NationStates Jolt Archive

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant. Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.

Are you willing to adopt that baby that wouldn't be aborted but put up for adoption?

Why is it your right to tell some woman what she can and can't do with her body?

I agree completely, Greneda.

(Puts on fire-proof suit)

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason.
That's some God alright.

There's so much wrong with everything you just said I don't know where to begin... But judging by your homophobic posts is it even worth bothering?

All I have to say is: Not everyone is Christian and anti-abortion. You don't like them? Don't have one.

You have not explained why women should be the only exception to the rule that a person cannot legally be forced to donate part of their body.

I can refuse to donate an organ TO MY OWN CHILD. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child, EVEN IF THE CHILD WOULD DIE AS A RESULT. I can refuse to donate an organ to my own child, even if the child will die as a result, AND EVEN IF THEY NEED THE ORGAN BECAUSE OF MY OWN ACTIONS.

No one can legally force me to donate my body, ever.

Explain why ONLY women (and ONLY while pregnant), should lose this fundamental right.

Explain why ONLY women (and ONLY while pregnant), should lose this fundamental right.
Because the only purpose of women is have kids.
[/sarcasm]

Honestly, I think that that's all those who oppose a woman's right to choose have as an "argument".

Says the rapist, "I was fulfilling God's plan! The baby's gonna cure cancer!"

Because the only purpose of women is have kids.
[/sarcasm]

Honestly, I think that that's all those who oppose a woman's right to choose have as an "argument".

Personally, I think they're worried that if women aren't punished for enjoying sex, they'll (gasp!) start having more sex.

And we all know that many of these sorts of guys are insecure enough to be unable to handle girls that aren't virgins (presumably because girls who are virgins won't be phased by an incredible lack of sexual capability on the part of the guy... but I digress).

It just scares me that there is a country where these folk are in the majority.

*shudders*

Going back to your "God has a plan" thing-


The Bible states that God grants us free will, correct?

So then how is God omniscient and knows our fate already, IF WE HAVE FREE WILL? If we have free will God cannot know what path we will chooose? How can there be a "master plan"?

I officially feel dumber for reading this. I wish you could be raped, knocked up, then tied down by a government official until a 12lb baby comes out of you screaming. Then I hope you wake up from this nightmare in a cold sweat and decide to either be more compassionate...OR STAY THE HELL OF THE BUSINESS OF PEOPLE WHOSE SITUATION YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND!!

I mean...um...who are you to judge? :)

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Since you obviously define life as beginning before birth, then you will always see abortion as killing a baby and any arguing with you to change will hinge entirely on your definition of when life begins.

Since that definition is controversial this whole argument would be useless.

Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.

Yep, see you are referring to abortion as "killing a baby."

It's not, according to the law as well as the plain definitions involved.

Again it'd be useless for me to argue.

God has a plan for everyone.

Myth.

Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason.

Oh, so because it happened for a reason, it shouldn't be altered? You, I think, already believe EVERYTHING happens for a reason, thus do you mean that NOTHING should be altered? Wouldn't want to mess up God's well-laid plans? Especially those involving rape... God apparently likes planning those out.

What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource?

What if it'd grow up to be Hitler reincarnate? Millions die?

Your answer: "Well, it happened for a reason. *Shrug*"

We could go all day with this and not get anywhere.

If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world.

Mis-used definition of murder, as well as child.

Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life?

What's precious about life? Just because you value life doesn't mean it's rare or especially important on an objective sense.

Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed

Waaa! That's you. Jeez, step back and look what you're writing, man!

NO ONE is asked whether they want to be born! Were you? No! So, NO, no one asked the fetus.

Similarly, very few people get to pick when they die.

It's a hard lesson to learn, and I suggest you learn that soon.

Would you want to die that way?

Would anyone want to die the way they'll probably die? No. Clearly, what we prefer is not the main issue dominating all reality.

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do.

Actually, they don't. Even the biggest wars don't. Diseases, perhaps, if you include cancer and heart failure. But that's really just death. Death - a natural occurance - keeps the population down. Barely.

Aaaaand hey speaking of cancer? Cancer is living cells. Life. What if you got cancer?

You know, everything happens for a reason, if God gives you cancer maybe he has a plan for you - and the cancer. Maybe he wants you to be more aware of cancer so you'll become active in helping find the cure. Maybe your cancer could actually save others. Who are you to mess with God's plans?

Are you willing to take the chance, just for your own selfish life, of denying those possibilities?

Of course not!

Naturally, if you got cancer, you'd refuse treatment.

Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children.

Yay! Statistics. Now here's a challenge: how many children in the USA or China in 2003 died of starvation?

If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop.

And if people would just do as I say, all the world's problems would cease.

But no...

Sigh.

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night! :fluffle: or :)

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night! :fluffle: or :)

Congratulations. Now why should your opinion govern whether or not someone else can have an abortion?

Each case of an abortion is unique.

Heck, each case of a human action is unique. Astrology taught me this.

There is no rule that applies to one that should apply to all cases.

Abortion can only be "wrong" relatively.

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night! :fluffle: or :)
Ah yes, we should punish people for enjoying the gift that is human sexuality. :rolleyes:

Naff off.

I am angered. Gre, you make these threads, and then apparently don't read the responses, because I haven't seen you answer to any of your own threads yet. So..

...We realize you pro-life, anti-genetic engineering but you don't give any valid reasons why you think the way you do, only continually announcing that's its wrong, its wrong, its wrong, and it always has to do with religious subjects!

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night!
In addition to what Sdaerji said, are you saying that those of us who choose to engage in premarital sex are in some way impure?
Oh I feel so dirty! :p

well now a days women have a one night stand and say "well thats ok I can just get an abortion!" its become a 1st resoucre! that is bad because abortions are bad for you! why can't they just use the day after pill, or they could just not do it at all! Now girls are hitting themselves over the head bc this eletion was about mostly women issues! :headbang: if a woman would have run for president in this election she could have won!

I did not mean it that way! I meant that those who chose to have sex before marriage should know the risks and after they should not wine bc they got pregnant or something! they should have known better! :D

well now a days women have a one night stand and say "well thats ok I can just get an abortion!" its become a 1st resoucre! that is bad because abortions are bad for you! why can't they just use the day after pill, or they could just not do it at all! Now girls are hitting themselves over the head bc this eletion was about mostly women issues! :headbang: if a woman would have run for president in this election she could have won!

You haven't answered my question. Why should your distaste for abortion have any bearing on someone else getting one?

I am absolutly against abortion! I hate it and anyone with christian morals should hate it to! I think that if you chose to have sex there should be concequences. (spelt wrong) I myself am staying pure until my wedding night! :)
I'm just confused as to why there "should be" consequences spelled wrong.

What's up with that?

I do agree with the fact that I don't have the right to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body. But if she is going to kill our kid she has another thing comming. get off it ladie, that is a kid inside you , it is not your body it is your kids body. If a women ever aborted my kid, three lives would prolly be ruined. 1. the kid 2. I would kill her cuz she killed my kid ( what parent would not seek justice over the wrongful death of their child and since laws will do nothing I would have to get my own justice) 3. Mine, cuz I would stand up in court and say, "Yes, I killed my childs murderer" and not regret it one bit. But you know what. I am a 24 year old virgin, I don't want to ever have to make that choice. So I have decided to leave the baby makin for later in life when I can afford and want a child. If you are gonna play football you were pads right, so get a condom/birth controll, something, not 100% but nothing in life is. and another thing, I really don't like the religius arguments, why would you force someone to live your religions beliefs, if you are going to make an arguement please make it on something solid, not to knock religion, I believe in God. But I won't tell others they should or should not do something based on a religion. I only care what others do when it adversly effects the lives of others. Otherwise, do what you want. Life is for living.

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE DOES! they could go have sex then kill themselves for all I care! I'm just giving ya'll my views! I'm from the south so I have many morals like that (not that no one else does not)

I do agree with the fact that I don't have the right to tell a women what she can or cannot do with her body. But if she is going to kill our kid she has another thing comming. get off it ladie, that is a kid inside you , it is not your body it is your kids body. If a women ever aborted my kid, three lives would prolly be ruined. 1. the kid 2. I would kill her cuz she killed my kid ( what parent would not seek justice over the wrongful death of their child and since laws will do nothing I would have to get my own justice) 3. Mine, cuz I would stand up in court and say, "Yes, I killed my childs murderer" and not regret it one bit. But you know what. I am a 24 year old virgin, I don't want to ever have to make that choice. So I have decided to leave the baby makin for later in life when I can afford and want a child. If you are gonna play football you were pads right, so get a condom/birth controll, something, not 100% but nothing in life is. and another thing, I really don't like the religius arguments, why would you force someone to live your religions beliefs, if you are going to make an arguement please make it on something solid, not to knock religion, I believe in God. But I won't tell others they should or should not do something based on a religion. I only care what others do when it adversly effects the lives of others. Otherwise, do what you want. Life is for living.

Well, if it is your child, I think that you better have a say in the matter, but in the end, it's her body and her choice. If that would ruin your relationship with her, then that would just have to be something she would have to consider. If she valued your relationship less than the convienence of not having a child, then that is her moral quandry.

NEVER MIND about the cosequenses! there should not be any cons... I just think life is such a great thing why ruin someone elses?!

http://img83.exs.cx/img83/1525/godhatesyourthread.jpg

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE DOES! they could go have sex then kill themselves for all I care! I'm just giving ya'll my views! I'm from the south so I have many morals like that (not that no one else does not)
Hey, I think it's cool that you're staying pure till your wedding night. In the words of the immortal Ophra, "You go, girl!"

Just recognize, please, that if you don't care what anyone else does, then you are pro-choice. ;-)

'Because God said so' is not a reason to make something either legal or illegal. God does not exist, therefore, come up with some real arguments against abortion. A fetus is not a child, again, come up with a real reason against abortion.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman
Ok hold it, why beautiful, are you suggesting that the physical appearance of the person involved is relevent in anyway to the outcome? I dont how...
is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant.
Er if she had had sex with her now departed husband 2 years before the rape would this be relevent....I'm not certain why virginity is an issue, there is no reason why she cant have had sex 1000's of times and still be certain that she became pregnant as a consequence of the rape referred to.
Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors...
No she has to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, or end it, she may end up neither 'having it slaughtered' or 'raising it'.
that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there.
What baby?
But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.
Probably because in your scenario the only humans are the pregnant woman, the rapists and possible medical practitioners.

God has a plan for everyone.
If you intend to use God as a cause or reason, you will need to establish that God exists, before establishing what the material implications of such an existence might be, all of which needs to occur if your application of 'God and cocurrent implications' is to be considered relevent to the topic discussed.
Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you.
So even if you proved God existed, and proved what God's plan was, your position is that it is up to the individual as to whether or not they follow that plan? If so you are by your own premise interferring in God's plan by forcing others to instigate God's plan when God intends such instigation to be an individual choice. If you believe whay you posted, then you are interfering in the will of your God.
If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason.
What might that be? Could it be so the individual can choose to follow God's plan or not, if so you are attempting to interfere with God's methodology, who the heck are you to overrule your own God?
God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason.
God allowed for free choice for a reason; God allowed for abortions to be possible for a reason, I suggest that it's past arrogance to assume that you know entirely what God knows, so you know there is a reason but not what the reason is....I think you are taking a big risk to assume that you can interfere in God's plan without even knowing the reasons and premises that God has chosen to have in operation. Perhaps the reasons are to test if you can obey God's will and not rally against God's design. Maybe the only reason is so that God can test if you are humble, obediant and accepting of his will....if that's the case, (and I suggest you cannot prove that it is not the case) you are right now failing God's test.
What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource?
What if the fetus once born was supposed to grow up and start a nuclear war that would end all life on earth bar cockroaches? What if the fetus once born was supposed to grow into a satanist priest who turns the world away from God and delivers God's children up to Satan instead?
If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world.
What child, we are discussing a fetus, and in ending her pregnancy she could equally be saving the physical world, or more importantly saving the souls of all humanity. According to the premises from which you are reasoning, it would appear only God could know and in so knowing God has none the less caused both free will and abortion to co-exist. It seems utterly unlikely that God would not allow you to know what God knows, would grant free will and be very public about it, and would set things up so abortion was possible, and yet still have intended for you to over-ride other people's free will. I doubt if God exists that God is anywhere so muddled as your premises require.
Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life?
A necessary adaption. One that the bible indicates is not against the will of God.
Did anyone ask the child?
What child?
Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance?
If you mean the fetus, because there is no indication that the fetus can choose, we have no way of ascertaining what their choice is (on an individual basis) if they can chooses, and because sometimes choices simply cant come true regardless. Do we ask a person who needs a kidney transplant where abouts on the waiting list they want to go?
Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?
Are you asking about a baby being suffocated (if so it shouldnt matter what it's mother took) or are you talking about a mother having the right to not breath for someone?
Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do.
I dont really see this as being relevent to any premises under which I reason the issue.
If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption.
Obviously, but again I dont see the relevence to the issue at hand.
That’s a much better alternative than murder.
And again what is the relevence? I thought we were discussing abortion, not murder.
Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.
No kidding people dont have the right to butcher their offspring, there's even a law against it, it comes under the rubrix of murder.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place.
Relevence?
If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop.
If people would follow the bible and sell their daughers correctly, the law in the US would have to be changed....relevence?
So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.
Not all pregnancy results is babies. If a pregnancy results in a baby, there are laws to protect that baby...again I have to ask about the relevence of this to the issue of abortion?

'Because God said so' is not a reason to make something either legal or illegal. God does not exist, therefore, come up with some real arguments against abortion. A fetus is not a child, again, come up with a real reason against abortion.

Those are both opinions.

well now a days women have a one night stand and say "well thats ok I can just get an abortion!" its become a 1st resoucre!

Get your head out of the sand, women do not use abortion as a first resource. Do you know anone who has or will do that?

Abortion is the very last measure and as I've said before NOT an easy way out. And in Australia at least, RU486 is not available.

You seem to be painting lots of women as "irresponsible sluts," something that some people in the anti-abortion camp enjoy doing.

Says the rapist, "I was fulfilling God's plan! The baby's gonna cure cancer!"

the problem with "God's plan" is that if i decide that god wants me to kill 500 peopel, so i go around and knock off 17 before i get nailed, i can say well god wanted em dead, he didn't smite me (i love that word smite it just sounds cool) so he must have wanted them dead. You cant punish me for what god WANTED me to do. Also i know that is nnnot what u feel Chodolo your post was just convenient.

How can the State of California, or any other state, file charges for two murders against a person who kills a pregnant woman but not file charges against a person who kills a fetus? Friends, you can't have it both ways. You can't charge Scott Peterson with killing Conor and not charge a "so called doctor" who just performed an abortion.

I'm not pro choice! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :headbang:

Those are both opinions.

true, but so is god (i'm a christian before you get pissed at me) so you can't use any religious or moral stuff k?

How can the State of California, or any other state, file charges for two murders against a person who kills a pregnant woman but not file charges against a person who kills a fetus? Friends, you can't have it both ways. You can't charge Scott Peterson with killing Conor and not charge a "so called doctor" who just performed an abortion.

Because those laws were put on the books specifically to cause that kind of scandal. They were introduced in a hope to give the pro-life side some kind of legal leverage in overturning Roe v. Wade.

the problem with "God's plan" is that if i decide that god wants me to kill 500 peopel, so i go around and knock off 17 before i get nailed, i can say well god wanted em dead, he didn't smite me (i love that word smite it just sounds cool) so he must have wanted them dead. You cant punish me for what god WANTED me to do. Also i know that is nnnot what u feel Chodolo your post was just convenient.
Wow. What a stutter.

The law can punish you for doing "what god wanted you to do" if it's against the law.

The problem with "God's plan" is that it should not be interpreted by man.

true, but so is god (i'm a christian before you get pissed at me) so you can't use any religious or moral stuff k?

I know, but an argument based on God not existing is just as irrelevant as an argument based on God existing.

Those are both opinions.

And so was everything in the first post of this thread.

I know, but an argument based on God not existing is just as irrelevant as an argument based on God existing.

The people who are against abortion use religious arguments 90%+ of the time, from personal experience. I feel that the only way to make them realize what theyre doing is imposing their views on others against the others will, is by shocking them into that. A radical statement that God doesnt exist works wonders there.

Er if she had had sex with her now departed husband 2 years before the rape would this be relevent....I'm not certain why virginity is an issue, there is no reason why she cant have had sex 1000's of times and still be certain that she became pregnant as a consequence of the rape referred to.
Because it fits with the virgin/slut dichotomy that some people have going on.

And everything is so much more emotive if it happens to a flaxen-haired, beautiful virgin...

ok well I know people who have used abortion as a 1st resources dear! so back off! You might not know anyone but there are people out there that do that kind of stuff! Bush wants it to be a last resources, good try though may next time Preebles

and just how is the child "your body" my I ask? honestly.

Sdaeriji is right one mans opinion can't govern evryones. Just because you choose not to have sexuntil your wedding night doesn't mean everyone else has to. That is the beauty of living in America.

I'm not pro choice! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! :headbang:
Sorry, but "I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE DOES!" = "Everyone can do what they choose."

never said I was waiting till marige, and what does that have to do with the fact abortion is killing, stick to the subject and stop with all the white noise

And so was everything in the first post of this thread.

I hate it when people try to impose their religious views on others. I have never seen any evidence of Gods existance, therefore, he doesnt exist for me. If you have seen evidence, lucky you, but its still no reason to impose your religious views on others.

Did you even read any of my previous posts? I completely agree with you. But legislation based on God not existing is just as biased and therefore irrelevant as an argument based on God existing. Both are opinions, and as such have no place in law.

i am adopted, so naturally i lean towards pro-life. but they are always exceptions. i think they are okay in cases of rape or serious health issues. and those only count for around 2% of abortions. i think for the other 98%, it was their mistake and they just need to suck it up for 9 months and give the baby up for adoption if they dont want it

and just how is the child "your body" my I ask? honestly.

Well, the fetus (not child) isnt the pregnant womans body, but the fetus is using her body to sustain itself and grow, basically like a parasite does. A woman should have the choice whether she wants to alow that fetus to use her body or not.

Sdaeriji is right one mans opinion can't govern evryones. Just because you choose not to have sexuntil your wedding night doesn't mean everyone else has to. That is the beauty of living in America.

I'm always right.:)

and just how is the child "your body" my I ask? honestly.
How is it not a part of my body? It contains part of my DNA and part of the father's. It is attached to me, intregral to me.

Well, the fetus (not child) isnt the pregnant womans body, but the fetus is using her body to sustain itself and grow, basically like a parasite does. A woman should have the choice whether she wants to alow that fetus to use her body or not.
then by that standard we are all parasites for we cannot live without using other life forms to keep us alive, so if I were to go kill some random person you think that is perfectly ok cuz I am killing a leech that is nothing more than an overgrown organism

ok well I know people who have used abortion as a 1st resources dear! so back off! You might not know anyone but there are people out there that do that kind of stuff! Bush wants it to be a last resources, good try though may next time Preebles

no bush wants it illegal under any circumstances whenever so good try maybe next time.

[I know, but an argument based on God not existing is just as irrelevant as an argument based on God existing.]

Sdaeriji in regard to the above argument, i am not using that as a pro-abortion argument. i am merely saying it is an impossibilty to prove god exists, so don't use it as an argument either way.

then by that standard we are all parasites for we cannot live without using other life forms to keep us alive, so if I were to go kill some random person you think that is perfectly ok cuz I am killing a leech that is nothing more than an overgrown organism

Incorrect.

ok well I know people who have used abortion as a 1st resources dear! so back off! You might not know anyone but there are people out there that do that kind of stuff! Bush wants it to be a last resources, good try though may next time Preebles

Ooh condescending, how I love that from someone with no grammar.
Fine, maybe I was a little too general. But I will say that those people are a definite minority. And besides, I don't know the circumstances. To say that their views/actions represent the pro-choice group as a whole is absurd.

And let's not get into what Bush wants... I've just done some snooping and apparently he's anti-abortion, with the usual exceptions; "an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother." He's for parental notification for minors. And he encourages adoption and abstinence. That's not last resort, that's restricting a woman's right to choose.

Read my stats on Thailand in another thread for why that's a bad idea.

then by that standard we are all parasites for we cannot live without using other life forms to keep us alive, so if I were to go kill some random person you think that is perfectly ok cuz I am killing a leech that is nothing more than an overgrown organism
Only if that person was one of your parents. :-)

Incorrect.
then prove me wrong ? how are we not parasites, we are killing the very earth we live on and kill out entire species all the time? don't just say incorrect, that is no response.

then by that standard we are all parasites for we cannot live without using other life forms to keep us alive, so if I were to go kill some random person you think that is perfectly ok cuz I am killing a leech that is nothing more than an overgrown organism

then by that standard we should nuke the whole world, cause we all rely on each other don't go there!

going along with some things that have been mentioned earlier, i think it's ok in some cases, although personally i tend to be more pro-life (if you were dumb enough to get pregnant, give the kid a chance) BUT, obviously rape victims are not DUMB. some would say that abortion is 'playing god.' i believe the only people who are 'playing god' are the people who argue that abortion is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong. i would like to see a staunch republican look girl who was raped by her father in the eye and tell her she has to have the child. on the same note, in less-extreme cases, i say try or at least put the kid up for adoption. but take it for what you will; you gotta do what you gotta do. and i have tremendous respect for women who DO have the child and put it up for adoption. but nobody asks to be raped.

then prove me wrong ? how are we not parasites, we are killing the very earth we live on and kill out entire species all the time? don't just say incorrect, that is no response.

The comparisson is just incorrect. The relationship between a fetus and the woman carrying it is completely and utterly different than the relationship between the human species and the planet Earth.

then by that standard we should nuke the whole world, cause we all rely on each other don't go there!

my piont, we do rely on each other, that does not make us a parasite . she says an infant is, a parasite chooses a host, but in this case the HOST choose the "parasite" as he/she calls it.

The comparisson is just incorrect. The relationship between a fetus and the woman carrying it is completely and utterly different than the relationship between the human species and the planet Earth.

give examples like I gave you ? wtf, don't just say something and not back it up
I can back up my args with facts , yet you have nothing
give me something to chew on, really, I understand the idea of right and wrong is very grey and many people have persuaded me to their view because of facts, but you are producing none, give me something to think about or don't bother with it

my piont, we do rely on each other, that does not make us a parasite . she says an infant is, a parasite chooses a host, but in this case the HOST choose the "parasite" as he/she calls it.

Since she wants to have an abortion, she clearly choose NOT to host the fetus.

Ooh condescending, how I love that from someone with no grammar.
Fine, maybe I was a little too general. But I will say that those people are a definite minority. And besides, I don't know the circumstances. To say that their views/actions represent the pro-choice group as a whole is absurd.

And let's not get into what Bush wants... I've just done some snooping and apparently he's anti-abortion, with the usual exceptions; "an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother." He's for parental notification for minors. And he encourages adoption and abstinence. That's not last resort, that's restricting a woman's right to choose.

Read my stats on Thailand in another thread for why that's a bad idea.

o0o well that was sweet of you saying that I'm dumb! but really if you lived down here we have more bright peeps than you'd think dear! anyways we're pretty much on the same page we just don't agree on one thing! plus those few peeps that use it as a first resourc are still people! all people count don't they? its like saying that you don't count!

give examples like I gave you ? wtf, don't just say something and not back it up
I can back up my args with facts , yet you have nothing
give me something to chew on, really, I understand the idea of right and wrong is very grey and many people have persuaded me to their view because of facts, but you are producing none, give me something to think about or don't bother with it

You honestly want me to explain the difference between mother-fetus relationships and the human species-planet relationship?

Do you think condoms interfeer with 'Gods' Plan? Why don't we outlaw those as well. And then any sort of birth control.

Haha, it is the womans right to choose if she wants to have a child or not. You should butt out of things you don't understand.

give examples like I gave you ? wtf, don't just say something and not back it up
I can back up my args with facts , yet you have nothing
give me something to chew on, really, I understand the idea of right and wrong is very grey and many people have persuaded me to their view because of facts, but you are producing none, give me something to think about or don't bother with it

Actually, judging by your parasite model, it is incorrect to say it's "ok" for us to nuke each other.

But, by all means, Earth is allowed to kick us all out :p

o0o yes and thank you for saying that I'm lower than you! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW Me! If you don't have anything nice to say than don't say anything at all!

Since she wants to have an abortion, she clearly choose NOT to host the fetus.
by allowing yourself to get pregnant you choose the fetus, if I lit a an M80 and held it in my hand, that is the same as choosing to loose my hand, sure I did not say, "today I think I will loose my hand" but because of my actions, I would have . that is called consequences. the happen in life. you choose to have sex , so by associative choice , you choose the fetus

You honestly want me to explain the difference between mother-fetus relationships and the human species-planet relationship?
give it a shot

my piont, we do rely on each other, that does not make us a parasite . she says an infant is, a parasite chooses a host, but in this case the HOST choose the "parasite" as he/she calls it.

rape?

by allowing yourself to get pregnant you choose the fetus, if I lit a an M80 and held it in my hand, that is the same as choosing to loose my hand, sure I did not say, "today I think I will loose my hand" but because of my actions, I would have . that is called consequences. the happen in life. you choose to have sex , so by associative choice , you choose the fetus

absolutely. take responsibility for your actions. unfortunately, from that you go right back to 'special cases' i.e. incest, rape. again, i have great respect for those who have the child, but at a certain point it's just unreasonable to ask a woman to have a child (in special cases that is)

give it a shot

Okay. The Earth is not a living organism. That's a difference. Shall I continue?

Actually, judging by your parasite model, it is incorrect to say it's "ok" for us to nuke each other.

But, by all means, Earth is allowed to kick us all out :p

not my model, never said nuke us, just using the words the other choose to debate with, we are parisites to the earth, we take and we do not give back, we ruin our land skys and water, and many other actions that destry this planet. we are parisites, most just don't know it cuz they are unwilling to admit the truth

on a good note, we dont ahve to be, we can be a symbiant if we choose to be and some are and my their God/Goddess/Diety bless them

absolutely. take responsibility for your actions. unfortunately, from that you go right back to 'special cases' i.e. incest, rape. again, i have great respect for those who have the child, but at a certain point it's just unreasonable to ask a woman to have a child (in special cases that is)
rape and medical issues is an even more touch subject and I have not decided yet on that :( I need more facts and arguments and hopefully this thread will give me new insite to both sides of the question

1) a woman does not have to be young or beautiful to get pregnent by rape;

2) abortion does keep the population down, among other things - or can you explain how it does not?

3) if we followed the Bible, fathers could sell their daughters to old men when they reached the age of 13; and

4) the Bible does not condemn abortion - or show me where it does? Not talking about plans that G-d made for Jeremiah before his birth, talking about condemning abortion.

Okay. The Earth is not a living organism. That's a difference. Shall I continue?
plants trees birds fish ? are these not alive, when I say earth I mean the entire collections of entities on this planet.

The comparisson is just incorrect. The relationship between a fetus and the woman carrying it is completely and utterly different than the relationship between the human species and the planet Earth.
Could you be more wrong?

The mother nutures the child, gives it form and nutrients to create its body. The earth nutures mankind, gives it form and nutrients to create its body.

plus those few peeps that use it as a first resourc are still people! all people count don't they? its like saying that you don't count!
Yes that's exactly what I was saying... [/sarcasm]

I simply mean that the fact that they are there should NOT justify a tightening of abortion laws, even if you don't like what they're doing. Besides, I doubt that people like that are even statistically significant.

If we want to reduce the number of abortions, we need better publicly funded contraception and better education.

And I was simply pointing out the irony of your condescension, rather than assuming that all southerners are dumb.

Going back to your "God has a plan" thing-


The Bible states that God grants us free will, correct?

So then how is God omniscient and knows our fate already, IF WE HAVE FREE WILL? If we have free will God cannot know what path we will chooose? How can there be a "master plan"?

God is outside of time; He can see what we will choose, and knows what we will choose—all while we still choose it.

rape and medical issues is an even more touch subject and I have not decided yet on that :( I need more facts and arguments and hopefully this thread will give me new insite to both sides of the question

you raise a good point which is; i don't think anyone will ever have enough facts to be 100% sure either way. i think someone earlier said like 2% of abortions are of rape/incest victims.

well I see that preebles will not rescpond so I must get going now! I am not lower than anyone here preebles! it makes me look like the higher person because I never made fun of you and I never said something about you, because I DON'T KNOW YOU! YOU SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT I'M DUMB! and you don't even know me! jeeve peeps theese days!

rape and medical issues is an even more touch subject and I have not decided yet on that :( I need more facts and arguments and hopefully this thread will give me new insite to both sides of the question

I'm going to give you my argument plain and simple, okay?

I don't like abortions. If the universe were run by me, they would be illegal. But I am of sound enough mind to realize that the universe is not run by me, and of sound enough mind to realize that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. Therefore, while I disapprove of abortions, I understand that some people do not disapprove. I know that I would not want to be prevented from doing something because someone else's morals disapprove of it. Therefore, I know that someone else does not want to be prevented from doing something because of my morals. That is why I think abortions should be legal, as well as gun ownership, marijuana use, gay marriage, prostitution, etc. etc. Because I recognize that not everyone shares the same opinions as I do, and I recognize that my opinions should not have any bearing on the decisions of someone who is not me.

Sdaeriji, no offense but you keep concentrating on what I am saying and saying how wrong it is, bring some of your own to the table, don't just say I am wrong and leave it at that, as immature as a blog debate like this tends to get, just saying someone else is wrong over and over without giving reasons and trying to pick out mundune details is not very mature, I would like to hear why you believe what you believe, then I can think about what you said and if what you said makes sense to me then it will have altered the why I think. You would progress much faster that way

by allowing yourself to get pregnant you choose the fetus, if I lit a an M80 and held it in my hand, that is the same as choosing to loose my hand, sure I did not say, "today I think I will loose my hand" but because of my actions, I would have . that is called consequences. the happen in life. you choose to have sex , so by associative choice , you choose the fetus
By allowing yourself to be on the road when a car comes careening around the corner, you choose to be run over....mmmm no I'm not buying.

well I see that preebles will not rescpond so I must get going now! I am not lower than anyone here preebles! it makes me look like the higher person because I never made fun of you and I never said something about you, because I DON'T KNOW YOU! YOU SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT I'M DUMB! and you don't even know me! jeeve peeps theese days!
I did respond.

But I guess I'm just a big meany. I'll get back to beating up little children now...

I'm going to give you my argument plain and simple, okay?

I don't like abortions. If the universe were run by me, they would be illegal. But I am of sound enough mind to realize that the universe is not run by me, and of sound enough mind to realize that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. Therefore, while I disapprove of abortions, I understand that some people do not disapprove. I know that I would not want to be prevented from doing something because someone else's morals disapprove of it. Therefore, I know that someone else does not want to be prevented from doing something because of my morals. That is why I think abortions should be legal, as well as gun ownership, marijuana use, gay marriage, prostitution, etc. etc. Because I recognize that not everyone shares the same opinions as I do, and I recognize that my opinions should not have any bearing on the decisions of someone who is not me.
ok sorry bout last post, I made it before seeing this but still there is no facts, I believe most of what you just said myself, but I am seriously trying to understand why women want abortions even though it is killing what would be a human, and thier own child at that

I am perfectly willing to give up the choice of abortion IF you can assure me that the baby and EVERY baby that is ever concieved once abortion is abolished that is born will immediately be adopted be a good caring loving family that will provide it a good and safe childhood. If you can not then you're telling me, according to your premise, God would rather I bring a life in this world to suffer in poverty and abuse or be bounced from one orphanage to another and thereby emotionally and mentally scarred for life than mercilessly stop life before it begins as a fetus.

Also, according to your premise if God has a reason for everything occuring then God has as much reason to make a woman pregnant as he/she does to give that woman an instrument whereby she might end the pregnancy, namely abortion. Abortion would not exist if there was no reason for it to right? And since God is the source of all reason, God has a reason for the existence and use or abortions.

Oh. BTW. What God?

By allowing yourself to be on the road when a car comes careening around the corner, you choose to be run over....mmmm no I'm not buying.
by choosing to live you have choosen to die, period, with life comes death, with sex comes babies. action/consequence. that is how life works

Okay. The Earth is not a living organism. That's a difference. Shall I continue?
The Earth, through the entire evolutionary span of life on this planet, emulates a living organism.

God is outside of time; He can see what we will choose, and knows what we will choose—all while we still choose it.


We're still choosing? If we were truly choosing, we could choose a choice outside of god's will. If we choose one choice, but suddenly decide to choose another, that's god's will. You can't do anything besides that. If you choose once, then change your mind, twice, that's god's will. He knows exactly what will happen and already mapped out your life. You may be choosing, but god has really chosen for you already.

Just to clarify for those who still don't get it.

ok sorry bout last post, I made it before seeing this but still there is no facts, I believe most of what you just said myself, but I am seriously trying to understand why women want abortions even though it is killing what would be a human, and thier own child at that

Because they do not see it the same way as you. They don't see anything wrong with destroying what basically amounts to a grouping of cells. They do not view a fetus as a human being, and therefore find no moral quandry in destroying it. It all comes down to how you percieve things.

ok sorry bout last post, I made it before seeing this but still there is no facts, I believe most of what you just said myself, but I am seriously trying to understand why women want abortions even though it is killing what would be a human, and thier own child at that

i think women want abortions because, at a certain point, they realize that having a child will drastically affect their lifestyle. and if the woman is a rape victim, living in less-than-ideal conditions, bringing another hungry mouth into the world is the equivalent of throwing away her own life.

So far no one seems to have pointed out a major flaw in the pro 'life'rs argument. They seem to think that adoption is a really this great alternative, where children are sent around the child welfare system into various homes, where they are not liked aswell as biological children, and in many families are abused. That is when they are 'lucky' enough to find homes. For any baby that isnt white the chance of being adopted is basically none, so they spend a good part of their early life with no parents, growing up to become something of a freudian nightmare. The reason why babies get adopted a lot from impovershed or war torn countries oversea is because it is trendy, and makes the people adopting feel warm and fuzzy inside because they helped out a poor starving child, who may have in fact been stolen from his/hers parents. Adoption is not the rosy alternative to abortion that it is painted to be by pro 'life'rs.

[/tirade]

I am perfectly willing to give up the choice of abortion IF you can assure me that the baby and EVERY baby that is ever concieved once abortion is abolished that is born will immediately be adopted be a good caring loving family that will provide it a good and safe childhood. If you can not then you're telling me, according to your premise, God would rather I bring a life in this world to suffer in poverty and abuse or be bounced from one orphanage to another and thereby emotionally and mentally scarred for life than mercilessly stop life before it begins as a fetus.

Also, according to your premise if God has a reason for everything occuring then God has as much reason to make a woman pregnant as he/she does to give that woman an instrument whereby she might end the pregnancy, namely abortion. Abortion would not exist if there was no reason for it to right? And since God is the source of all reason, God has a reason for the existence and use or abortions.

Oh. BTW. What God?
good answer to the religious stuff :) , I respect relegion but I don't want them telling me how I have to believe.

by choosing to live you have choosen to die, period, with life comes death, with sex comes babies. action/consequence. that is how life works

So by stressing choice, you support abortion in the case of rape?

plants trees birds fish ? are these not alive, when I say earth I mean the entire collections of entities on this planet.

so a lion eating an antelope is parasitical? just curious are you a male, i bet u are, if you were raped (as a woman) i wonder what your opinion would be.

Because they do not see it the same way as you. They don't see anything wrong with destroying what basically amounts to a grouping of cells. They do not view a fetus as a human being, and therefore find no moral quandry in destroying it. It all comes down to how you percieve things.
if women can abort without moral effect then why can man not have his war without women crying, now I don't like war, but if I could choose how I died it would be fighting for something I believe in. that to me is one of the few good things that come out of war, the choice to die a believer in something as opposed to live a believer in nothing

I think that most pro-lifers stop giving a rat's ass about the baby once it's born. That's where their concern and feeling of moral obligation end. As long as it's born alive, they're satisfied. No matter that the baby is going to grow up being abused or starved or raised by scary religious cultists. Once it's born, nobody gives a shit.

THAT is the kind of hypocrisy I have no time for. It's like the feminists who don't care what any other woman in the world has, so long as she gets her privileges and perks.

So far no one seems to have pointed out a major flaw in the pro 'life'rs argument. They seem to think that adoption is a really this great alternative, where children are sent around the child welfare system into various homes, where they are not liked aswell as biological children, and in many families are abused. That is when they are 'lucky' enough to find homes. For any baby that isnt white the chance of being adopted is basically none, so they spend a good part of their early life with no parents, growing up to become something of a freudian nightmare. The reason why babies get adopted a lot from impovershed or war torn countries oversea is because it is trendy, and makes the people adopting feel warm and fuzzy inside because they helped out a poor starving child, who may have in fact been stolen from his/hers parents. Adoption is not the rosy alternative to abortion that it is painted to be by pro 'life'rs.

[/tirade]

good point, but then again, who are we to decide whether that child has a right to live or die? that really is playing god. maybe i'm still undecided, but to me saying 'o i don't think you would've had that great of a life anyway, so i'll spare you the misery' just seems wrong on some level.

so a lion eating an antelope is parasitical? just curious are you a male, i bet u are, if you were raped (as a woman) i wonder what your opinion would be.
I am a male , and my sister was raped, and if you read my previous posts, you would realize I have not made up my mind on rape and medical victims. and my mind can almost always be changed about anything else too, I am here looking for womens side of it but mostly I am getting the run around. no facts , just people crying that they want a license to kill.

if women can abort without moral effect then why can man not have his war without women crying, now I don't like war, but if I could choose how I died it would be fighting for something I believe in. that to me is one of the few good things that come out of war, the choice to die a believer in something as opposed to live a believer in nothing

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please rephrase.

So far no one seems to have pointed out a major flaw in the pro 'life'rs argument. They seem to think that adoption is a really this great alternative, where children are sent around the child welfare system into various homes, where they are not liked aswell as biological children, and in many families are abused. That is when they are 'lucky' enough to find homes. For any baby that isnt white the chance of being adopted is basically none, so they spend a good part of their early life with no parents, growing up to become something of a freudian nightmare. The reason why babies get adopted a lot from impovershed or war torn countries oversea is because it is trendy, and makes the people adopting feel warm and fuzzy inside because they helped out a poor starving child, who may have in fact been stolen from his/hers parents. Adoption is not the rosy alternative to abortion that it is painted to be by pro 'life'rs.

[/tirade]

good for physcoligist tho? huh helps some people muahahahahahah. jk

Women's right to choose, Dang right, right to choose if she wanted to have sex or not. REFUTE THAT! But, in rape and the mothers health, totally different story. Although I am totally against abortion, I believe that banning abortion would cause a "black market" for abortions which would be unsafe, unprotected by law, and so forth. If a woman has sex she should have to face the consquences if there is a baby, she doesn't want one don't have sex simple as that, but as a Christian my view is that you cant force somebody into Christian values, it is ones own choice to choose if they want to live a Christian life, those that choose to have sex and don't want to face the consquence of a baby is their own choice shamefully and are murders in my view, but not the law.

I am a male , and my sister was raped, and if you read my previous posts, you would realize I have not made up my mind on rape and medical victims. and my mind can almost always be changed about anything else too, I am here looking for womens side of it but mostly I am getting the run around. no facts , just people crying that they want a license to kill.

No one has said they want a license to kill, do not insinuate that all pro-choicers are simply interested in cruelly slaughtering innocent children-to-be. It's about choice.

Women's right to choose, Dang right, right to choose if she wanted to have sex or not. REFUTE THAT! But, in rape and the mothers health, totally different story. Although I am totally against abortion, I believe that banning abortion would cause a "black market" for abortions which would be unsafe, unprotected by law, and so forth. If a woman has sex she should have to face the consquences if there is a baby, she doesn't want one don't have sex simple as that, but as a Christian my view is that you cant force somebody into Christian values, it is ones own choice to choose if they want to live a Christian life, those that choose to have sex and don't want to face the consquence of a baby is their own choice shamefully and are murders in my view, but not the law.

You do not have the right to force her to do anything.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please rephrase.
when men go to war, women more than guys protest the war, you can have 100,000 people truely ready to die for something they believe in and the women protest and march against it because their son or husband might die. most women care what a grown man does with his life but she couldn't care less about her unborn child, I find something wrong with that.

Women's right to choose, Dang right, right to choose if she wanted to have sex or not. REFUTE THAT! But, in rape and the mothers health, totally different story. Although I am totally against abortion, I believe that banning abortion would cause a "black market" for abortions which would be unsafe, unprotected by law, and so forth. If a woman has sex she should have to face the consquences if there is a baby, she doesn't want one don't have sex simple as that, but as a Christian my view is that you cant force somebody into Christian values, it is ones own choice to choose if they want to live a Christian life, those that choose to have sex and don't want to face the consquence of a baby is their own choice shamefully and are murders in my view, but not the law.

that's exactly why religion should be left out of abortion. different religions dictate different outcomes of different scenarios. abortion is a universal issue, while religions are not universal, in the sense that they encompass everyone. it is not possible to say that, o, islamic women should follow abortion rules made by the catholic church. that's just unrealistic.

when men go to war, women more than guys protest the war, you can have 100,000 people truely ready to die for something they believe in and the women protest and march against it because their son or husband might die. most women care what a grown man does with his life but she couldn't care less about her unborn child, I find something wrong with that.

Because more than likely they care a great deal about the man and do not want to see him die. The fetus is something that they have no emotional attachement to.

And as an aside, women also go to war and men also protest against a war.

when men go to war, women more than guys protest the war, you can have 100,000 people truely ready to die for something they believe in and the women protest and march against it because their son or husband might die. most women care what a grown man does with his life but she couldn't care less about her unborn child, I find something wrong with that.

Ummmm, you just said "son". I'd say that it would indicate that the women you're talking about didn't have an abortion, and they cared what happened to the baby too.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion.
Why the plural? Multiple people writing this, or some such?

Now, some people disagree with abortion but think that it’s ok under certain circumstances. An example of one of those circumstances is...a young and beautiful woman is walking down a dark alley at night and a group of guys jumps her and they rape her. A little while later she begins to notice changes in her body so she takes a home pregnancy test and it turns out positive. She hasn’t had sex with anyone at all except when those guys raped her. So it is obvious how she got pregnant. Now she has to make the decision weather to carry this baby and raise it when it is born or to have it slaughtered by doctors... that is one possible scenario that could very easily happen. Many people would say that she should have the right to kill that baby because of how it got there. But what those people don’t see is that this is a human life we are talking about. You don’t just pick and choose when and how you end another life.
Whether this is a human life or not depends upon one's definition of "life". If one defines "life" as anything that is alive, then the embryo wouldn't be life for a while after conception.

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason.
However, not everyone is Christian, and this country was not founded on Christianity1.

What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource?
What if the new child being carried by the woman was supposed to be the next Hitler, or something? What-ifs are infinite.

If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life?
Or, she could be saving the world. Chance is probably about equal.

Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick whether he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?[/qupte]
It's unfortunate that the child doesn't get a choice in everything. However, at that point, the child probably isn't developed enough to have a brain, so, it probably couldn't answer anyway.

[quote]Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do.
Care to offer a reason why they don't keep population down? One or two-child families are probably the most preferable, and abortion helps toward that.

If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.
Yeah, but the abortion system is cruel, and often leaves kids in poor conditions. Plus, there's still the whole Population thing.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.
Well, not everyone is a Christian, as previously mentioned. Furthermore, the majority of pregnancies are not, as you say, teen pregnancies.

1: See; Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.

Because more than likely they care a great deal about the man and do not want to see him die. The fetus is something that they have no emotional attachement to.

And as an aside, women also go to war and men also protest against a war.
you ever had an abortion, women say they have not emotional attachment to the fetus, till they have it done, then they go thru life wondering, and it tears them up

you ever had an abortion, women say they have not emotional attachment to the fetus, till they have it done, then they go thru life wondering, and it tears them up

Yeah, I know. One of my ex-girlfriends was raped and impregnated by an ex-boyfriend (not me) and had it aborted. Now she regrets it deeply. I personally think it's better that she didn't have the child, but that's irrelevant.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to stress is that women should have that choice available if they so desire. If they choose not to use it, then more power to them. But the choice should remain.

Most of your people are pretty stupid. I didn't bother reading most of this thread because I've heard it all before. CNN, church, the street, whatever.

Separation of church and state, when it comes to people saying God is against abortion or whatever garbage you're spewing now. If a Christian woman is given the choice of abortion, she can do whatever she wants. You people are acting as though they are forced to have abortions! :rolleyes:

Women are given the ability to bear new life, yes, and it should be their choice to use this ability. Getting an abortion is not a walk in the park, mind you. A smart woman will use contraceptives and do whatever necessary to make sure they do not get pregnant. It was also their choice to use contraceptives, wasn't it? Is that killing a child, too? Preventing it from ever existing? Abortion is a tough choice to make. Women don't get pregnant just to have abortions. Women will have regrets too, even if their choice is clear.

Rape victims and people who simply cannot have a baby at this time (financial, age-wise, or whatever) should be allowed abortions without question.

Yeah, I know. One of my ex-girlfriends was raped and impregnated by an ex-boyfriend (not me) and had it aborted. Now she regrets it deeply. I personally think it's better that she didn't have the child, but that's irrelevant.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to stress is that women should have that choice available if they so desire. If they choose not to use it, then more power to them. But the choice should remain.
ok, here is the most important question of them all, if the male wants the kid and is willing to take full custody and be fully financially responsible, should the female be able to have an abortion ? not to get off key, but I am going to bed very shortly and I just want the asnwer to this.

Yeah, I know. One of my ex-girlfriends was raped and impregnated by an ex-boyfriend (not me) and had it aborted. Now she regrets it deeply. I personally think it's better that she didn't have the child, but that's irrelevant.

Anyway, that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to stress is that women should have that choice available if they so desire. If they choose not to use it, then more power to them. But the choice should remain.

i agree, but i think the choice should remain in cases of rape, incest, etc. a girl beaten and raped by her father is not the same as a girl who got drunk and had sex at prom.

good point, but then again, who are we to decide whether that child has a right to live or die? that really is playing god. maybe i'm still undecided, but to me saying 'o i don't think you would've had that great of a life anyway, so i'll spare you the misery' just seems wrong on some level.

I'm an athiest, so the whole 'who are we to play god' isn't really a valid point for me, I am of the mind that a pregnancy should only be carried through if the child is actually wanted. I think that it does not really become a real person until it can actually stand some kind of chance of survival outside the womb, so it is up to the mother, preferably with the agreement of the father aswell wether they want to carry the fetus until it grows into a person, or abort it before it gets to that stage.

ok, here is the most important question of them all, if the male wants the kid and is willing to take full custody and be fully financially responsible, should the female be able to have an abortion ? not to get off key, but I am going to bed very shortly and I just want the asnwer to this.

Have you ever given birth to a child?

If a husband and wife have sex and the guy doesn't want a baby but they do have one and the wife wants it the guy is stuck with it, but what if the guy wants the baby and the wife gets it aborted it is both the man and husbands DNA make up how is that fair to the guy??? Also only living things grow, dead things don't, a fetus grows and grows, that means its living Case closed good night.

ok, here is the most important question of them all, if the male wants the kid and is willing to take full custody and be fully financially responsible, should the female be able to have an abortion ? not to get off key, but I am going to bed very shortly and I just want the asnwer to this.

No, in the end it is her body and her choice. She's the one that's going to have to deal with it for 9 months; the final choice should reside with her. If she totally disregards the father's opinion, then that is a matter between the two of them, and I would say that's pretty selfish, but in the end, it is her body and her choice.

If a husband and wife have sex and the guy doesn't want a baby but they do have one and the wife wants it the guy is stuck with it, but what if the guy wants the baby and the wife gets it aborted it is both the man and husbands DNA make up how is that fair to the guy??? Also only living things grow, dead things don't, a fetus grows and grows, that means its living Case closed good night.

Why should anyone dispute whether a fetus is alive or not? Yes, it is alive. The individual haploid cells are alive. (Hey, is masturbation also considered killing a child?)

If a husband and wife have sex and the guy doesn't want a baby but they do have one and the wife wants it the guy is stuck with it, but what if the guy wants the baby and the wife gets it aborted it is both the man and husbands DNA make up how is that fair to the guy??? Also only living things grow, dead things don't, a fetus grows and grows, that means its living Case closed good night.

No one is disagreeing that a fetus is alive. The dissention is whether or not it is human life.

Have you ever given birth to a child?
no, I don't screw anything on two legs, in fact I have abstained for over 24 years now, not saving it for marraige, I am just using my head, if I don't want to have a kid I cannot afford then I don't have sex or at least use two forms of protection if I did, it is called making a choice, I have chosen not to have to get myself into the situation. all for the childs sake, you don't think I want to get the freak on ? holy hell I gotta be the horniest person in the world, but for my kid, I could do anything . even not have sex till I am ready for him.

Going back to your "God has a plan" thing-


The Bible states that God grants us free will, correct?

So then how is God omniscient and knows our fate already, IF WE HAVE FREE WILL? If we have free will God cannot know what path we will chooose? How can there be a "master plan"?

As I understand it, God has given us free will, but He knows what we will do anyways, He allows us to choose, but He knows what we will pick.

I can say in confidence that at least 80% of the people who desire an abortion are not fit to be parents anyway, and even if the child is put up for adoption, there aren't enough children being adopted yearly for every child to find a good home. So basically we'll have children rotting in orphanages, eating up tax dollars, and likely becoming a duplicate of their messed up parents. Lovely. I believe the way a child grows is both nature and nurture, and a child coming from parents such as those 80%, being either raised by those parents, or sitting in an orphanage that isn't getting nearly enough funding, isn't going to develop into a functional member of society. If they great adopted, wonderful. But we've got to be realistic here. Too many are not being adopted. Yes, I'll agree that the number of abortions would decline dramatically if people waited until marriage to have sex, but again: Think realistically. It ain't gonna happen.

I'm an athiest, so the whole 'who are we to play god' isn't really a valid point for me, I am of the mind that a pregnancy should only be carried through if the child is actually wanted. I think that it does not really become a real person until it can actually stand some kind of chance of survival outside the womb, so it is up to the mother, preferably with the agreement of the father aswell wether they want to carry the fetus until it grows into a person, or abort it before it gets to that stage.

ok fair enough, but if teenagers are having sex and it results in a pregnancy, then is it ok to have an abortion just because they 'didn't want' the kid? cuz if so then they 'shouldn't' have 'had sex.'

If a husband and wife have sex and the guy doesn't want a baby but they do have one and the wife wants it the guy is stuck with it, but what if the guy wants the baby and the wife gets it aborted it is both the man and husbands DNA make up how is that fair to the guy??? Also only living things grow, dead things don't, a fetus grows and grows, that means its living Case closed good night.

Lots of things grow while dead you arrogant prick. Did you know when you die your hair and nails still grow? Does that make you still alive? If it's living, then shoot it out of the womb and see if the little pile of cells can move around, or even survive?

Here, here!

Infanticide is wrong; I do not care how you sugarcoat it. A woman's "right to choose" or "the government can't tell me what I can do with my body" are just excuses. And they would not stick up in the court of law if I decided to go kill people that could possibly defend themselves. Imagine someone pleads not guilty in a murder case because the government can't tell me what I can do with my bare hands or I have a constitutional right to kill people with impunity. Ridiculous.

no, I don't screw anything on two legs, in fact I have abstained for over 24 years now, not saving it for marraige, I am just using my head, if I don't want to have a kid I cannot afford then I don't have sex or at least use two forms of protection if I did, it is called making a choice, I have chosen not to have to get myself into the situation. all for the childs sake, you don't think I want to get the freak on ? holy hell I gotta be the horniest person in the world, but for my kid, I could do anything . even not have sex till I am ready for him.

I didn't ask you for a personal account of your sex life, thanks. So, you can make a choice, but a pregnant woman can't? Heheh. Do you think a woman who truly does not want to have a baby wants to get into a situtation where she is forced to choose between having an unwanted child or getting an abortion?

Here, here!

Infanticide is wrong; I do not care how you sugarcoat it. A woman's "right to choose" or "the government can't tell me what I can do with my body" are just excuses. And they would not stick up in the court of law if I decided to go kill people that could possibly defend themselves. Imagine someone pleads not guilty in a murder case because the government can't tell me what I can do with my bare hands or I have a constitutional right to kill people with impunity. Ridiculous.


It's not "infanticide," thanks. A fetus is not an infant. It cannot survive on its own. It is an extension of the mother. Would you get all up in arms if a woman cut off her toe?

Excuses for WHAT, exactly? "Oh, I'm going to get pregnant so I can have the THRILL of having a vacuum shoved up my vagina to suck out the fetus growing in my uterus! That makes me HOT."

You know, if I got pregnant right now, it would be a disaster. I'm in my late 20's, and I have too many responsibilities and stresses and expenses to count, and adding a child to the stress level would make it almost impossible. Forget about how much I love babies, I'd have to make a decision. It would be one of the hardest decisions of my life, because I'd have to think about what would happen if I ended up pregnant and going to work, and what would I do when I started to show? What would my work make of it if I'm pregnant all the way through, and then no baby, because I gave it up for adoption. Would I still have a job? My work is a christian organization. I could have an abortion, and nobody would be the wiser but me, even if it were not a choice I'd like to make. I could keep the baby, and life would get very hard for me, and there would be a risk of the baby knowing that sometimes I resented it, instead of loving my baby with all of my heart, which I would be able to do in better circumstances.

I do my best not to get pregnant, I'm monogamous, I use birth control, but sometimes the odds make you that one in 100, or even one in a million.

THAT is the kind of thing running through a woman's mind when she thinks it over. It's not just, "I'm pregnant, I've got to get an abortion!", a snap decision. It's more a matter of, "well, I could ruin one life, or I could ruin two. One of which before it even had a chance."

Here, here!

Infanticide is wrong; I do not care how you sugarcoat it. A woman's "right to choose" or "the government can't tell me what I can do with my body" are just excuses. And they would not stick up in the court of law if I decided to go kill people that could possibly defend themselves. Imagine someone pleads not guilty in a murder case because the government can't tell me what I can do with my bare hands or I have a constitutional right to kill people with impunity. Ridiculous.

You do not have any right to kill someone else. The dissent is whether or not a fetus qualifies as a human being, and is therefore subject to the laws this nation has against murder.

I didn't ask you for a personal account of your sex life, thanks. So, you can make a choice, but a pregnant woman can't? Heheh. Do you think a woman who truly does not want to have a baby wants to get into a situtation where she is forced to choose between having an unwanted child or getting an abortion?
you missed the point, she did have a choice, she had sex, and a fetus was the consequence, I was not just giving a rundown of my sex life, I was making a point. I have chosen to not have a kid till I am ready, so why can the women not make the same choice ? is she incapible of saying no to sex ? honestly , just say no.

Actuall its dead sclap deteriating, but thats beside the point [QUOTE=Harbour Terrace] you arrogant prick[QUOTE]
just kidding, but thanks for being civil.
Oh and refute the 1st part of my claim, you got me on the last part of yours I admit it. But please be more respectful. Thanks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbour Terrace
I'm an athiest, so the whole 'who are we to play god' isn't really a valid point for me, I am of the mind that a pregnancy should only be carried through if the child is actually wanted. I think that it does not really become a real person until it can actually stand some kind of chance of survival outside the womb, so it is up to the mother, preferably with the agreement of the father aswell wether they want to carry the fetus until it grows into a person, or abort it before it gets to that stage.


ok fair enough, but if teenagers are having sex and it results in a pregnancy, then is it ok to have an abortion just because they 'didn't want' the kid?

I think the abortion is still warranted, as an unwanted child should never be brought into the world. The side effects of the abortion would definitely help the girl to learn her lesson, but I think there should also be education about contraception (i am personally stunned that america no longer teaches about anything other than abstinence) and also an availability of contraception so that it is used.

I'm seeing the same arguments fly around on this thread as I see on any other thread concerning abortion.

Let me present my thesis.

The first sentence of each point is a summary of the sentence(s) after it.

1. According to my belief, life begins at conception.

Conception is the most logical time to define life beginning. Until conception, the life is split, and does not grow. After conception, the life begins to grow and develop.

2. The right to choose stops being an inherit right when a choice limits the free will of another being.

The only truly necessary limitations to free will are those that prevent the free will of one from negating the free will of another.

3. Abortion is fundamentally wrong.

Since life begins at conception, abortion is ending a life. Since ending a life without permission is infringing on the free will of the being whose life is being ended, ending a life is wrong. Therefore, abortion is fundamentally wrong.

4. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Amending a bad thing with a bad thing (yes, I am equating wrong with bad) is a bad thing. If you were to actually fight fire with fire, you would only end up with a larger fire. Yes, I am saying that you cannot justify abortion, even in the case of rape.

5. A developing child is not one of the mother's organs.

A developing child does not contain the same DNA as the mother. The mothers organs do.

I know that thesis of life beginning at conception is debatable. I ask that you not dismiss my argument on the grounds that it is built on the belief that life begins at conception. To be fair, I will look for material supporting either this thesis or the thesis that life begins at birth. Basically, this argument is to show that, if life begins at conception, abortion is wrong in all instances.

you missed the point, she did have a choice, she had sex, and a fetus was the consequence, I was not just giving a rundown of my sex life, I was making a point. I have chosen to not have a kid till I am ready, so why can the women not make the same choice ? is she incapible of saying no to sex ? honestly , just say no.

A person can have sex and not have a child, you realize. Sex =/= conceiving. I can have sex and still not aim to have a child.

If a husband and wife have sex and the guy doesn't want a baby but they do have one and the wife wants it the guy is stuck with it, but what if the guy wants the baby and the wife gets it aborted it is both the man and husbands DNA make up how is that fair to the guy??? Also only living things grow, dead things don't, a fetus grows and grows, that means its living Case closed good night.
Yet, it doesn't grow unassisted. Lots of things grow assisted, and we don't generally classify them as being alive.

As for your Husband-and-Wife thing, the wife is the one who would bear most of the pain and such from the birth.

I have noticed that many people completely opposed to abortion and, for that matter, stem cell research are for the war in Iraq. I am in no way saying that these reflect the views of the original poster. I just wanted to state a question. What makes killing the unborn wrong and killing walking, talking, breathing children in Iraq?

A person can have sex and not have a child, you realize. Sex =/= conceiving. I can have sex and still not aim to have a child.
I can drive drunk and not aim to kill a pedestrian but if I do should I walk away free ?

Women will never secure their right to their own bodies until they give the "right to choose" to men as well. For example: if a child is conceived, and the man wants no part of raising, or even knowing, that child, he does not have that right. The man will be forced by the courts to "take responsibility" for the well-being (especially financial well-being) of the child by being required to provide child support payments at the very least, in some cases even making additional payments to the mother that amount to little more than welfare.

A man has no right to "choose." A man cannot say, "I wish to have no part of that child's life," and give up all rights and resposibilities. The man is at the mercy of the woman; if she wants to bear the child, he will have to take responsibility, period. This is not so w/ the woman. Even if the man wants the child, if the woman chooses to end the pregnancy, then it is so--tough sh*t, daddy.

Until the man is given the right to choose, then a woman's right is not secure as, regardless of morality, there is a double standard. Strangely, those who cry loudest for a woman's right to choose also seem to cry loudest for male responsibility--it seems they want their cake and to eat it too. I say, if a MAN does not have the right to choose, then neither should the WOMAN. If a MAN has to bear resposibilty for a lifetime for his "5-minutes of fun," then so should the woman, end of story.

By the way, I am a democrate, liberal, left-wing, pro-marijuana, pro right-to-die, voted for Kerry but wished it was Dean, Grateful Dead listening, magic mushroom eating Oregonian who strongly believes in a woman's right to choose--I just believe that a MAN should have that right as well.

I have noticed that many people completely opposed to abortion and, for that matter, stem cell research are for the war in Iraq. I am in no way saying that these reflect the views of the original poster. I just wanted to state a question. What makes killing the unborn wrong and killing walking, talking, breathing children in Iraq?

A very good point. I too would like someone to explain the logic behind this.

I can drive drunk and not aim to kill a pedestrian but if I do should I walk away free ?

That's such a crap analogy. How about you go to a party and have a great time, but unfortunately run into your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend and they start stalking you.

Women will never secure their right to their own bodies until they give the "right to choose" to men as well. For example: if a child is conceived, and the man wants no part of raising, or even knowing, that child, he does not have that right. The man will be forced by the courts to "take responsibility" for the well-being (especially financial well-being) of the child by being required to provide child support payments at the very least, in some cases even making additional payments to the mother that amount to little more than welfare.

A man has no right to "choose." A man cannot say, "I wish to have no part of that child's life," and give up all rights and resposibilities. The man is at the mercy of the woman; if she wants to bear the child, he will have to take responsibility, period. This is not so w/ the woman. Even if the man wants the child, if the woman chooses to end the pregnancy, then it is so--tough sh*t, daddy.

Until the man is given the right to choose, then a woman's right is not secure as, regardless of morality, there is a double standard. Strangely, those who cry loudest for a woman's right to choose also seem to cry loudest for male responsibility--it seems they want their cake and to eat it too. I say, if a MAN does not have the right to choose, then neither should the WOMAN. If a MAN has to bear resposibilty for a lifetime for his "5-minutes of fun," then so should the woman, end of story.

By the way, I am a democrate, liberal, left-wing, pro-marijuana, pro right-to-die, voted for Kerry but wished it was Dean, Grateful Dead listening, magic mushroom eating Oregonian who strongly believes in a woman's right to choose--I just believe that a MAN should have that right as well.

But then you get into the sticky situation when the man and woman involved disagree. Who's right to choose is greater?

I think it was better when abortion was on a "need to know" basis. For thousands of years it was this way, and there was no abortion controversy.

Then men found out, and you can bet they'd yell, because for thousands of years they didn't even have to work to raise the babies, let alone go through pregnancy and childbirth. All the fathers had to do was contribute a little sperm and love or hate the baby that resulted.

Maybe there's a compromise. Maybe we should hand the baby off to the father to raise on his own, the day it's born. Then we'll see what happens and how they feel about it.

But then you get into the sticky situation when the man and woman involved disagree. Who's right to choose is greater?

The woman.

That's such a crap analogy. How about you go to a party and have a great time, but unfortunately run into your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend and they start stalking you.
how is it bad, they both involve bad decisions, death of an inocent and the killer going free, seems right on to me, maybe you should have been aborted ? thank goodnes for you your parents did not think so.

I think the abortion is still warranted, as an unwanted child should never be brought into the world. The side effects of the abortion would definitely help the girl to learn her lesson, but I think there should also be education about contraception (i am personally stunned that america no longer teaches about anything other than abstinence) and also an availability of contraception so that it is used.

i agree that america is pretty bad about providing contraception. i've heard that the pill is much more widely available in other countries and that probably contributes to our astronomical teen pregnancy rate. however, as a high schooler i have been taught about abstinence as well as contraception, so there is at least some effort out there.

a child should never be aborted just to 'teach someone a lesson.' and again in the case of the teenager who manages to get pregnant under no special circumstances, tough. yeah, it's unrealistic to preach abstinence to a bunch of horny teens (i am one), so maybe the problem does lie with americas' education. but the abortion of a fetus is not something to be taken lightly. you can't just say 'whoops, won't do that again' and forget about it. there's lasting effects.

how is it bad, they both involve bad decisions, death of an inocent and the killer going free, seems right on to me, maybe you should have been aborted ? thank goodnes for you your parents did not think so.


Since when is having sex a bad decision?

And believe me, I could have been aborted. I was born to a single mother, and a father who had run away upon my birth. He didn't pay child support, and I didn't even meet him, until I was six years old. I respect my mother for the decision she made, had it gone another way I wouldn't be here hating her, now would I? I was in my mother's care, it was her choice.

Actuall its dead sclap deteriating, but thats beside the point [QUOTE=Harbour Terrace] you arrogant prick[QUOTE]
just kidding, but thanks for being civil.
Oh and refute the 1st part of my claim, you got me on the last part of yours I admit it. But please be more respectful. Thanks

Sorry about calling you an arrogant prick, but for whatever reason the post made me angry, so i vented. The solution to the first part? Well, for the first half of the first part, if the woman wants to keep it, but the guy doesn't, he should be able to get legal separation from it, and effectively the child is not his, he has no parental rights, but then it doesn't cost him any money. For the second part, i say that guy basically has to deal with it, unless he could find some way of growing the fetus in a surrogate womb or something like that. He's not the one who has to deal with nine months of pregnancy and the side effects, so he shouldnt be able to force the woman to do it.

If the man doesn't want to be part of the child's life, and gives up ALL rights, then he can "walk away." If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, then she would not be required to bear it. This is the same as it is right now, its just that the man ALSO gets the right to choose.

Since when is having sex a bad decision?

And believe me, I could have been aborted. I was born to a single mother, and a father who had run away upon my birth. He didn't pay child support, and I didn't even meet him, until I was six years old. I respect my mother for the decision she made, had it gone another way I wouldn't be here hating her, now would I? I was in my mother's care, it was her choice.
I never said sex was a bad decision, just use birthcontrol/condoms and good judgement. read my previos post before you assume shit please

If the man doesn't want to be part of the child's life, and gives up ALL rights, then he can "walk away." If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, then she would not be required to bear it. This is the same as it is right now, its just that the man ALSO gets the right to choose.

Nope, I think we should give the pro-life people their way. One modification, that the baby that is not wanted by the mother should be handed over to the father. No ifs, no buts. It's just handed over to him to raise. I'd like to see all of these men and their horror at the prospect of having to take responsibility for that life they insist should live, because I have a suspicion that they'd become a bunch of formerly pro-life, pro-choice hypocrits as soon as they found that baby in a basket on their front step.

Nope, I think we should give the pro-life people their way. One modification, that the baby that is not wanted by the mother should be handed over to the father. No ifs, no buts. It's just handed over to him to raise. I'd like to see all of these men and their horror at the prospect of having to take responsibility for that life they insist should live, because I have a suspicion that they'd become a bunch of formerly pro-life, pro-choice hypocrits as soon as they found that baby in a basket on their front step.

dam, good point. wow. hehe , this is what I like , a different view :)

Ok lets just stop for a second here and think about what's being said.
To some people (myself included) abortion is a horrible thing. To kill an innocent life before it has barely been given the chance to live is just unthinkable in my mind.
But as non-believer of abortion I can also see this from a believers point of veiw.
One reason believers give is in the case of rape.
Well here goes nothing. Not that long ago, I myself was raped. I was a virgin at the time and afterwards all i could think about was whether or not I was pregnant (I recently found out I'm not, thank god, but that's abit off the topic). You see, for the few weeks where I didn't know, all sorts of thoughts ran through my head and one of these included abortion. Could I really raise a child concieved through such a horrid act? Luckily for me, I didn't have to make that decision, but others aren't as fortuante as myself. Had I been pregnant, as much as I don't agree with abortion, it may have been my option. I'm not physically or emotionally or financially ready to take care of a baby, and I shouldn't be made to...
Please think about both sides of the story before making a judgement, because being put into the position that i was in can really open youreyes. I mean I still don't agree with it, but I can see why a woman would choose to do it...

I never said sex was a bad decision, just use birthcontrol/condoms and good judgement. read my previos post before you assume shit please

I did read it, and I didn't "assume shit," I assumed you meant what you said. You're also assuming birth control is 100% affective. Condoms tear. The pill doesn't work when you're taking antibiotics. Accidents happen, a woman shouldn't be stuck with an emotional, mental, physical, and financial drain for the rest of her life.

Nope, I think we should give the pro-life people their way. One modification, that the baby that is not wanted by the mother should be handed over to the father. No ifs, no buts. It's just handed over to him to raise. I'd like to see all of these men and their horror at the prospect of having to take responsibility for that life they insist should live, because I have a suspicion that they'd become a bunch of formerly pro-life, pro-choice hypocrits as soon as they found that baby in a basket on their front step.
As they say, if men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

Ok lets just stop for a second here and think about what's being said.
To some people (myself included) abortion is a horrible thing. To kill an innocent life before it has barely been given the chance to live is just unthinkable in my mind.
But as non-believer of abortion I can also see this from a believers point of veiw.
One reason believers give is in the case of rape.
Well here goes nothing. Not that long ago, I myself was raped. I was a virgin at the time and afterwards all i could think about was whether or not I was pregnant (I recently found out I'm not, thank god, but that's abit off the topic). You see, for the few weeks where I didn't know, all sorts of thoughts ran through my head and one of these included abortion. Could I really raise a child concieved through such a horrid act? Luckily for me, I didn't have to make that decision, but others aren't as fortuante as myself. Had I been pregnant, as much as I don't agree with abortion, it may have been my option. I'm not physically or emotionally or financially ready to take care of a baby, and I shouldn't be made to...
Please think about both sides of the story before making a judgement, because being put into the position that i was in can really open youreyes. I mean I still don't agree with it, but I can see why a woman would choose to do it...

Sorry to hear that, I myself do not know yet what I think about rape and abortion, I lean towards the side of that is a possible time of exception. One also has to give rise that if it is ok because of rape, then what if both parnents don't want it ? I need to think more about this, but one thing I do know for sure in my belief is that if the man is willing to take full custody and financial responsibility, then barring any sever medical conditions or rape, I think the child should be born and givin to the male, other than that, it is real hard to say. I can honeslty say I think it is wrong for anything but medical but then I could be wrong, I as a man will never have to face that issue personally so I cannot say how that would effect me. I would hope I would have the child, I believe I would, because I would kill for my child unborn or not, that is how important the child would be to me. and if I got a women pregnant and she did not want it you can bet full well I would take full responsibililty. What I don't by is the "I have to go through the pregnancy" excuse, so what, males in general have to do alot more manual labor in there life and prolly suffer more pain in their life then women ever do. and alot of us do it for women, so why could she not live through nine months and a birth so that I could have my kid ? I just don't think it is too much to ask.

You know, I've noticed that a lot of people who are against abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. I say, if you want to be opinionated, more power to you, but please, be consistent!

By the way, religion has no relevence to the legality of something in the United States. This has been true ever since the Supreme Court decided to read the first amendment's religious clauses as meaning a complete seperation of church and state.

You know, I've noticed that a lot of people who are against abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. I say, if you want to be opinionated, more power to you, but please, be consistent!

By the way, religion has no relevence to the legality of something in the United States. This has been true ever since the Supreme Court decided to read the first amendment's religious clauses as meaning a complete seperation of church and state.

the death penalty is considered deserved by the actions of the one being killed. the infant had no choice so it is not hypocritical to be against abortion and for the death penalty

If the male is willing to take the child then fair enough, go ahead. But in the case of rape, how often is the male going to say "Ok I just raped you but if you're pregnant now and you don't want the kid I'll be happy to raise it."? I mean come on. No offense to the male species but how often would the man really want full responsiblity of a child? I just think abortion is wrong, full stop. But as I said before, I have been in a position where I can now see why a woman would choose abortion, despite what she believes...

I don't see how you can consider the life of a criminal to be worth less than a single-cell zygote.

What I don't by is the "I have to go through the pregnancy" excuse, so what, males in general have to do alot more manual labor in there life and prolly suffer more pain in their life then women ever do. and alot of us do it for women, so why could she not live through nine months and a birth so that I could have my kid ? I just don't think it is too much to ask.
Surely you must see how rediculous that is.

Ummmm, you just said "son". I'd say that it would indicate that the women you're talking about didn't have an abortion, and they cared what happened to the baby too.
she could have had an abortion before that one.

it's not like every woman who has an abortion does so because they never want kids.

I never said sex was a bad decision, just use birthcontrol/condoms and good judgement. read my previos post before you assume shit please
what about couples who use both the aforementioned contracptives?

you are aware that the birth control pill doesn't tend to react very well with a fetus, right?

the death penalty is considered deserved by the actions of the one being killed. the infant had no choice so it is not hypocritical to be against abortion and for the death penalty
You can't calim to be "pro-life" and say that life is sacred then turn right back around and say that the criminal deserves it. That's hypocritical.

That being caid, I also think that people who are pro-choice but hate the death penalty because it is inhumane are also hypocrites.

That being caid, I also think that people who are pro-choice but hate the death penalty because it is inhumane are also hypocrites.
Explain why this is so.

Actually, let me first explain why it is not.

A fetus is not a human. A criminal is.

There.

what about couples who use both the aforementioned contracptives?

you are aware that the birth control pill doesn't tend to react very well with a fetus, right?

risk they should have been williing to take. if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Explain why this is so.

Actually, let me first explain why it is not.

A fetus is not a human. A criminal is.

There.

Simply put, a lot of abortion options sound pretty darn painful. As a man, I can only speculate, of course.
And my main explanation: I used the phrase "I think". Personal opinion, not being forced onto anyone else. You don't agree? Fine. That's your right.

Simply put, a lot of abortion options sound pretty darn painful.
I'm more concerned with the pain a full grown human endures then the pain a half-developed embryo endures.

And my main explanation: I used the phrase "I believe". Personal opinion, not being forced onto anyone else. You don't agree? Fine. That's your right.
Well, that's the whole point of debate, right?

how is it bad, they both involve bad decisions, death of an inocent and the killer going free, seems right on to me, maybe you should have been aborted ? thank goodnes for you your parents did not think so.
having sex with protection isn't a bad decision.

and the "maybe you should have been aborted" 'argument' tends to be crap. i for one, was a planned pregnancy. my parents were married and financially stable before they started having kids.

Simply put, a lot of abortion options sound pretty darn painful.
If a fetus is aborted before about 20-24 weeks it can't feel pain as it doesn't have a cerebral cortex. It is not aware of anything.

You can't calim to be "pro-life" and say that life is sacred then turn right back around and say that the criminal deserves it. That's hypocritical.

That being caid, I also think that people who are pro-choice but hate the death penalty because it is inhumane are also hypocrites.

you are missing the differance, the criminal acted in a manner he know that the society would not allow and he knew the consequences of the actions. the fetus does not, the criminal could always gone to another country were his crime is legal or not cared about and had his way but he chose to do it in a place with established rules. that was his decision, now you tell me were the fetus has a choice and then your arguemnt might be valid.

If a fetus is aborted before about 20-24 weeks it can't feel pain as it doesn't have a cerebral cortex. It is not aware of anything.
Fair enough. But how many abortions happen after that benchmark?

P.S. I love playing Devil's Advocate! It's so much fun!

Of course the fetus is not a living human being, but the fetus is a part of the process for developing a human being! If you destroy the fetus, then you are stopping a process, which destroys the chance of the fetus to become a human being. At conception, the sperm and egg join to create the genetic makeup needed to create a human being! We all essentially have the genetic makeup (or chromosomes) of a newly formed embryo. Therefore, I am pro-life.

Everyone has a chance to make positive choices and negative choices in life. Aboirtion is a negative choice, since it destroys the fetus, or developing human being, from coming into existence. Adoption, on the other hand, is a positive choice, since it benefits both the baby and the mother (she doesn't have to worry about feeling guilty after having an abortion).

Being pro-life means caring about developing the human being in a human mother while at the same time developing the well-being of the mother. Being pro-choice brings convenience to the mother, but inconvenience to the unborn child, since it is ultimately destroyed. The choice is clear: being pro-life is the right choice.

having sex with protection isn't a bad decision.

and the "maybe you should have been aborted" 'argument' tends to be crap. i for one, was a planned pregnancy. my parents were married and financially stable before they started having kids.

no please learn from your parents and say no to murdering children.

risk they should have been williing to take. if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
sex isn't a crime.

and consenting to intercourse is a far cry from consenting to pregnancy.

and again, what about the deformative effects of artifical hormones on an embryo or fetus?


oh, and you know what i really find funny about "pro-lifers" most of them also thing being gay is wrong. gay people are the last people in the world who will have to worry about a non-rape abortion.

Fair enough. But how many abortions happen after that benchmark?
After the 20-24th week? Hardly any, and almost all of that small percentage are from sudden threats to the woman's health. Any sensible woman would abort much earlier than 6 months in.

you are missing the differance, the criminal acted in a manner he know that the society would not allow and he knew the consequences of the actions. the fetus does not, the criminal could always gone to another country were his crime is legal or not cared about and had his way but he chose to do it in a place with established rules. that was his decision, now you tell me were the fetus has a choice and then your arguemnt might be valid.

If that is your argument, then you aren't "pro-life," you are "anti-abortion." All I am saying is that if you insist on calling yourself pro-life, you can't do it halfway. You have to be pro-life in everything.

no please learn from your parents and say no to murdering children.
they're not children until they exit the womb alive.

ask anyone who has had a miscarriage in the 8th month. a fetus is a potential human, it's not quite one yet.

and it doesn't even qualify as a seperate organism until quite some time in its development.

edit: forgot a glaring error: it's not murder.

After the 20-24th week? Hardly any, and almost all of that small percentage are from sudden threats to the woman's health. Any sensible woman would abort much earlier than 6 months in.
Alrighty, then. Another misinformed person has been informed. Good job, Chodolo.

sex isn't a crime.

and consenting to intercourse is a far cry from consenting to pregnancy.

and again, what about the deformative effects of artifical hormones on an embryo or fetus?


oh, and you know what i really find funny about "pro-lifers" most of them also thing being gay is wrong. gay people are the last people in the world who will have to worry about a non-rape abortion.
never said it was a crime, just an analogy, man you idiots like too steer away from the real points, you must be a politician or practicing to be one.

After the 20-24th week? Hardly any, and almost all of that small percentage are from sudden threats to the woman's health. Any sensible woman would abort much earlier than 6 months in.
Yeah, you'd kinda notice that you're pregnant by then... :p

Although I have heard of women who went through the whole 40 weeks not knowing that they were pregnant. Not gaining much weight and still having periods, albeit lighter ones. That's a scary thought.

And in my last post I spelled it "fetus." I feel so dirty. foetus foetus foetus foetus!!!

never said it was a crime, just an analogy, man you idiots like too steer away from the real points, you must be a politician or practicing to be one.
Resorting to name-calling does nothing but weaken your argument.

As for steering away from real points, I believe Dakini is making some valid points.

If that is your argument, then you aren't "pro-life," you are "anti-abortion." All I am saying is that if you insist on calling yourself pro-life, you can't do it halfway. You have to be pro-life in everything.
I have not once called myself prolife, and if you read my previous posts, you will see I am in here trying to get both sides so I can chew on it some more and make my decsion on things like rape and medical problems.

never said it was a crime, just an analogy, man you idiots like too steer away from the real points, you must be a politician or practicing to be one.
it was a poor analogy.

start using good ones and we won't have this problem.

i mean, if you want to talk about avoiding the real issues, then look to your damn analogies. those cloud the issues more than anything, what with being terrible innacurate and all.

they're not children until they exit the womb alive.

ask anyone who has had a miscarriage in the 8th month. a fetus is a potential human, it's not quite one yet.

and it doesn't even qualify as a seperate organism until quite some time in its development.

edit: forgot a glaring error: it's not murder.

actually the consider it human now when it can reasonably live outside the womb and that age drops every year.

I have not once called myself prolife, and if you read my previous posts, you will see I am in here trying to get both sides so I can chew on it some more and make my decsion on things like rape and medical problems.
If you do not call yourself pro-life then I was not referring to you with my statement. I am sorry I led you to believe I meant you personally.

I have not once called myself prolife, and if you read my previous posts, you will see I am in here trying to get both sides so I can chew on it some more and make my decsion on things like rape and medical problems.
you're obviously not considering both sides, if you were then you wouldn't be calling an embryo a child and saying that abortion is murder. it seems to me that you've got your mind made up.

Resorting to name-calling does nothing but weaken your argument.

As for steering away from real points, I believe Dakini is making some valid points.

politicion is an occupation not a name, and the analogy was just that , all the analgy stands for is there are consequences to every action and if you don't want the consequences then do not do the action so it is very fitting.

I just did a little fact check, and apparently in Australia only around 1% of abortions occur after the first 16 weeks.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11280494%255E2702,00.html)

politicion is an occupation not a name, and the analogy was just that , all the analgy stands for is there are consequences to every action and if you don't want the consequences then do not do the action so it is very fitting.
I was not referring to the word politician, I was referring to the word idiots.

actually the consider it human now when it can reasonably live outside the womb and that age drops every year.
it's not going to drop into the first trimester, when 90% of abortions happen.

and when you consider that as time goes on, less and less abortions are elective and more and more are out of necessity (i.e. health reasons) and a fetus can't be human until its nervous system has developped, it can't survive outside the womb before that happens, and that doesn't happen in the first trimester. it doesn't happen until the 20th week or so.

and abortions past that point are strictly for medical purposes.


so uh, yeah. not human for elective procedures.

you're obviously not considering both sides, if you were then you wouldn't be calling an embryo a child and saying that abortion is murder. it seems to me that you've got your mind made up.
well, facts are facts, and minds can be changed, read my previous posts.
killing is killing is killing. now what we need to establish is a reason for the kill, I kill a cow to eat, that is not wrong, now tell me why you kill children and we shall see if it is wrong. if you answer is nothing more than "I had reckless sex and now I am pregnant" then it is wrong. if you say" I was raped" or "I could die if I have this child because of medical complications" then you may just be right. If I killed the cow for no real reason I would consider that wrong too.

it's not going to drop into the first trimester, when 90% of abortions happen.

and when you consider that as time goes on, less and less abortions are elective and more and more are out of necessity (i.e. health reasons) and a fetus can't be human until its nervous system has developped, it can't survive outside the womb before that happens, and that doesn't happen in the first trimester. it doesn't happen until the 20th week or so.

and abortions past that point are strictly for medical purposes.


so uh, yeah. not human for elective procedures.
actually they are geeting to where you can have a baby in a test tube. so yes indeed it could drop to the very day of conception in the future.

I was not referring to the word politician, I was referring to the word idiots.

that's ok, i don't take too much offense when such insults come from people who don't know how to use the proper homonym in the proper context.

I just did a little fact check, and apparently in Australia only around 1% of abortions occur after the first 16 weeks.

The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11280494%255E2702,00.html)
They like to shove pictures of late-term abortions (most often necessitated by threat to the mother's life) in your face, say, "Look the little hand! Look at the beating heart! Look at it silently scream in terror as its brains are vacuumed out! The monstrosity!"...and THEN come back and try to ban abortion all the way up to fertilization. It's dishonest, and a pathetic way to argue a point.

actually they are geeting to where you can have a baby in a test tube. so yes indeed it could drop to the very day of conception in the future.
Test tube babies still have to eventually be implanted into a human woman.

I was not referring to the word politician, I was referring to the word idiots.
sorry, that makes me the idiot, guess I did not even realize I had resorted to such ill measure, my apologies.

I think I'm just gonna jump in here with my 2 cents...
I used to live right near a planned parenthood, and most of the people outside protesting were white, upper class males. These people have access to healthcare and information about birth control and safe sex. i think a huge problem in america is that in many places, only abstinance is taught, because that is what the bush adminstration wants. it is stupid to believe that young people aren't going to have sex, and not teaching them how to have safe sex is really stupid. also, underpriviledge areas may not get the education and resources they need. when healthcare will cover men's viagra but not women's birth control pills, we have a problem. i'm generalizing here, but from what i've seen most people wanting to adopt want white babies and most children up for adoption are minorities. the problem then, is that conditions currently allow for more unplanned pregnancies. if bush is so anti-abortion, he should work to decrease economic gaps and healthcare and stop only teaching abstinence. then there would be less need for an abortion.

i personally believe that it is ok to have an abortion before the brain and spinal cord develop. a person is declared officially dead not when their heart stops beating, but when their brain function stops. thus, i'm taking the scientific view here, not the religious view that life starts at conception. anyone who has taken a child development class knows that in the first 2 weeks after conception nothing a mother does affects the child. i think that after the first trimester when the brain and spinal cord have developed that an abortion should not be allowed unless the life of the mother or baby is in danger.

and thats my 2 cents.

Test tube babies still have to eventually be implanted into a human woman.
at this point yes, but in the future that may change.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this particular subject has been brought up, but here is what I believe:

When the sperm and the egg meet, the genetic structures within them combine to form an egg with a unique genetic structure. Does that not constitute an individual? While it is true that a fetus is attached to the mother, the fetus has it's own individual identity independant from the mother.

actually they are geeting to where you can have a baby in a test tube. so yes indeed it could drop to the very day of conception in the future.
i think you misunderstand the term test tube baby.

this doesn't refer to embryos developped in test tubes, it refers to zygotes that are made in a test tube and implanted into a woman.

i think you misunderstand the term test tube baby.

this doesn't refer to embryos developped in test tubes, it refers to zygotes that are made in a test tube and implanted into a woman.
read post above

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this particular subject has been brought up, but here is what I believe:

When the sperm and the egg meet, the genetic structures within them combine to form an egg with a unique genetic structure. Does that not constitute an individual? While it is true that a fetus is attached to the mother, the fetus has it's own individual identity independant from the mother.
If you consider the fertilized egg an individual, then countless women commit manslaughter when their bodies reject the egg. Yes, it happens. Most of the time the women don't even realize what has happened; it's just another period to them.

I agree that abortion is wrong, and with most of your arguements, but I believe there is more reasons and more to be said. I dont believe however that the arguement that "you could be killing the creator of a cure for cancer."is that valid and whereas that may be true, by the same token you could be killing the next timothy mcveigh(sp?)
Also I do think that if the mother's life is in danger, I mean mortal danger by giving birth to the child, then abortion is in that case and that case alone passable, but of course those cases are rare now a days.
The Sheriff here where I live Sheriff Joe Arpaio "America's Toughest Sheriff" has just banned his prisoners from having abortions. Why? Because his mother died giving birth to him. So although I hate to give that excuse, I believe between the child and the mother, the mother ought to be saved, because at least the unborn child goes to heaven.


My main reason for believing it is wrong? I am a Christian, but I believe that with what the Bible says, but also one of the main laws of Biology: "Life cannot come from non-life."

And I also assume that most of you who are pro-choice are also evolutionistic agnostics. Ok so I ask you this: since it is not life because it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb, then did the bacteria which you believe to have started all life not deserve to live because it could not have survived outside it's environment? Do humans not deserve to live because they cannot survive outside their environments? Yes it is a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious, but answer that question in context to abortion.

I haven't read the entire thread, so I don't know if this particular subject has been brought up, but here is what I believe:

When the sperm and the egg meet, the genetic structures within them combine to form an egg with a unique genetic structure. Does that not constitute an individual? While it is true that a fetus is attached to the mother, the fetus has it's own individual identity independant from the mother.
it's still not an organism until it preforms stimulus response as an organism.

and identical twins share the same dna, does this make these two people one individual?

a chimeric person has two sets of dna, does this make that one person two individuals?

dna isn't everything.

at this point yes, but in the future that may change.
And in the future we could conquer death and never need to reproduce ever again. Doesn't change the here and now.

at this point yes, but in the future that may change.
is it the future now?

then what does it matter what the future may bring.

i mean, by that logic, i should start buying property on mars, because i'm sure at some point people will colonize it.

i call a spot near the valles marinaris.

And I also assume that most of you who are pro-choice are also evolutionistic agnostics. Ok so I ask you this: since it is not life because it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb, then did the bacteria which you believe to have started all life not deserve to live because it could not have survived outside it's environment? Do humans not deserve to live because they cannot survive outside their environments? Yes it is a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious, but answer that question in context to abortion.
Actually, I'm a Christian. And this is entirely different from your analogy. If we transfer your analogy back over to abortion terms, you would have us saying that all foeti should be aborted, and that's not a good strategy for the survival of a species.

How can the State of California, or any other state, file charges for two murders against a person who kills a pregnant woman but not file charges against a person who kills a fetus? Friends, you can't have it both ways. You can't charge Scott Peterson with killing Conor and not charge a "so called doctor" who just performed an abortion.

You can in this case, because the baby was nearly term and viable. Abortion is often not legal in cases where the fetus can live outside the mother -- it is definitely alive. Lacy Petersen's baby was at that point when she was killed -- thus the two murder charges.

If Lacy were three months pregnant, I would hope the ruling would be that one murder was committed. The baby would not have been viable, thus no murder.

Ge-Ren

killing is killing is killing.
and you can't kill something that doesn't even qualify as a life, now can you?

can you kill fire? don't think so, it may posess many properties of life, but it does not posess all of them. similarly, an embryo or a fetus may posesss some properties of life, but does not posess all of them, thus is not a life.

now what we need to establish is a reason for the kill, I kill a cow to eat, that is not wrong,
are you a rancher, or are you just a beef consumer?

now tell me why you kill children and we shall see if it is wrong.
i don't kill children.

1. fetuses are not children
2. embryos are not children
3. even if they were, i've never been in a position where i have to choose whether i abort or not. thus i haven't even terminated potential children.

if you answer is nothing more than "I had reckless sex and now I am pregnant" then it is wrong.
1. how do you figure it's wrong? other than your own opinions.
2. what about people who had extremely protected sex?

if you say" I was raped" or "I could die if I have this child because of medical complications" then you may just be right.
so in the instance of rape, it's alright to kill, but otherwise, it's not?
are some fetuses more important than others? more deserving of the right to live?

And I also assume that most of you who are pro-choice are also evolutionistic agnostics. Ok so I ask you this: since it is not life because it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb, then did the bacteria which you believe to have started all life not deserve to live because it could not have survived outside it's environment? Do humans not deserve to live because they cannot survive outside their environments? Yes it is a ridiculous question because the answer is obvious, but answer that question in context to abortion.

what is with the terrible analogies tonight?

honestly.

at this point yes, but in the future that may change.
Then we won't need abortion anymore.

and you can't kill something that doesn't even qualify as a life, now can you?

can you kill fire? don't think so, it may posess many properties of life, but it does not posess all of them. similarly, an embryo or a fetus may posesss some properties of life, but does not posess all of them, thus is not a life.


are you a rancher, or are you just a beef consumer?


I am niether, and yes, those cells are alive, they may not make up a child yet but they are on there way too. and would if they are not killed

I am niether, and yes, those cells are alive, they may not make up a child yet but they are on there way too. and would if they are not killed
They either are already a child, or they become a child, pick one.

I am niether, and yes, those cells are alive, they may not make up a child yet but they are on there way too. and would if they are not killed
In that case we are all murderers, because our bodies sometimes are forced to kill living cells within ourselves. People who drink alcohol could be mass murderers because alcohol kills many, many liver cells.

I have noticed that many people completely opposed to abortion and, for that matter, stem cell research are for the war in Iraq. I am in no way saying that these reflect the views of the original poster. I just wanted to state a question. What makes killing the unborn wrong and killing walking, talking, breathing children in Iraq?

It's very, very simple, my friend. I support the war. I do not support killing innocent children. If innocent children are killed in the war, then I say that the war should be halted, better planned, and then resumed, so as to target only the guilty.

They either are already a child, or they become a child, pick one.
that is like saying a boy is becomeing a man.
the both are perfectly valid stages of life
just because the embreo has not legs or feet yet does not make it non human or not alive , it is still very much alive and human.

In that case we are all murderers, because our bodies sometimes are forced to kill living cells within ourselves. People who drink alcohol could be mass murderers because alcohol kills many, many liver cells.
That's quite true, through cloning, ANY human cell is a potential child.

And before you try to say cloning isn't natural or something, it makes no difference how the zygote is created, the end result is still a zygote.

The bottom line is that "potential life" is meaningless. The only worthwhile life is actual life.

It's very, very simple, my friend. I support the war. I do not support killing innocent children. If innocent children are killed in the war, then I say that the war should be halted, better planned, and then resumed, so as to target only the guilty.
You know, many soldiers who fight in wars are not guilty of the crimes of their leaders, and yet they die. How do you respond to that?

That's quite true, through cloning, ANY human cell is a potential child.

And before you try to say cloning isn't natural or something, it makes no difference how the zygote is created, the end result is still a zygote.

The bottom line is that "potential life" is meaningless. The only worthwhile life is actual life.
...wait... NO!!! I wasn't supposed to pick a side! I was just supposed to make both sides think! Curse you, brain! CURSE YOU!!!!
:D

that is like saying a boy is becomeing a man.
the both are perfectly valid stages of life
just because the embreo has not legs or feet yet does not make it non human or not alive , it is still very much alive and human.
I'm just going to ask this one question: How can a single cell be an "alive" human?

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

and you can't kill something that doesn't even qualify as a life, now can you?

can you kill fire? don't think so, it may posess many properties of life, but it does not posess all of them. similarly, an embryo or a fetus may posesss some properties of life, but does not posess all of them, thus is not a life.

As an enthusiastic biology student, I am intregued by this argument. Which of the qualifications for life does an embyro or fetus, or zygote, for that matter, not meet?

You know, many soldiers who fight in wars are not guilty of the crimes of their leaders, and yet they die. How do you respond to that?

I am appalled. Personally, I think that wars should be an event where the leaders of the nations fight out their differences in a colosseum-style format. Ticket prices, of course, would be very high, and would be used to benefit the winning leader's country.

If world leaders aren't willing to die for whatever cause they are willing to make other people die for, then they aren't very good leaders.

I am niether, and yes, those cells are alive, they may not make up a child yet but they are on there way too. and would if they are not killed
not necessarily.

again, there are always things that could go wrong, miscarriages for instance. the woman could die before the fetus is viable.

and the cells are alive, yes. so are the cells in my arm. the cells of the fetus are not an organism. similarly, the cells of my arm are not an organism. the cells of the fetus would be dead cells without the woman who it's inside. similarly, the cells of my arm would be dead without me.

at any rate, a fetus is not an organism until late in its development, at which point abortions do not happen unless it's medical necessity. in order fot it to be considered "a life" it would have to qualify as an organism. instead, it's a bundle of cells that are partially differentiated. no more.

this comes back to your suggestion about how in the future, viability could be pushed back to conception. the future isn't now, it's not guaranteed to happen. the fetus becoming a human being is not guaranteed, it could very well not happen.

Regarding the whole sex-before-marriage thing...

I find that (at least in Western culture & especially America), proponence of chastity-before-marriage is directly correlated with the inability-to-get-laid-even-if-they-wanted-to.

In other words, those who can't, say you shouldn't. Mainly to feel better about themselves.

I'm just going to ask this one question: How can a single cell be an "alive" human?

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

1. Many organisms are single-celled, and are considered by all scientists to be alive.
2. Human cells are made up of human DNA, and are therefore human.

The old one-two punch

As an enthusiastic biology student, I am intregued by this argument. Which of the qualifications for life does an embyro or fetus, or zygote, for that matter, not meet?
stimulus response.

while the individual cells may respond to stimulus, they do so as individual cells for quite some time, not as an organism. until it does so as an organism, it's not an organism.

(another poster here explained that to me. they were a bio major... i'm in physics... so yeah)

and no one responded to my point about pro lifers not liking gay people, who will not have to worry about abortions in the first place.

1. Many organisms are single-celled, and are considered by all scientists to be alive.
2. Human cells are made up of human DNA, and are therefore human.

The old one-two punch
And then the backlash: if you drink any alcohol, you are killing your cells and therefore killing people. If you skin your knee you are guilty of mass manslaughter.

This is one of the most controversial subjects on the political market. The argument over “when does life begin?” and “whose choice should it be to carry out these procedures?”. Well as I’m sure you can guess, we strongly oppose any form of abortion

God has a plan for everyone. Weather or not you follow that plan is up to you. If the example above occurs, it occurs for a reason. God allowed for that life to be conceived inside that woman for a reason. What if the child being carried by the woman was supposed to find a cure for cancer or a new unlimited fuel resource? If she is given the choice to murder that child then you could incidentally be murdering the world. Why would you take that chance and destroy something so precious as life? Did anyone ask the child? Why doesn’t the child get to pick weather he or she wants to get killed before even coming into this world and given a chance? Why should the little baby have to suffocate inside of its mother because she took RU-486? Would you want to die that way?

Some people say that abortions keep the population down. Abortions don’t keep population down, wars do, diseases do, natural disasters do. If for some reason the mother dose not want the child then she can put it up for adoption. That’s a much better alternative than murder. Some people probably think that adoptions are uncommon but they are wrong. Adoptions from china to the USA alone in 2003 were 6,859 children. Now think of all the other children in the world that are being adopted. Now you can’t say that people don’t adopt. Just because you don’t have the heart to raise that child yourself doesn’t give you the right to butcher your offspring.

Besides the example that I gave above is not very common. The majority of people who get abortions are young teenagers who shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. If people would follow the bible and wait until marriage to have sex then the amount of abortions would almost come to a complete stop. So if you are stupid enough to make the mistake of having sex too soon, don’t kill your baby, put it up for adoption.

1st. Im a teenager, i dont know what the hell you've been smoking because people might not like you. My GF's sister was impreginated when a condom broke. It was Giant break, just small enough for them not to notice. When they found out it was waaay to late for plan B...

2nd. you are an IDIOT teenagers are going to have sex no mter what people say.

3rd. You seem to suport wars, disease, and natural disasters to keep the population down. Again, you are and idiot. Do you know what happened right after world war 2? All the soldiers came back, had lots of sex, and made plenty of baby's.

4th. If "God" gave us free will, then why the hell to we have to listen to your Bullshit ideals?

5th. Your what if questions are still frigen What ifs. What if they grew up to be a frigin cerial Murderer, looks at the sats smart ass there's a bigger chance of that happeneing.

6th. People still die from births, the rate has gone down, but is still there. Are you willing to sacrafise your life for someone you don't even want to exist?

7th. Your either went to a goody goody school or the gals/guys really disliked you. Welcome to the modern world chief. Think up something that you stiffs HAVENT been saying for the past 2000 years.

not necessarily.

again, there are always things that could go wrong, miscarriages for instance. the woman could die before the fetus is viable.

and the cells are alive, yes. so are the cells in my arm. the cells of the fetus are not an organism. similarly, the cells of my arm are not an organism. the cells of the fetus would be dead cells without the woman who it's inside. similarly, the cells of my arm would be dead without me.

at any rate, a fetus is not an organism until late in its development, at which point abortions do not happen unless it's medical necessity. in order fot it to be considered "a life" it would have to qualify as an organism. instead, it's a bundle of cells that are partially differentiated. no more.

this comes back to your suggestion about how in the future, viability could be pushed back to conception. the future isn't now, it's not guaranteed to happen. the fetus becoming a human being is not guaranteed, it could very well not happen.

In addition to this, aborting embryos occurs within the uterus. The embryo either doesn't implant or is spontaneously aborted, ie miscarried. This happens in something like 30% of pregnancies. (I have the figures, but they'rein the next room and I can't be bothered.) This occurs because of chromosomal abnormalities, or because the intrauterine environment is unfavourable. Also, if a woman's body is inhospitable to pregnancy, like in the case of anorexia nervosa, a woman wil stop ovulating.

If nature takes these steps to prevent a baby being brought into the world in adverse circumstances, why can't we?

No child should be unwanted.

In that case we are all murderers, because our bodies sometimes are forced to kill living cells within ourselves. People who drink alcohol could be mass murderers because alcohol kills many, many liver cells.
another person who would rather talk useless junk than concetrate on the actuall issue, and you wonder why no one takes you serioulsy, and that is for both sides, everyone runs away from facts by bringing out the stupidist details. yeah, you drink you kill cells, unfortanate for the cells but the are part of a human not all of a human, you kill all of a personds cells you kill the person and that is what abortion does. kills a humn, no matter how you look at it, even in cases I think it is possibly ok, you are still killing a human. think about that as you have it done, you just killed a human, not just a few cells but a few cells that made up a human.

and the cells are alive, yes. so are the cells in my arm. the cells of the fetus are not an organism. similarly, the cells of my arm are not an organism. the cells of the fetus would be dead cells without the woman who it's inside. similarly, the cells of my arm would be dead without me.

The cells of the fetus are part of an organism. So are the cells in your arm. The ability to live independently has nothing to do with being an organism.

in order fot it to be considered "a life" it would have to qualify as an organism. instead, it's a bundle of cells that are partially differentiated. no more.


It is an organism. How is it not one?

As far as "partially differentiated" goes, the cells are just as differentiated from the mother's at the moment of conception as they are when, assuming the child is born, the person is 30 years old. No fundamental changes occur on the cellular level after conception.

As far as "partially differentiated" goes, the cells are just as differentiated from the mother's at the moment of conception as they are when, assuming the child is born, the person is 30 years old. No fundamental changes occur on the cellular level after conception.
I'm pretty sure Dakini was referring to cell-potentials. As in, they are stem cells and have not become various tissues yet. For instance, haemopoeitic precursor cells haven't become various types of blood cells.

another person who would rather talk useless junk than concetrate on the actuall issue, and you wonder why no one takes you serioulsy, and that is for both sides, everyone runs away from facts by bringing out the stupidist details. yeah, you drink you kill cells, unfortanate for the cells but the are part of a human not all of a human, you kill all of a personds cells you kill the person and that is what abortion does. kills a humn, no matter how you look at it, even in cases I think it is possibly ok, you are still killing a human. think about that as you have it done, you just killed a human, not just a few cells but a few cells that made up a human.
What I am trying to do here is point out that arguing that a foetus is alive because it is a few living cells is like saying those few cells in my liver are alive. Both are true, yes, but both actions that kill those cells are, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable choices.

stimulus response.

while the individual cells may respond to stimulus, they do so as individual cells for quite some time, not as an organism. until it does so as an organism, it's not an organism.

(another poster here explained that to me. they were a bio major... i'm in physics... so yeah)

An interesting point. I'll have to do some research...

I've had a chance to read through this thread, and every time I read things on this subject, I am disgusted at my fellow Christians who try so hard to impose their views on others. This is nothing more than prosthyletzing, and I personally think that unless you are a missionary, that's not your job. Even if you are, how you choose to promote your religion should be carefully considered. Using the abortion argument has got to be one of the most volatile and sloppy methods of prosthelytization I know of. That is my general view: the rest is now specifically for Americans.

Despite my current President's assumption that religion and state are inexorably mixed (I am American) my country's Constitution clearly states that they are not. I have not seen a sound argument by any "pro-lifer" on this matter that tackles the legality of their beliefs, other than to say "this may be the majority opinion." Firstly, it is my firm belief it is not, and pro-lifers need to get over that. Many people are moderately for or against, and it is difficult to count them, though I suspect those for choice are more numerous -- the issue, for one reason or another, simply does not affect them. Secondly, the United States is NOT ruled by majority opinion: the government is in fact as interested in minority rights (meaning those in the minority) as the majority -- that is why we have a judicial branch. Saying you are in the majority thus your opinions are more valid is tyranny in the eyes of our laws, and it embarasses me that so many American conservatives forget that. It embarases me further how few of my fellow Americans really understand the nature of our laws, which are geared towards INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. This means that each INDIVIDUAL has to have their rights protected. Christians' rights are not trampled on if a woman chooses to have an abortion. Non-Christians' rights ARE trampled on if abortion is banned because of Christian moral values. That is why Roe v. Wade passed in the first place.
You speak of the child, but even I have to admit that abortion is sometimes merciful. I've seen how abandoned children live, and it is a sorry sight. I wish they could be adopted, but this is rarely the reality. In that case, who am I to deny a woman a right to choose what may potentially be mercy? Most women do not use abortion as birth control, and it is a painful decision for them to make. Where is our compassion for them when some of us are screaming at them that they will go to Hell from picket lines?

Jesus teach you that one? I doubt it.

As an individual (and a woman) I would not have an abortion unless the fetus was already dead or I could not survive giving birth. If I have an ectopic pregnancy, I would have no choice but to abort: neither the baby nor myself could survive. I am glad that a safe procedure is available for me in this unlikely but unfortunate situation. A late-term "abortion" is EXTREMELY rare -- it's usually an early delivery that goes wrong. There are MANY instances where a woman is forced to have an early delivery induced and the baby dies -- is that a "late term abortion?" Of course it's not. That is what nearly EVERY woman who has to have a child removed late-term goes through, and it's hell. Instead of having sympathy in such situations, my fellow Christians forget Jesus' MOST IMPORTANT message of love and compassion, and look at a part of the Bible that Jesus said OUTRIGHT was replaced by His New Testament to condemn a woman. Why are CHRISTIANS choosing the Jewish "Vengeful" God? Half of you would turn around and hate Jews for being non-believers...but you use THEIR textbook when you were told not to! That is against what we are. It makes you no better than the terrorists so many of you fear because they are "heathen Muslims." It embarasses me that you would be so foolish, gulible, and uninformed. I hear there was a time when Christians were the most educated people on Earth, but that time has clearly passed.

What this is really about is power. Christian conservatives see the abortion issue as a fight to gain moral power and majority in my country. The truth is, according to my country's laws...they should NEVER have had it. It is not theirs. The right to believe as they will IS theirs. The ability to impose it? A mistake that only now can be corrected because our country has realized a greater limit of diversity of thought and creed. We are being challenged to accept our laws we hold so dear, and Christians everywhere are FAILING to heed the lesson. We are FAILING when we assert our power as we do. We are FAILING our country for lacking compassion, for misunderstanding the Bible, our Constitution, and our laws, and our fellow Americans who do not share the same beliefs as us. We should be EMBARRASSED at our ignorance, and ashamed of our insistence of superiority.

The Bible said the meek shall inherit the earth.

Christians, look how badly you've behaved now that you are not "meek."

Guess in the end, in Earth will no longer belong to you.

Ge-Ren

1. Many organisms are single-celled, and are considered by all scientists to be alive.
2. Human cells are made up of human DNA, and are therefore human.

The old one-two punch
You are telling me that every cell in my body is a human? I am composed of billions of human beings! :p

Look, the three things that actually matter are rape, incest, and risk in death of the mother otherwise we all learned in school that absence is the best way to go. Thus abortion shouldn't really be allowed to those who just had an 'accident' but those who really need it. That is it, the facts, anything other than what I wrote before is going off of opinion/religous beliefs and that shouldn't matter in this situation.

Look, the three things that actually matter are rape, incest, and risk in death of the mother otherwise we all learned in school that absence is the best way to go. Thus abortion shouldn't really be allowed to those who just had an 'accident' but those who really need it. That is it, the facts, anything other than what I wrote before is going off of opinion/religous beliefs and that shouldn't matter in this situation.
and this is all your opinion. which is no more valuable than my opinion or anyone else's.

And then the backlash: if you drink any alcohol, you are killing your cells and therefore killing people. If you skin your knee you are guilty of mass manslaughter.

No. This argument is getting very old, very fast. Killing an organism involves causing enough of the cells of that organism to die that the rest follow suit. Killing individual cells, in the case of a fully developed human being, is not killing the, or an, organism. In the case of a zygote, killing a few cells could indeed cause the rest to die, killing the organism.

The cells of the fetus are part of an organism. So are the cells in your arm. The ability to live independently has nothing to do with being an organism.



It is an organism. How is it not one?

As far as "partially differentiated" goes, the cells are just as differentiated from the mother's at the moment of conception as they are when, assuming the child is born, the person is 30 years old. No fundamental changes occur on the cellular level after conception.

i just explained how it isn't an organism.

thanks for reading and paying attention though.

No. This argument is getting very old, very fast. Killing an organism involves causing enough of the cells of that organism to die that the rest follow suit. Killing individual cells, in the case of a fully developed human being, is not killing the, or an, organism. In the case of a zygote, killing a few cells could indeed cause the rest to die, killing the organism.
First you got to prove a single-cell zygote is an organism, beyond saying "It has human DNA" which would apply to any other cell in the body.

Look, the three things that actually matter are rape, incest, and risk in death of the mother otherwise we all learned in school that absence is the best way to go. Thus abortion shouldn't really be allowed to those who just had an 'accident' but those who really need it. That is it, the facts, anything other than what I wrote before is going off of opinion/religous beliefs and that shouldn't matter in this situation.
that and maybe 1st trimester obortion should be allowed. since its so early in the develpmental stage. that also gives the parents plenty of time to decide if they want to keep it or not.

and no one responded to my point about pro lifers not liking gay people, who will not have to worry about abortions in the first place.

This is a case of overgeneralization, more commonly referred to as stereotype. I am radically pro-life, and I'm in favor of chaste civil unions for gays.

Just because you're against gay marriage doesn't mean you "don't like" gays. I know 3 gay americans, and have a positive relationship with each of them.

Please, try to refrain from making the obvious joke.

First you got to prove a single-cell zygote is an organism, beyond saying "It has human DNA" which would apply to any other cell in the body.

Ok. A zygote is an organism because it has it's own, unique set of DNA. Therefore, it is a seperate organism from mother.

This is a case of overgeneralization, more commonly referred to as stereotype. I am radically pro-life, and I'm in favor of chaste civil unions for gays.

Just because you're against gay marriage doesn't mean you "don't like" gays. I know 3 gay americans, and have a positive relationship with each of them.

Please, try to refrain from making the obvious joke.
You ever tell them to their face they should lead chaste lives?

We're all heard about making exceptions for victims of rape or incest and when the woman's life is in danger, but those don't make up the vast majority of abortions.

A great deal of abortions, while not the majority, are performed on, guess what, married women.

I have heard many stories of married couples who don't want children, or who don't want anymore children, or who want to wait a bit before having children ending up with the women pregnant and they choose to have an abortion. You don't hear these stories a lot.

Mr and Ms. Pro-life, what do you propose for these couples? Should they not ever have sex, even if they are married, because no birth control method is 100% yet? Sterilization could be an answer, but is expensive without some sort of insurance (thus leaving low income familes without insurance out).

I've always wanted to ask that question...

Also, don't you think that the fact that a woman uses birth control is stating that she does not wish to become pregnant? She's making her choice right then. Any pregnacy that happens from that point on is unwanted unless she changes her mind. She, thankfully, has many choices.

Given the fact that some women, like myself whould rather not ever be pregnant at all, abortion is my choice, should my BC fail me. I refuse to carry a fetus for 9 months just to send yet another child into our bloated and broken adoption system.

I am bothered the fact that the examples I've read so far are either "victim that must have the abortion as a necessary evil" or "loose slut who deserves her fate" (generalizing, I know, but you get my point). It boils down to the pro-lifer's general dislike of sex. Or, should I say, the regulation of sex to "married/baby dance only" status. Because sex can't possibly be for any other reason than making babies. Since the beginning of time itself, people have been having causal, nonmarried, and/or non conception minded sex. And since then, various abortion methods have existed. Do you really think that legally banning abortions will stop women from having them? I know of at least three methods off the top of my head that are available at your nearest drug store or herb shop. I've had to use one of them, two years ago (Condom broke, I couldn't afford the morning after pill, and I was "late".) I don't regret it, and there are plenty of women who don't either (see imnotsorry.net for some inspiring stories)

Lastly, I haven't gotten an answer for this one: What gives you the right to tell me what to do with my body? I don't have your morals, I don't believe in your God (whatever God that may be). Why should your standards dictate what I do in my life? How is my abortion (or my marijuna smoke, or my gay marriage, or whatever bug is up your ass) harming you?