horrible to someone else.
You have not established that having an abortion is doing something horrible to 'someone' further the remainder of your argument is premised on a straw-man. So far as I can ascertain few if any women who have abortions contingent on being raped are doing so because they believe they need to or should do something horrible to someone.

What if the woman already donated her tissues to someone, then four months later said, "Oh wait, I want them back. Looks like you have to die now."
She'd be out of luck, the same way I would be if I donated my car to you then 4 months later wanted it back.

I hope that, even though my position on abortion is about as extreme as one can be, my arguments haven't come off as the ravings of a lunatic. If they have,
Depends what you mean by lunacy. To my mind your beliefs as expressed throughout this thread indicate some form of dysfunction, although I would not have ventured to say so if you hadnt directly asked, since it is my opinion, and unlikely to sway or concern you, anymore than I would be swayed or concerned if you held an identical opinion about me. Regardless of the ultimate quality of your mental/emotional function (which as someone who is reading some of your comments on the internet, I'm not objectively qualified to determine one way or the other), your methodology with regards to presenting your views certainly falls within the bounds of acceptable, so at least your not acting like a raving lunatic.... ;)

here i go
abortion is bad for 3 reasons
1: america doesn't need it.
that's it. we don't have over-population, death, illness, famine, or any other good reason that demands abortion. people do it merely b/c it's convinient for them. convinience, however, is not always the best road (simple solutions to easy problems don't work)
2: definition of life
the english speaking population of america and the world usues the english language and its many dictionaries and more importantely the scientific community to define its language, therefore we should listen to what they have to say. the definition of the scientific community of the word life is: any single-celled or multi-celled being that carries out the metabolic processes of life. upon conception, the fertilized egg does just that, so it is alive. so we know it's alive. big. it's still not human yet, right? wrong. dna makes up what humans are, and far over 99.99 percent of all human dna is in the single cell, so you're technically killing off an organism that has dna that is virtually identical to you and me. people will refute that with "well, it has to survive off of the mother, so it's not really living", but parasites do the same thing, and they're livin, and if you think about it, everything is a parasite in that sense, b/c we all live off of something else.
3: our adoption agency
this is really short. america has BY FAR the best adoption agency in the world. in other countries where the child would have little chance of adoption, abortion could be weakly justified, but it isn't so here and in europe. i know this. my mom was adopted, and i know two families that have adopted sucessfully. people will however, refute that with 'what about incest? or accidents?'
incest is wrong yes, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. incest has it's own punishments of law, and the child has a relatively small chance of having any probs. the only reason probs exist is when it happens for many years, such as in europe's royal famalies. but this had been happening for 100's of years, not once. and about accidents? your fault, not the child's. despite what you may think, sex is for reproduction, not happy time. that's a bonus. accidents may happen, but you should've waited until you were ready. it says it doesn't work all the time on the box. : )
there is but one justification for abortion: medical. if the mother or child has a high likelyhood of death, then yes. that's why we allow medicinal marajuana, etc, b/c it is an emergency. but that's it if you live in europe or america that's the only justification you have. okay!

peopleandstuff... you are probably one of the dumbest people ive met

peopleandstuff... you are probably one of the dumbest people ive met
1) you haven't met him.
2) Earthworms aren't people honey. ;)

It could be considered murder if the definition of human life extends to fetuses. It all boils down to when the starting point for human life is. No one has a proven answer, so it's entirely subjective. A lot of people say it begins at conception, but I say it doesn't begin until rational thought has developed.

I agree why dont we have rights for non thinking orginisms then.
i sudnly feel lazy so i leave u with that...

here i go
abortion is bad for 3 reasons
1: america doesn't need it.
Firstly you are ignoring certain things when determining need. Does America really have no need for individual freedoms, I doubt that. Technically America does not need bowling or coca cola, this is no reason or rational whatsoever for calling bowling or coca cola bad.


2: definition of life
any single-celled or multi-celled being that carries out the metabolic processes of life. upon conception, the fertilized egg does just that, so it is alive. so we know it's alive. big. it's still not human yet, right? wrong. dna makes up what humans are, and far over 99.99 percent of all human dna is in the single cell, so you're technically killing off an organism that has dna that is virtually identical to you and me. people will refute that with "well, it has to survive off of the mother, so it's not really living", but parasites do the same thing, and they're livin, and if you think about it, everything is a parasite in that sense, b/c we all live off of something else.
Definition of life is not relevent to abortion. Taking life is not considered to be problematic in and of itself. So really your argument is the 'taking of human life' argument (as evidenced by the references to human DNA). However you failed to establish that a fetus is a human being. The criteria you have posited would result in a syphlus cyst being defined as a human being. Do you think that any definition which would require us to recognise the sympton of disease as human life is a viable definition, because I dont.

3: our adoption agency
is irrelevent, even if the supporting premises you posited were proven true. Abortion is premised on the right of a mother to make determinations about her own body, not on the right to be rid of something that does not yet exist.

1) you haven't met him.
2) Earthworms aren't people honey. ;)
yea yea.. i know someone was gunna call me on the not actually meeting him thing.

hes the dumbest person ive encountered on the interet in the last week.

3: our adoption agency

is irrelevent, even if the supporting premises you posited were proven true. Abortion is premised on the right of a mother to make determinations about her own body, not on the right to be rid of something that does not yet exist.

Well, from MY point of view, and I've discussed this with my partner. I would not want my child, (NB, it's a child only after birth) raised somewhere else, by other people. I'm pretty sure that after being pregnant for 9 months and seeing the baby I'd not want to let go. If we did decide to keep the child, we'd have to leave our education, and asa result be financially unstable and give the child a pretty crap life. On the other hand, if we gave the child up, I think we'd both be very damaged.
That's why I would choose an early abortion. Not pleasant, and I'm sure also quite emotionally draining, but I would like that hoice available to me. I'm not making anyone have a termination. And that's where I think the main difference is between pro-choicers, and so called "pro-lifers"

I'm not making anyone have a termination. And that's where I think the main difference is between pro-choicers, and so called "pro-lifers"
I concur.

peopleandstuff... you are probably one of the dumbest people ive met

It's people that say things like this that are the ones that really annoy me. It doesn't matter which side you're on, if you don't have a point, or can only make your point through bashing the "opposition", don't say anything. It hurts your argument more than helps it.

And that's where I think the main difference is between pro-choicers, and so called "pro-lifers"

I think things would go a lot more smoothly on these serious threads if we all try to phase out negative comments towards those with different philosophies. Please don't say so called " pro-lifers". Say pro-lifers. We believe we are defending life, just as you believe you are defending choice.

I am not suggesting that you modify your word choice to express ideas that you don't agree with. For example, I will still refer to an unborn human as a child or a baby, but you don't have to. I'll try to make my arguments less negative overall, too.

Perhaps we can discuss this civilly

It could be considered murder if the definition of human life extends to fetuses. It all boils down to when the starting point for human life is. No one has a proven answer, so it's entirely subjective. A lot of people say it begins at conception, but I say it doesn't begin until rational thought has developed.

If that's true, I know a hell of a lot of people in their 20's, 30's, 40's and even 50's that are still unborn, can I abort them retroactively? :D

It could be considered murder if the definition of human life extends to fetuses. It all boils down to when the starting point for human life is. No one has a proven answer, so it's entirely subjective. A lot of people say it begins at conception, but I say it doesn't begin until rational thought has developed.

So you mean most of the people in this forum are not alive?

So you mean most of the people in this forum are not alive?

I tried to avoid the obvious pun on this point... but there it is.

The safest bet is that life begins at conception. If you put the start of life at just about any other point, it's hard to get a concensus. It's also impossible to prove, for example, when rational thought has begun.

Please don't say so called " pro-lifers". Say pro-lifers. We believe we are defending life, just as you believe you are defending choice.
Well, my point on that is that by calling yourselves "pro-life" you are implying that pro-choicers are in some way pro-death, which we are not! In fact, we view our position as the way of least harm (non-maleficence to use an ethical term) and as such, see ourselves as very much "pro-life."
Why don't you just refer to yourselves as "anti-abortion?"

I think things would go a lot more smoothly on these serious threads if we all try to phase out negative comments towards those with different philosophies. Please don't say so called " pro-lifers". Say pro-lifers. We believe we are defending life, just as you believe you are defending choice.

I am not suggesting that you modify your word choice to express ideas that you don't agree with. For example, I will still refer to an unborn human as a child or a baby, but you don't have to. I'll try to make my arguments less negative overall, too.

Perhaps we can discuss this civilly

As long as your entire platform consists of opposing abortion, I will continue to refuse to use the term 'pro-life'.

However, I try not to be patronising, and simply use 'anti-abortion' (minus inverted commas when actually in context).

'pro-life' is only used because no one wants to be 'anti' something, and because it is assume that no one can disagree with being 'pro-life'.

Well, except suicidal people, perhaps.

The safest bet is that life begins at conception. If you put the start of life at just about any other point, it's hard to get a concensus. It's also impossible to prove, for example, when rational thought has begun.
So, since it is difficult to define exactly when fetuses develop brains and begin thinking, we just arbitrarily pick fertilization as the start, taking the easy way out. Or we could pick birth as the moment (which I also think is a crock of shit). We must simply accept that life is a gradual process. We come from nothing and slowly become something. But it's very apparent to me that a zygote is not alive. Fetuses are much more arguable.

Anyone seen the meaning of life by Monthy Python?
"Every sperm is sacred..."
I like the part when the father comes home and says:
"Sorry, can't afford to keep you. Its medical experiments for the lot of you."

Okay, maybe its a bit mean, but abortion is choice. If you are christian or thinks abortion is wrong, then don't do it! It doesn't get any simpler. I mean, if you grow up i a trailer park, being very poor, maybe beaten by your parents, would you not preffer abortion? Some kids do it. They throw themselfs in front of trains.

The safest bet is that life begins at conception. If you put the start of life at just about any other point, it's hard to get a concensus. It's also impossible to prove, for example, when rational thought has begun.I see it more that everyone agrees that life has started by the time of birth (or caesarian delivery, to doom the MacBeths among us :)) whereas the proof of it occurring at conception is lacking and the 'quantititative' evidence for life is an ever-upward, yet variable, slope between the two points, punctuated by various landmarks.

The landmarks that involve the nervous system 'tent-pole' the quantitative analysis of life (as having an individual human consciousness, rather than a blindly-followed biological construct) well over 50% for everyone, and we are now discussing whether the placement of the earlier 'tent-poles', both in height and position, might/might not have dragged that line of assesment high enough at an earlier position.

It is pegged (for everyone except those who consider gametes sacred) at the zero-height point immediately prior to conception, and while some people seem convinced that there's a pole making that line rise to almost 100% at that very instant (and to remain there for the duration) but that assessment doesn't sit true with everyone (some argue maybe a small pole suffices, some that the next defining landmark is further along, around the implanatation or 'period missed' stage) and still not that much.

I see what you mean by 'safest'. When in doubt, encompass the whole process, but if I were legally forced to follow that position (across all walks of life) I'd be forced (here in my part of the UK) to have snow-chains on my car at least from September until June (possibly more), because there's a vague possibility that it will snow throughout that period (it having done so at least once, since records began, at each limit of that range). In reality, I equip my car (or its boot, at least) with chains only during periods of season when they are around 50% likely-to-be-necessary (or some other value hard to quantify out loud) so that I may use them should I be forced to do so by weather conditions and the need to travel over the high Pennine roads that I irregularly use in the course of my time. (This is not a good analogue, as this assessed value varies all the time and roughly periodically, whereas the developing child is (in itself) a once-only phenomenon with, barring gestation problems, only increasing in 'realness'.

I suppose it depends on whether someone legislates my use of snow-chains in the belief that I am working in Alaska, when (from all available evidence) I'm not.

(Also, note that the times I've actually used chains in the last couple of decades can be counted on one hand. They do get to sit in my boot just in case, however, but only during likley seasons. I had them available last new year when I found the single road up and out from the place I was staying was severely traction-resistent.)

Sorry, a long and cumberseome message. And while previewing and editing I've seen Chodolo summarise the point better...

Hi, one point i'd like to make if pro-life really believe in the sanctity of life, should they ever get involved in war, violence or even eat any animal?

Hi, one point i'd like to make if pro-life really believe in the sanctity of life, should they ever get involved in war, violence or even eat any animal?

Exactly why I refuse to use the ridiculous term 'pro-life'.

Since their entire position is soley against abortion, and does not address any other issue at all, the correct term is 'anti-abortion'.

'pro-life' is deemed more attractive by that side because a) being 'anti' is never really a good thing and b) laymen, unfamiliar with the debate are more likely to jump on the 'pro-life' than the 'pro-choice', simply because *everyone* likes to think they are pro-life (as in, pro-living), whereas not everyone is pro-every-choice.

Exactly why I refuse to use the ridiculous term 'pro-life'.

Since their entire position is soley against abortion, and does not address any other issue at all, the correct term is 'anti-abortion'.

'pro-life' is deemed more attractive by that side because a) being 'anti' is never really a good thing and b) laymen, unfamiliar with the debate are more likely to jump on the 'pro-life' than the 'pro-choice', simply because *everyone* likes to think they are pro-life (as in, pro-living), whereas not everyone is pro-every-choice.


Well there are those who will eat the whole pie even if they aren't hungry and those who will save some of the pie to eat later and those will just never eat some of the pie. The latter I regard as fundamentally immoral and diseased.

Well there are those who will eat the whole pie even if they aren't hungry and those who will save some of the pie to eat later and those will just never eat some of the pie. The latter I regard as fundamentally immoral and diseased.

...

My brain is melt!

Stupid psych exam... I think some neurons are twisted together wrong now.

Heck, I probably wasn't all correct and functioning even before the exam... I relied heavily on superstitions (my own newly formed ones, no less), and didn't bother, you know, studying...

...

My brain is melt!

Stupid psych exam... I think some neurons are twisted together wrong now.

Heck, I probably wasn't all correct and functioning even before the exam... I relied heavily on superstitions (my own newly formed ones, no less), and didn't bother, you know, studying...

I take full responsibility for the melting of your brain. May I now make a brain pie with it?

I take full responsibility for the melting of your brain. May I now make a brain pie with it?

You can have it after my last exam is done (that would be the 8th).

I mean, I probably won't be using it, but I need to take it in.

Just for the look of the thing, you know?

I am against abortions:

- when used as a form of birth control
- in cases where the mother's life is threatend :eek:
- in cases of rape/incest :eek:
- in any other regrettable situation that could possibly be imagined :eek:

No exceptions, no compromise. :mad:

I'm not going to call you any names, but how can you justify not allowing abortions in cases of rape? If was your 12 year old daugther who got raped and became pregnant, I think you'd feel differently.

You can have it after my last exam is done (that would be the 8th).

I mean, I probably won't be using it, but I need to take it in.

Just for the look of the thing, you know?

I understand one has to keep up a state of decorum, yes. I shall collect your brain after your impending doom/examinations.

I'm not going to call you any names, but how can you justify not allowing abortions in cases of rape? If was your 12 year old daugther who got raped and became pregnant, I think you'd feel differently.

Not to mention that a 12 year old is too small to carry to term and/or give birth, so it would mean effectively crippling her for life or killing her.

I'm sorry, my life is more important to me than that of a fetus. You may think that's selfish, but I think that bringing a child into this world just because you're too cowardly to accept the stigma of having an abortion is the real selfish act.

I'm not going to call you any names, but how can you justify not allowing abortions in cases of rape? If was your 12 year old daugther who got raped and became pregnant, I think you'd feel differently.

Nope.

Apparently the inherent psychological risk to a woman isn't enough to stop them. That being the case, I doubt said woman being their daughter would change their opinion at all.

Im a catholic but i will give off a non-catholic view at this. Abortion prevents human life. ESPECIALLY partial birth abortion. A fetus has the potential for human life, like for example, everyone posting here was a fetus at one time or another and you pro-choicers wouldnt exist if you were aborted.

Unfortunately a lot of abortions are committed because of irresponsible people. Women who got drunk, had sex and boom got pregnant, the majority of abortions happen because of that. Adoption is a wonderful alternative because many families are more then willing to adopt children. These fetuses could be just as human as me or you and everyone else but because of a women's irresponsibility and stupidity needless to say (most of the time anyway, there are some special circumstances) these children suffer extermination for the mistakes of others. That isnt fair, especially partial birth abortion, when the child feels pain. This is unethical, immoral and unjustified.



And how many children have you had? Yes there are some people who are irresponsible . I hate to brake it to you. The abortions are not taking place cause allot of woman are getting drunk and decided to have a little fun. Also have you looked at adoption agencies lately and how many older children who cannot get good homes because everyone wants a newborn. I don't believe in an abortion after 12 weeks , its a woman's choice not a mans.

Hope you send them to me personally so i can make you paralyzed from the waist down. Im a man of morals, i dont condone taking advantage of girls, if i ever saw that i'd break your legs.


Real moral of you to threaten to break someones legs!

Who are you to choose who lives and who dies? What if you were in a position, you had two people that you care about dearly now, they werent born and you had to make a choice, do you abort one or the other or neither? Would you abort someone you care about deeply? Then why allow others to kill off their offspring? One of those children aborted could one day turn out to be your best friend, your favorite cousin, your wife, your husband? The possibilities are endless, but they never get the chance. We cry when we hear of a child killed in a gang fight, we cry when a family member dies, but no one cries when these children or if you must "potential children" are killed, why? They are going to end up just as human as we are.


I guess we'll never now. Dont live in the what if. Live with what you have now.

4. 30,000,000 abortions? You mean 30,000,000 fetuses, who are not entitled to protections and freedoms guaranteed to people in our nation.



Even if they aren't guaranteed protections and freedoms, they might still disagree.

I'm not going to call you any names, but how can you justify not allowing abortions in cases of rape? If was your 12 year old daugther who got raped and became pregnant, I think you'd feel differently.

No I wouldn't. If you think that a foetus is an unborn chold with a right to life (and lots of people do) I don't see how you can think that this particular unborn child is less worthy of life because their father was a rapist. For the 12 year old girl it is very tough, but it is just that, tough.


Not to mention that a 12 year old is too small to carry to term and/or give birth, so it would mean effectively crippling her for life or killing her.

Who told you that 12 year olds are physically incapable of carrying to term? It's nonsense. The youngest mother recorded, last I looked, was 9. Brazilian I think.


I'm sorry, my life is more important to me than that of a fetus. You may think that's selfish, but I think that bringing a child into this world just because you're too cowardly to accept the stigma of having an abortion is the real selfish act.

What about bringing a child into the world because it is already in the world, in your womb, and no-one has the right to kill another human being?

Well there are those who will eat the whole pie even if they aren't hungry and those who will save some of the pie to eat later and those will just never eat some of the pie. The latter I regard as fundamentally immoral and diseased.


Hear hear.

No I wouldn't. If you think that a foetus is an unborn chold with a right to life (and lots of people do) I don't see how you can think that this particular unborn child is less worthy of life because their father was a rapist. For the 12 year old girl it is very tough, but it is just that, tough.

Wow. Are you christian? I would love to see how you justify your obvious lack of compassion.

Who told you that 12 year olds are physically incapable of carrying to term? It's nonsense. The youngest mother recorded, last I looked, was 9. Brazilian I think.

He/She should have said, not all 12 year old girls are physically capable of carrying a child healthy to term. Hell, if you want to get real, not all females at 30 are physically capable. There are a lot of possible risks to the life and health of the mother EVEN if she is perfectly healthy and 'normal' before pregnancy. Make her too small to spit the child out, or too light to support the weight of the child, or any other common problem associated with extremely young pregnencies and you exacerbate the risks profoundly.

Will you at least come to the realization that there are 6 billion people in the world, and only 1 9-year-old has ever been recorded as carrying a baby to term and only a handfull of 10-12 year-olds have?

What about bringing a child into the world because it is already in the world, in your womb, and no-one has the right to kill another human being?

It is not in the 'world' until it is born, period. Until then, it is in the 'womb'. And please, if you are going to bandy about words like "kill" and "human being" define life and human being first. According to every logical definition espoused so far, a fetus doesn't meet the requirements until ~20th-26th week.

There has been evidence that a fetus can begin to feel pain and emotion at around 14 weeks.

During a fetal blood transfusion a %595 in beta endorphin and a %183 increase in the cortosol level were recorded when the baby responded to stimulus, this could be chemical evidence that the baby feels pain. It has also been recorded that during aminocentesis a baby will shy away from, or even kick the needle.

With all that said, I'm pro-choice.

I'm going into the medical profession to help people, and even though my field of medicine (endocrinology) does not deal with abortion I commend those who do choose to go into that field.

I have seen all kinds of women come into the hospital for obstetric ultrasounds, some leave with smiles and others leave crying and in tears because they've seen something wrong on the scan. Often times what can be seen from the ultrasound could be serious or even fatal to the child, the mother, or both. Shouldn't a mother be allowed to have abortion in order to save her life? The mother will be the one carrying the child for 9 months, and the one who goes through childbirth. She will also be the one that could possibly die during childbirth, thus leaving the child without a mother (a biological mother at least). Although a C-section is in some cases an alternative, the mother will have to go through life with that scar, and even a C-section isn't always a 100% thing. I think every woman should be allowed a chance to have a normal child, after all the pain and suffering they have to go through it should be their choice.

I think bringing a child into the world that will not have a good quality of life (whether its because of an untreatable disease or deformity) is just as cruel. Think of the ridicule and pain a child will go through. Think of being born with a congenital hand deformity, limb deformity, maxilo-facial deformities, or even certain types of unremovable growths. That child will have to go through life being laughed at by other children (even though we know that shouldn't happen, it most definately will). I can't even begin to imagine the psychological scarring and stress that child will be forced to deal with.

I DON'T think abortion should be used as birth-control, I do however believe in a womans right to choose what happens to her body. Rape is not something a woman chooses and therefore she shouldn't have to have a baby that was unplanned for, and in most cases (not all) unwanted. The impact having that child would have on her emotionally could damage her and in some cases could be dangerous to the child.

If abortion was made illegal, women would still have them. Women could go to "back alley" doctors to have abortions or even try and do it themselves, risking their lives and the lives of the fetus. By going to a certified doctor, women greatly reduce the risk to both.

Abortions; Whats right with them?

Teenage pregnancy is just part of God's great plan. It's like I say: if it's working down there then put it to use, if the grass is on the pitch then let's play ball!

theyre all right if it saves the life of the woman or something.
you cant prove that a fetus is alive anyway :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

People who say a fetus has the potential to be a baby are so frustrating! :headbang:
One sperm cell has the potential to be a baby, and therefore masturbation, wet dreams and any other wasting of sperm is illegal. Also, when a woman has her period and her egg is unused, then this egg also had the potential to be a baby! HOW DO U FEEL NOW U FACIST WANKERS? YOU'VE ALL WANKED AND KILLED MILLIONS OF CHILDREN!!!!! AAAAARGH :) HAPPY DAYS

People who say a fetus has the potential to be a baby are so frustrating! :headbang:
One sperm cell has the potential to be a baby, and therefore masturbation, wet dreams and any other wasting of sperm is illegal. Also, when a woman has her period and her egg is unused, then this egg also had the potential to be a baby! HOW DO U FEEL NOW U FACIST WANKERS? YOU'VE ALL WANKED AND KILLED MILLIONS OF CHILDREN!!!!! AAAAARGH :) HAPPY DAYS

Don't bring the Fozz into this!

OK an unborn child can "feel" at 14 weeks.
A disabled child/person is fine
An able woman can still die in childbirth

It is foolish and cruel to laden an unwanted child on the world, irrespective of any health issues.

We all spend a lot of time and money on the unwanted and unable, in the way of charity and taxes, as well as time in actual caring for them.

Let's just ease the world wide issues.

Abortion is fine.
Having kids and knowingly having to depend on others for support is not.

Euthanasia is fine.
I think we should all have the ability to judge what is right in our own particular cases.

If we start to judge others are we going to let other judge us?

Anti-abortionists, are you going to take on the unwanted kids and council the mothers alone?
If you aren't doing so now for those already born (ie kids whose parents have died) what makes you think you can lay down rules for others.

People aren't all bright and intelligent, sometimes they make mistakes, occasionally they get into bad situations and cant find ways out. We need to help, not judge.

My views were initially anti, by through living life I have realised that there are always circumstances.

Abortion suits some, not others. It is not a easy choice, the mental repercussions go on each anniversary a thought goes out to them born or not, and with it an attempt to find a different way to have dealt with the situation.

Last part of this rant; Live life with your eyes and mind open, don't judge 'cos everyone has done something wrong.

Perhaps people get abortions because they don't want the responsiblity of raising a child? They were stupid to get pregnant to begin with and now let's use this form of birth control and kill the unborn child so your own life doesn't get any tougher. The child is unwanted so he/she is better off dead? What the hell kind of arguement is that?? It's your own body so you can kill the child? I'm sure everyone is happy that their own mothers didn't decide to do the unthinkable.

Perhaps people get abortions because they don't want the responsiblity of raising a child?

if one becomes pregnant and does not feel ready to rear a child then the ONLY responsible course of action is to abort.

They were stupid to get pregnant to begin with

yeah, because rape or failure of contraceptives can NEVER happen to smart people. only stupid people are raped, and contraception only fails for stupid people. oh yeah, and only stupid people have sex, because it is obviously stupid to be having sex if you aren't planning to get pregnant each and every single time you have sex.


and now let's use this form of birth control and kill the unborn child so your own life doesn't get any tougher.

if a fetus is an "unborn child" then you are an "undead corpse." if a fetus should get the rights of a child, then you should get the rights of a corpse. feel free to begin exercising the whole "silent as a tomb" thing asap...


The child is unwanted so he/she is better off dead?

a fetus is not a child.


What the hell kind of arguement is that??


log·i·cal
( P ) Pronunciation Key (lj-kl)
adj.
Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable:

[/quote]
It's your own body so you can kill the child? I'm sure everyone is happy that their own mothers didn't decide to do the unthinkable.[/QUOTE]
it is quite thinkable, for one thing. second, i have a friend who is personally very glad that his mother DID choose to have an abortion, because he wouldn't exist if she hadn't...she would have been a mother at 16, wouldn't have gone to college when she did, and would never have met my friend's father, and therefore he would never have been born.

to say, "how would you like it if your mother aborted you?!" is the lamest and most logically pathetic argument the pro-life camp uses, and that is really saying a lot...use your freaking heads, people.

If you aren't responsible to raise a child the only prudent thing to do is to give the child up for adoption not kill the child.

Rape and sex are hardly in the same category and I'd wish people would stop jumping to conclusions. Contaceptives do fail, and when they do you take responsiblity.

The rest is simply the old arguement of whether an unborn child is alive or not. No agreement will ever be reached here, but for me it is unfortunate that women know there is a life growing and they can kill the child on a whim.

In a free society certain elements must be present before we restrict anyone's freedom in any way shape or form. You cannot restrict someone's right to do something with their own body because it has not been proven that this is not effecting someone else. Rather it works the other way. I suspect that all those who are anti abortion are not 'anti free society', when it comes to those aspects of a free society that are personally beneficial to them, and would be against the idea of living in a totallitarian society that interferes with the freedoms they think they should have, so I suspect most anti abortionists are hypocrites, expecting that they should enjoy the benefits of living in a free society whilst denying those benefits to anyone who materially disagrees with certain of their notions.