NationStates Jolt Archive

Without regards to how you would want the decision to go, would you have wanted your mother to have the choice of abortion?

I vote yes because the best option is to give people the option.

This is another loaded question.

And both of them are a ridiculous premise that assume we are destined to be who we are today from the day of our conception.

I would wager that you understand that though.

i was planned for.

my parents were married 8 years, had a place to live and an income.

My late mother was most candid with me:

She became pregnant with me (child no. 5, her last) while using birth control, at age 38. She told me a few interesting tidbits, including that my father had a vasectomy after she conceived me, and that she had to really think through the idea of having yet another child - if it had happened to her a little later in life (say age 40), she might well have considered abortion as a viable option.

She told me a number of times that although she never once gave any serious consideration to abortion, she liked knowing that that choice was available to her - that she had the freedom to make that choice.

Obviously, I am glad to be here to draw breath and make posts to NS threads. I am glad she chose to carry me to term. I would be very upset if women's right to choose was stripped from them.

This is another loaded question.

And both of them are a ridiculous premise that assume we are destined to be who we are today from the day of our conception.

I would wager that you understand that though.

But of course.

((I love answering a loaded question with another loaded question =))

I do think, however, that this may be a slightly more relevant question.

Of course my mother should have that right; it's her decision. Not that it matters...she can't get pregnant anymore anyway, but that's in her case only; every other mother should also have that right. It's their choice, not ours.

I honestly don't care if I had been aborted. Afterall, I wouldn't be around to consider the question. Yes, I would want my mother to have had the right to an abortion, just not a very late term one.

No, but I'm not going to vote no because first of all, there is always a choice. Legallity means very little in the long run...there are such things as illegal abortions (and contrary to popular belief, no, illegal abortions are not done with coat-hangers in back-alleys).


I could rephrase it to, "No, I'm glad that my Grandparents had to have my parents who want me and love me."


I would suggest, though I know it will be ignored, that you change it to a simple "Yes" "No" or "Neither" if possible.

Actually, I voted no on this one and not just because I'm a pro-life nutcase.

I was an adopted child and it's worked out great for me. While it was tough on my birth mother, it also brought great joy to my adoptive family (as well as myself). So no, I'm glad my mother didn't abort and I would have been glad had she not had the option.

<snip> ...(and contrary to popular belief, no, illegal abortions are not done with coat-hangers in back-alleys).I would bet you weren't old enough to have an abortion the last time they were illegal. Coat-hangers, crochet hooks, knitting needles were all used.

Oh wait... I'd bet you're actually male and will never have to face carrying an unwanted fetus.

I would bet you weren't old enough to have an abortion the last time they were illegal. Coat-hangers, crochet hooks, knitting needles were all used.

Oh wait... I'd bet you're actually male and will never have to face carrying an unwanted fetus.
First off, you assume too much.

Secondly, you happen to be right, I am a guy. But I might have to face having an unwanted child.

Regardless, there are NO documented deaths from coat-hanger abortions in America.

True, it is possible they would have been used, but I'm guessing there would be a lot more deaths...
Wanna see a neat little chart?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp

I would suggest, though I know it will be ignored, that you change it to a simple "Yes" "No" or "Neither" if possible.

I can't really change it at this point.

Of course, your post was very personal, and as such, very emotionally charged. I was attempting to make something just as emotionally charged.

Personally, I know that my mother *chose* to get pregnant and very much wanted me. My father *chose* to stay in my life, despite being given the option to not do so. That is a comforting thought and I am glad that I was brought into the world wanted and loved.

I can't really change it at this point.

Of course, your post was very personal, and as such, very emotionally charged. I was attempting to make something just as emotionally charged.

Personally, I know that my mother *chose* to get pregnant and very much wanted me. My father *chose* to stay in my life, despite being given the option to not do so. That is a comforting thought and I am glad that I was brought into the world wanted and loved.
Fair enough. But it remains that just because the option is not available it does not mean they would always choose otherwise given the choice. Likewise, it's unfair to assume that people wouldn't choose to do it anyways, regardless of law. It's also unfair to assume that just because there was no abortion it means you are "wanted." Harsh, but true (though note that wanted is in quotes, implying that just because your biological mother may not want you, you are not "unwanted").

In retrospect, I should have just left mine at Yes and No, but I wanted to be clear on what yes and no meant...

Also note that I intended my post to be personal, to drive it home that being pro- or anti-abortion is all well and good, but few take the time to realize the personal implications.
Rather, many look at the personal implications of being the mother, but few look at what it's like to be the child.

Also note that I intended my post to be personal, to drive it home that being pro- or anti-abortion is all well and good, but few take the time to realize the personal implications.
Rather, many look at the personal implications of being the mother, but few look at what it's like to be the child.

Perhaps that is because there is no "what it's like to be the child."

Your very question implies consciousness, when nearly all abortions take place before there is even an organism to speak of, much less one with any type of sentience.

And the personal implications for anyone really only involves the implications of being the mother or the father, as one cannot be the embryo/fetus. Personally, I would never have an abortion, because I (although not right now, I could deal with it) very much want to have children, personally believe that abortion is wrong, and know that I could support a child both emotionally and financially. Doesn't make any difference to the fact that I am pro-choice.

First off, you assume too much.

Secondly, you happen to be right, I am a guy. But I might have to face having an unwanted child.

Regardless, there are NO documented deaths from coat-hanger abortions in America.

True, it is possible they would have been used, but I'm guessing there would be a lot more deaths...
Wanna see a neat little chart?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp
First, facing an unwanted child is far different than forced to carry an unwanted spawn to term.

Second, you expect us to believe an anti-abortion propoganda site? Find unbiased evidence that contradicts the testimony of women who experienced self-induced and back-alley abortions and then you might have something worth hearing.

Third, if an act is illegal and can result in criminal charges, do you really expect a woman to admit to it? Or her doctor to document that act? Many, many, many D&Cs were done for "menstrual irregularities" in the 60s and early 70s. You will find very few records where "failed abortion" is listed. And in cases of death, the primary cause of death would be listed as "systemic infection" or some such. Cop a clue and get yourself some unbiased info.

And finally, if an assumption is true, how can it be too much? ;)

As a suicidal person, I think you'dknow my response.
But from a philosophical stand point, even if I did want to live, it wouldn't matter. I wouldn't have that kind of reasoning ability at that stage in my development. In fact... I wouldn't have any kind of reasoning ability. I wouldn't "feel" anything.
I was almost aborted. They did that that test of the embrionic fluid, only they switched my results with another mother's. She was going to have a child with down syndrom, and thus, they told my mom that was what I was going to have.
They called my mom a couple minutes before she was going to leave for the procedure.
Or so I've been told. I really wouldn't know, on account of the fact that I was a few weeks old... :eek:

Without regards to how you would want the decision to go, would you have wanted your mother to have the choice of abortion?


Would I have wanted my mother to have the choice to murder me? Not really, fortunately I'm still here even though she did have that choice.

Rather, many look at the personal implications of being the mother, but few look at what it's like to be the child.
As Dempublicents said, there is no "what it's like to be the child". There is no ability to make a conscious descision at any time during pregnancy for the organism inside the mother. The child will be dead, probably spared a difficult life from being unwanted by the parents, and the mother will be happier because she does not have to raise a child she is not ready to or not willing to.

As Dempublicents said, there is no "what it's like to be the child". There is no ability to make a conscious descision at any time during pregnancy for the organism inside the mother. The child will be dead, probably spared a difficult life from being unwanted by the parents, and the mother will be happier because she does not have to raise a child she is not ready to or not willing to.

As good as all those reasons are, none of them justify taking a human life, IMO. It is still the willful, premeditated taking of a human life which we already call murder legally.

As good as all those reasons are, none of them justify taking a human life, IMO. It is still the willful, premeditated taking of a human life which we already call murder legally.

And it is your personal, religious opinion that a human life is being taken.

Unfortunately for you, your personal, religious opinion is not the law of the land.

And it is your personal, religious opinion that a human life is being taken.

Unfortunately for you, your personal, religious opinion is not the law of the land.


Actually, it was a science class that convinced me that abortion was wrong. According to the science of biology, life begins at conception, everything else falls into place from there and I don't need religion to accomplish that. To be honest religion just reinforces the point for me, but my opinion is based on the combination of science and law. Yes, that means I disagree with the Supreme Courts interpretation of the law as does more than half of the population of the US depending on who's pole you believe.

Actually, it was a science class that convinced me that abortion was wrong. According to the science of biology, life begins at conception, everything else falls into place from there and I don't need religion to accomplish that. That is just reinforcement.

Actually, according to biology, the embryo is not even an organism during the period of time at which elective abortions are allowed, and does not meet all of the requirements attributed to life.

And if you form any decisions from a grade school or high school biology class...never mind, don't make me laugh.

But I suppose that wouldn't mean anything to someone who wants to believe what they want to believe...

According to the science of biology, life begins at conception, everything else falls into place from there and I don't need religion to accomplish that.
As an addendum to Dempublicents's argument, life begins when it begins. There is no "conception" for bacteria. Conception does not define life, certainly.

And if you form any decisions from a grade school or high school biology class...never mind, don't make me laugh.

But I suppose that wouldn't mean anything to someone who wants to believe what they want to believe...

Actually, that was A&P 365. Yes, still a basic course, but sufficient for this purpose. Of course, as you stated, we all will use whatever we need to justify our opinions. To tarnation with objectivity. :rolleyes: :confused: :p :)

Of course, as you stated, we all will use whatever we need to justify our opinions. To tarnation with objectivity. :rolleyes: :confused: :p :)
I guess to tarnation with veracity as well, eh?

As an addendum to Dempublicents's argument, life begins when it begins. There is no "conception" for bacteria. Conception does not define life, certainly.

True, but for human life, it begins at conception.

I guess to tarnation with veracity as well, eh?

???????????????????????? Go ahead, justify your position in whatever way it is necessary to make you feel comfortable taking a human life...

personal responsibilit... are you missing a y in your name?

Actually, that was A&P 365. Yes, still a basic course, but sufficient for this purpose.

Apparently not, as any sufficient course would have told you a couple of things.

(a) The exact definition of life is still under debate, as is the exact start of it, so the statement "Science taught me that life starts at conception" is naive and absurd.
(b) There are certain agreed upon requirements for something to be called a "life", at least one of which is not met by an electively aborted embryo.

In the end, the question of when an embryo/fetus becomes "human" is a philosophical, moral, and religious one - and one for which you and I have essentially come to the same conclusion, although many disagree.

The question of when it becomes life according to biology is clear: when it meets the requirements as such, roughly around the end of the first trimester. The question of when it becomes a "separate" life is also clear: when it is born.

Another thing is also clear, the implications of legally defining an embryo as a human life would be disastrous.

First, facing an unwanted child is far different than forced to carry an unwanted spawn to term.
Have you ever been faced with an unwanted child? If not, then you have no more right to talk than I do.
If you have, fair enough, but I doubt it.

Second, you expect us to believe an anti-abortion propoganda site? Find unbiased evidence that contradicts the testimony of women who experienced self-induced and back-alley abortions and then you might have something worth hearing.
#1, so find me a testimony...Good luck
#2, look around the site. It has pro- and anti-abortion stuff. Yes, that happens to be an anti-abortion part, but if you read down the page you find that and pro-abortionists admittedly lied about figures. If you can't trust that site, you certainly can't trust any other.

Third, if an act is illegal and can result in criminal charges, do you really expect a woman to admit to it? Or her doctor to document that act? Many, many, many D&Cs were done for "menstrual irregularities" in the 60s and early 70s. You will find very few records where "failed abortion" is listed. And in cases of death, the primary cause of death would be listed as "systemic infection" or some such. Cop a clue and get yourself some unbiased info.
Again, read the page. I said "deaths." And yes, a doctor would report it, because she would have been taken to a legal hospital to be treated, and very few legal doctors would fudge records to protect illegal ones.
And, as per the page, if you assume that illegal abortions are unsafe, then you can also assume there would be more deaths from it...so either coat-hanger abortions are safe, or there are far fewer than previously thought.
And, as you yourself said, no, women would not openly admit to having illegal abortions, so the pro-abortion sites that claim 1,000,000 illegal abortions are guessing, mistaken, and/or just plain lying. In fact, as I already mentioned, they admited to lying about it. And I HAVE been to many other sites, but the pro-abortion sites just don't have the facts. In fact, I'm staring at a pro-abortion book from the library right now, and it hardly has any facts at all, and it's by a (the?) president of Planned Parenthood. It's nothing but Bush- and prolife-bashing.
As for you, have you even read that page? Or did you, as I suspect, close it the second you found it was pro-life?

And finally, if an assumption is true, how can it be too much? ;)
And if you were wrong? You got lucky ;)
I should rephrase...You assume too much too quickly.

Apparently not, as any sufficient course would have told you a couple of things.

(a) The exact definition of life is still under debate, as is the exact start of it, so the statement "Science taught me that life starts at conception" is naive and absurd.
(b) There are certain agreed upon requirements for something to be called a "life", at least one of which is not met by an electively aborted embryo.
Then what are the requirements for life? And which one is the embryo missing?

In the end, the question of when an embryo/fetus becomes "human" is a philosophical, moral, and religious one - and one for which you and I have essentially come to the same conclusion, although many disagree.
Fair enough. But realize that as such, your argument is no stronger than ours.

The question of when it becomes life according to biology is clear: when it meets the requirements as such, roughly around the end of the first trimester. The question of when it becomes a "separate" life is also clear: when it is born.
Actually, it can live on it's own after 7 months. Do I really need to go through heartbeat and such?
And anyway, by that definition tapeworms, and just about any other parasite, are not "separate" life forms.

Another thing is also clear, the implications of legally defining an embryo as a human life would be disastrous.
Disastrous to what? To pro-abortionists? So? Not defining it as such is "disastrous" to pro-life...
Southerners said emancipation would be disastrous to their culture...Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but in the end, wasn't it a good thing anyways?

Good Lord, you answer a slanted poll Slanted Poll with...A SLANTED POLL! For crying out loud, this Red VS Blue thing has gotten way out of hand. Is there no one but me who remains unbiased in this world?

Is there no one but me who remains unbiased in this world?
Ah yes, those unbiased ones who want to ban sex...

No one is completely unbiased. We all have opinions.

The only ones without opinions are the dead and the comatose...and they probably do have opinions, they just can't voice them :rolleyes:

No one is completely unbiased. We all have opinions.
Actually, neurologically and psychologically speaking, there are some individuals who are truly unbiased. The first thing that comes to mind is when someone has the pre-frontal lobe removed for medical reasons. They have huge trouble making even the simplest decisions, because they see the good and bad sides to everything without bias.

No one is completely unbiased. We all have opinions.

The only ones without opinions are the dead and the comatose...and they probably do have opinions, they just can't voice them :rolleyes:
I know, but I would never put a poll which outright portrays one answer as better than the other. I'm just generally dissapointed with those who wish to impose their ideas by pretending by misleading others.

Ah yes, those unbiased ones who want to ban sex...
Ha, you remember me? I'm flattered. Anyway, since when does banning sex fall into the agenda of a political party?

I'm just generally dissapointed with those who wish to impose their ideas by pretending by misleading others.
Aka propogandists. The scum of the Earth. After pundits, that is. But they're their own type of propogandist, so they still count.

For even more convenience (again, mostly my own), here is the link to which this thread responds:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=387034&page=1&pp=15

I know, but I would never put a poll which outright portrays one answer as better than the other. I'm just generally dissapointed with those who wish to impose their ideas by pretending by misleading others.
See, with my poll the point was for the "no" to be better, but I didn't have to make it seem that way...I just assumed it was like asking someone if they didn't want me to shoot them...Do you really have to do anything to that question to make one answer seem more agreeable?

As for imposing...Are you not imposing by pretending to be not misleading me?
In any case, be careful what you accuse of others, plank-eye ;)

Anyway, since when does banning sex fall into the agenda of a political party?
I doesn't. I said that mainly for effect. :D

My birth was planned, although I know my sisters wasn't entirely. I know that my parents wanted another child, but not necessarily at that point in time.

Eitherway, I would be pretty unhappy if the choice did not exist for my mother or anybody else.

In some cases where pregnancy is unwanted, it is literally because the parents do not have the means to support the child. I know this has happened in one case very close to my heart, with my fiancé and I.

We want to have children, and we want to be able to give our children everything they could ever need.

When we thought that we were pregnant, we were terrified. We knew that abortion was an option, and that it was going to cost alot of money to do. Anyway, shortly after we talked about it with her parents, her mother told us that if we decided to abort it, she could pack her bags there and then.

Now, I don't know about you, but that to me is an extremely harsh thing to do. It removes the choice and forces you to an outlook of having a child that you know you can't afford to provide for, its an incredibly horrible feeling.

As it turned out, we weren't actually pregnant, but it definitely gave me a whole new perspective on the issue.

I would because she wanted children when my parents got married, but my dad was dead against it. In the end, I was a planned birth, so I would say give her the option, she'd make the same choice she did anyway.

True, it is possible they would have been used, but I'm guessing there would be a lot more deaths...
Wanna see a neat little chart?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp
i've encountered that website.

you are aware of its bias, right?

and check out the contraceptive section, their numbers fot the effectiveness of various methods is way off...

True, but for human life, it begins at conception.
no, it begins at stimulus response as an organism. that's the last part of the puzzle to fall into place for a fetus to become an individual organism, thus a life.

what an odd question

of course i would want my mother to have the same basic rights as any other woman. why would i want strangers to have more rights than my mother?

i was born in 1957, the youngest of 7 children. i dont know about abortion but if there had been reliable contraception i would never have been born. do i wish my mother had not had the right to say NO to my father? now thats a creepy thought. if i hadnt been born, if i had been aborted, if i hadnt been conceived it just would matter to me now would it. i wouldnt exist. no harm no foul eh?

Then what are the requirements for life? And which one is the embryo missing?

stimulus response as an organism.

Yes, I would have liked my mother to have had the option of aborting me, because if she had, I would'nt have spent most of my childhood being physically and emotionally abused by my father. He could'nt keep it in his pants, had sex with my mother out of wedlock, concieved me, then had to marry her (this was the mid sixties, no single mother pension then). Of course I was told for many years it was all my fault he was trapped into marriage, though being trapped did'nt stop him fathering my two younger brothers. Yes I know it takes two to make a baby, but even he admits, he went out of his way to get her drunk, and seduce her.

If my mother had been able to abort me, I would'nt have suffered 16 years of hell, and she would have had the chance to find and marry a good man.

Have you ever been faced with an unwanted child? If not, then you have no more right to talk than I do.
If you have, fair enough, but I doubt it.Don't doubt too quickly, you'd be wrong.#1, so find me a testimony...Good luckHere you go. No Choice (www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/begin.html#Chapter1) Start with Sophia's story. As a nurse, she references any number of sharp pointy things to induce abortion, including women who died. The one about the woman who used a fire-cracker is particularly impressive. And this is oral history. It's confirmed and true. World-wide data can be found in Abortion in Law, History and Religion (www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html), 1995.
In those parts of the world where abortion remains prohibited or restricted, clandestine, illegal abortion remains a serious health problem. Much of Muslim Asia, Latin America and Africa fall into this category. These are the same places where safe, affordable means of contraception are the least available.33 About 100 million women worldwide have an unmet need for contraception.34

The methods of illegal abortion vary somewhat from culture to culture. African women may seek abortion from midwives or traditional healers, who insert plant roots or twigs into the cervix, hoping to induce uterine contractions. Desperate Zambian women may attempt to self-induce by drinking detergent or gasoline or taking an overdose of aspirin or chloroquine in order to cause violent contractions.35 In rural Indonesia and Thailand, intensive abdominal massage is the method most often used,35 while in Latin America, abortions are performed with catheters, hangers, knitting needles, caustic substances, toxic herbal teas or drugs.

In many countries, a large proportion of maternal deaths is due to illegal or clandestine abortion: Ethiopia— 54%; Argentina— 35%; Chile— 36%; Zimbabwe— 28%.36 The estimated number of women worldwide who die from clandestine abortion ranges from less than 100,000 to as many as 200,000 women a year.32 Most clandestine abortions are performed by non-professionals or are self-induced. And for every woman who dies from an illegal abortion, many more suffer serious (and often lifelong) health problems— among them haemorrhaging, infection, abdominal or intestinal perforations, kidney failure, and infertility. Check the footnotes out for sources. Oh, and just to forestall the 'but that's not the U.S.' whine. Behavior of women without means to legal, safe abortions is documented to be consistent from one culture to another.#2, look around the site. It has pro- and anti-abortion stuff. Yes, that happens to be an anti-abortion part, but if you read down the page you find that and pro-abortionists admittedly lied about figures. If you can't trust that site, you certainly can't trust any other.Tell that one to the pope. A biased site is just that. You've got absolutely no cred by leaning on it. And newsflash, everything that such a site contains is suspect, including the so-called admission of lying. (By the way, the next time you guys want to make something up about pro-choice people from whole-cloth, be sure and call them "pro-choice"; "anti-abortion" is a misnomer.
Again, read the page. I said "deaths." And yes, a doctor would report it, because she would have been taken to a legal hospital to be treated, and very few legal doctors would fudge records to protect illegal ones.See above. There were deaths. As for doctors reporting it, under-reporting of illegal abortions in the U.S. is documented fact. (Jones EF and Forrest JD, Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976-1988, Demography, 1992, 29(1):113-126.) ...as per the page, if you assume that illegal abortions are unsafe, then you can also assume there would be more deaths from it...That's an incorrect assumption. Unsafe abortions do not automatically lead to death. Frequently the sequelae are limited to raging pelvic infections and subsequent infertility. Your logic skills fail. ...Pro-abortion sites just don't have the facts.Whose facts? The one's approved by Operation Rescue? The one's you pull out of your ass and declare to be gold? In fact, I'm staring at a pro-abortion book from the library right now, and it hardly has any facts at all...You might try reading it instead of just staring at it.As for you, have you even read that page? Or did you, as I suspect, close it the second you found it was pro-life?Nope, read it. I enjoy fiction every once in awhile. ;)

If anything that responds to stimulus is life,that includes single cell organisms of all sorts, right? But they don't all have rights. So what's the logic in a human embryo having them. It's no more a person than any other cells unless you have some sort of spiritual notion of a soul being confered at conception. Religiuos or quasi-religious beliefs have no place in law. As for myself, I'm pro life and pro choice.

Then what are the requirements for life? And which one is the embryo missing?

Generally agreed upon requirements for life:

Ability to take obtain and use nutrients. (ie. metabolism)
Ability to excrete wastes.
Ability to sense and respond to stimuli.

In a multicellular organism, these requirements must be met as an organism, not at the cellular level.

Some add in the requirement for an ability to reproduce, but this would exclude all young organisms, sterile organisms, mules, etc, so it generally gets ignored.

The third one, however, the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, is not met until roughly the end of the first trimester. At this point, the fetus has developed enough of a nervous system to exhibit reflexive response to stimuli. This point is often termed as the "quickening" and is the point in most states at which elective abortions become illegal.

Fair enough. But realize that as such, your argument is no stronger than ours.

As such, no argument is stronger than anyone elses. You and I believe that abortion is wrong. Others do not. This is akin to the fact that you and I believe that there is a God, and others do not. However, we have no right to force our particular religious beliefs upon others.

Actually, it can live on it's own after 7 months. Do I really need to go through heartbeat and such?

Which has what to do with anything? Once the fetus is viable, abortions are only legal if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is dead/will be within minutes of birth.

And anyway, by that definition tapeworms, and just about any other parasite, are not "separate" life forms.

They aren't, they are parasites.

Disastrous to what? To pro-abortionists? So? Not defining it as such is "disastrous" to pro-life...

No, not to pro-abortionists - to all women who ever have sexual relations. If an embryo is defined as human, with all of the rights of a human, from conception, then every sexually active woman becomes liable for neglect/manslaughter every day from the day she has sex until nine months later. Can you imagine the courts on this one? "This woman had a hard workout and then had a miscarriage. She didn't know she was pregnant, so we'll only charge her with manslaughter."

Southerners said emancipation would be disastrous to their culture...Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but in the end, wasn't it a good thing anyways?

Emancipation didn't turn the Southerners into incubators constantly afraid that they were committing and crime by living their lives.

If anything that responds to stimulus is life,that includes single cell organisms of all sorts, right? But they don't all have rights. So what's the logic in a human embryo having them. It's no more a person than any other cells unless you have some sort of spiritual notion of a soul being confered at conception. Religiuos or quasi-religious beliefs have no place in law. As for myself, I'm pro life and pro choice.

You have a valid point.

However, our laws *do* give certain rights to those creatures which can feel pain. Once the rudimentary nervous system is developed, the fetus can sense such stimuli, and most likely can feel pain. Thus, harming it needlessly would be against our laws, whether you see it as human or not.

Edit: Also, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, being able to respond to stimuli is not sufficient to define life, it is simply necessary.

Yes I would've wanted her to have the option.

I wasn't planned for in anyway. I guess you can say I was an accident or a blessing (depends on how you look at it). My mom couldn't get pregnant anymore because both her filopian(sp?) tubes had been blocked many years. But when the doctor seen that she had gotten pregnant , he said it must have came from her tubes being "unblocked" by the three 38 slugs that went through her when my dad shot her a couple years before I was conceived. And she did have the option to abortion, and I'd want it that way. I wouldn't want to be born into the world because my mother felt she "had" to have me. But I must say if a woman knows she is not ready or wanting to get pregnant she should be on birth control on top of using a diaphram or sponge + condoms with a spermacide. If that is not possible or "convenient" or if she feels it isn't protection enough then ..get her tubes cut, burnt and tied ..or get your man a vasectomy.

Going with alot of different men?.. then do the tube thing .. or even a partial or full hystorectomy -if she's pretty sure she never wants to have any brats. Or Abstain! Abortion shouldn't be used a form of "birth control". And I know many that use it that way.. having had multiple (4 and 5) after continuing to get pregnant again and again knowing good and damn well they are not going to have any of them. I also know alot of sorry ass men(well boys, they aren't men in my book) that go around getting multiple women pregnant and never being financially responsible for any. They should be sterilzed!

Actually, neurologically and psychologically speaking, there are some individuals who are truly unbiased. The first thing that comes to mind is when someone has the pre-frontal lobe removed for medical reasons. They have huge trouble making even the simplest decisions, because they see the good and bad sides to everything without bias.

Actually the problem isn't so much a lack of bias as it is a lack of decisiveness, which may or may not be related... the jury is still out on that one.

The really sad thing is that we wouldn't have to have this debate if people just behaved responsibly enough to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But, in today's world of give me what I want and to ---- with the consequences, that is probably to much to expect.

The really sad thing is that we wouldn't have to have this debate if people just behaved responsibly enough to avoid unwanted pregnancy. But, in today's world of give me what I want and to ---- with the consequences, that is probably to much to expect.

The really sad thing is the people who are so naive that they think someone has to be grossly irresponsible to end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

Are there some who end up in the situation due to irresponsibility? Of course. But there are many who are very responsible about it, and still end up in a bad situation.

Your statement is like saying "If people drove responsibly, there would never be any accidents." It's silly.

The really sad thing is the people who are so naive that they think someone has to be grossly irresponsible to end up with an unwanted pregnancy.

Are there some who end up in the situation due to irresponsibility? Of course. But there are many who are very responsible about it, and still end up in a bad situation.

Your statement is like saying "If people drove responsibly, there would never be any accidents." It's silly.

I'll grant you that a very, very small number couldn't have been avoided... Those in rape cases. All others could be avoided by a personal choice. If you want to have a choice, make it then. Afterward, it's murder, IMO.

I would have wanted my mother to have the option to abort... and she DID have the option to abort.

She chose to have me... which doesn't give me any especially warm or fuzzy feelings... mainly because I would never have known, if she had chosen otherwise.

But, I actually quite like my mother. I think she is a nice person, an intelligent woman, and a good person... all of which means I want to see the best possible world for her.

And that best-possible-world invloves the most choices, I feel... so, I would always prefer that the OPTION of abortion was available, even if she decided not to follow that course.

I'll grant you that a very, very small number couldn't have been avoided... Those in rape cases. All others could be avoided by a personal choice. If you want to have a choice, make it then. Afterward, it's murder, IMO.

Blinkered.

I would advise you to spend a few days in North-East Georgia, talking to teenage girls.

This area of the country (and I am sure it is not the ONLY area that works like this):

Encourages women to be subservient to men.

Fails to educate girls as to the risks of sex... even including pregnancy.

Fails to educate girls to the FACTS of sex (I have met girls here that became pregnant, without even knowing they had HAD sex... because it was such a big, shrouded mystery, that they weren't even sure what sex WAS).

Refuses to make contraception easily available, or give any serious planning advice to teenage girls.

What you have is a system that STOPS the flow of information to the teenage female, FORCES her to do as she is told by the male population... and then PUNISHES her for sins of the flesh - without ever giving her a choice.

It seems that Bible Bilt America WANTS teenage pregnancy, but lacks the courage of it's convictions to admit it, even to themselves.

Don't doubt too quickly, you'd be wrong.
Hey, that's why I asked. I respect that.

Here you go. No Choice (www.cbctrust.com/nochoice/begin.html#Chapter1) Start with Sophia's story. As a nurse, she references any number of sharp pointy things to induce abortion, including women who died. The one about the woman who used a fire-cracker is particularly impressive. And this is oral history. It's confirmed and true. World-wide data can be found in Abortion in Law, History and Religion (www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html), 1995.
In those parts of the world where abortion remains prohibited or restricted, clandestine, illegal abortion remains a serious health problem. Much of Muslim Asia, Latin America and Africa fall into this category. These are the same places where safe, affordable means of contraception are the least available.33 About 100 million women worldwide have an unmet need for contraception.34

The methods of illegal abortion vary somewhat from culture to culture. African women may seek abortion from midwives or traditional healers, who insert plant roots or twigs into the cervix, hoping to induce uterine contractions. Desperate Zambian women may attempt to self-induce by drinking detergent or gasoline or taking an overdose of aspirin or chloroquine in order to cause violent contractions.35 In rural Indonesia and Thailand, intensive abdominal massage is the method most often used,35 while in Latin America, abortions are performed with catheters, hangers, knitting needles, caustic substances, toxic herbal teas or drugs.

In many countries, a large proportion of maternal deaths is due to illegal or clandestine abortion: Ethiopia— 54%; Argentina— 35%; Chile— 36%; Zimbabwe— 28%.36 The estimated number of women worldwide who die from clandestine abortion ranges from less than 100,000 to as many as 200,000 women a year.32 Most clandestine abortions are performed by non-professionals or are self-induced. And for every woman who dies from an illegal abortion, many more suffer serious (and often lifelong) health problems— among them haemorrhaging, infection, abdominal or intestinal perforations, kidney failure, and infertility. Check the footnotes out for sources. Oh, and just to forestall the 'but that's not the U.S.' whine. Behavior of women without means to legal, safe abortions is documented to be consistent from one culture to another.
Consistent? Where's your proof for that? And anyways, a lot of that was a long time ago...But, I admit, that is very fair.
But also, read what I said. I said, NO REPORTED DEATHS. I didn't say people don't do it, I said no one in America has died from it.

Tell that one to the pope. A biased site is just that. You've got absolutely no cred by leaning on it. And newsflash, everything that such a site contains is suspect, including the so-called admission of lying.
So a pro-abortion sites are any different? If you can't believe my sites, I see no reason to believe yours...Which would end with both of us huffing and puffing and generally making asses of ourselves. I've given you the benefit of the doubt and am willing to accept what you give me. The least you could do is grant me the same.
At some point we're going to have to trust each other, aren't we? If we can't, then there's no point in having this conversation, and we should both give up now.

(By the way, the next time you guys want to make something up about pro-choice people from whole-cloth, be sure and call them "pro-choice"; "anti-abortion" is a misnomer.
So is "anti-choice"...


See above. There were deaths. As for doctors reporting it, under-reporting of illegal abortions in the U.S. is documented fact. (Jones EF and Forrest JD, Underreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976-1988, Demography, 1992, 29(1):113-126.)
Again, I didn't say reporting of abortion, I said reporting of deaths FROM abortion. Don't put words in my mouth.
And, see MY above. If you're not going to trust me, I see no reason to trust you. I am, however, GOING to trust you, provided you can back it up. I've given you some facts, take them or leave them. You haven't provided anything but your own testimony. Not that I don't trust you to tell the truth, but I don't trust others to tell YOU the truth.

That's an incorrect assumption. Unsafe abortions do not automatically lead to death. Frequently the sequelae are limited to raging pelvic infections and subsequent infertility. Your logic skills fail.
Again, I never said they DO automatically end in death. But if the numbers that I usually see are true, then there should be more. AND I think a doctor could generally recognize the results of a back-alley abortion if a woman was brought in for treatment, regardless of death.

Whose facts? The one's approved by Operation Rescue?
Any facts at all. Lies, true facts, anything. No numbers, few testimonies...Nothing...
All I ever find is "abortion is good" "pro-life is evil"...Every once and a while I'll find some figures, but rarely. And if I followed your logic (which, I don't), then I couldn't believe those figures because they come from a biased site.

The one's you pull out of your ass and declare to be gold? You might try reading it instead of just staring at it.
You might try reasoning instead of just insulting. If you think you need to flame at me to feel better about yourself, go ahead. But here's a nice little word for you: "Rationalization."

Nope, read it. I enjoy fiction every once in awhile. ;)
Apparently fiction is the only genre you read.

its not so much as forcing her if she didnt want me then put me up for adoption but its still not right for anyone to take an inocent childs life.

Blinkered.

I would advise you to spend a few days in North-East Georgia, talking to teenage girls.

This area of the country (and I am sure it is not the ONLY area that works like this):

Encourages women to be subservient to men.

Fails to educate girls as to the risks of sex... even including pregnancy.

Fails to educate girls to the FACTS of sex (I have met girls here that became pregnant, without even knowing they had HAD sex... because it was such a big, shrouded mystery, that they weren't even sure what sex WAS).

Refuses to make contraception easily available, or give any serious planning advice to teenage girls.

What you have is a system that STOPS the flow of information to the teenage female, FORCES her to do as she is told by the male population... and then PUNISHES her for sins of the flesh - without ever giving her a choice.

It seems that Bible Bilt America WANTS teenage pregnancy, but lacks the courage of it's convictions to admit it, even to themselves.

As a Christian, I have seen this happen myself and find it deplorable. I do think "FORCES" is probably an overstatement. However, education on this issue is imperitive. I have no problem with sex ed. I do believe it should be taught by parents, but clearly, they have abdicated that responsibility. I don't believe that any particular form of avoiding pregnancy should be taught over another in the public school system or even that avoiding pregnancy should be done, but both males and females need to know exactly what their options are and what the potential outcomes of their behavior could be.

As for making contraceptives available, if you mean drugstores don't sell them and the health dept. doesn't have them, I agree that is a problem. Having them distributed in school my again be infringing on religous freedoms related issues IMO.

Generally agreed upon requirements for life:

Ability to take obtain and use nutrients. (ie. metabolism)
Ability to excrete wastes.
Ability to sense and respond to stimuli.

In a multicellular organism, these requirements must be met as an organism, not at the cellular level.

Some add in the requirement for an ability to reproduce, but this would exclude all young organisms, sterile organisms, mules, etc, so it generally gets ignored.

The third one, however, the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, is not met until roughly the end of the first trimester. At this point, the fetus has developed enough of a nervous system to exhibit reflexive response to stimuli. This point is often termed as the "quickening" and is the point in most states at which elective abortions become illegal.
Did I say it was alive as an organism? Its cells are still alive, so you're still killing it.
Oh, and BTW, a definition of "kill": To deprive of life
Will the child live? No...you've deprived it of life...you've killed it.


As such, no argument is stronger than anyone elses. You and I believe that abortion is wrong. Others do not. This is akin to the fact that you and I believe that there is a God, and others do not. However, we have no right to force our particular religious beliefs upon others.
Nor do I want to force them to believe what I believe. But, I have the full right to try to persuade them to believe what I believe.

Which has what to do with anything? Once the fetus is viable, abortions are only legal if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is dead/will be within minutes of birth.
I meant that a baby can be a separate life before it is born.


They aren't, they are parasites.
Then what's the difference between a viable, but unborn baby and a tapeworm? Why is a tapeworm separate but a baby isn't?


No, not to pro-abortionists - to all women who ever have sexual relations. If an embryo is defined as human, with all of the rights of a human, from conception, then every sexually active woman becomes liable for neglect/manslaughter every day from the day she has sex until nine months later. Can you imagine the courts on this one? "This woman had a hard workout and then had a miscarriage. She didn't know she was pregnant, so we'll only charge her with manslaughter."
Those are different circumstances.
Oh, and BTW, that already happens to men...Double homicide, you know (not that I'm complaining, mind you).

Emancipation didn't turn the Southerners into incubators constantly afraid that they were committing and crime by living their lives.
Actually, it did. Why do you think they seceded? Because they felt that the north was going to issue emancipation, which would make their way of life ( which was based around slavery) a crime.
The question I pose to you is, if your way of life is a crime, is destroying that way of life a good thing? I don't mean specifically abortion. For example, killing people is a crime, and if your way of life involves randomly killing innocent people for no reason, shouldn't your way of life be destroyed?

As a Christian, I have seen this happen myself and find it deplorable. I do think "FORCES" is probably an overstatement. However, education on this issue is imperitive. I have no problem with sex ed. I do believe it should be taught by parents, but clearly, they have abdicated that responsibility. I don't believe that any particular form of avoiding pregnancy should be taught over another in the public school system or even that avoiding pregnancy should be done, but both males and females need to know exactly what their options are and what the potential outcomes of their behavior could be.

As for making contraceptives available, if you mean drugstores don't sell them and the health dept. doesn't have them, I agree that is a problem. Having them distributed in school my again be infringing on religous freedoms related issues IMO.

How is giving condoms out, an attack on your faith?

Sure, you could argue that it helps immorality... although, surely.. all it does is make immorality safer... but - how does that attack your faith?

Nobody says you HAVE to have sex, just because you have a condom.

And, to be honest, I don't see what effect latex has on Jesus.

How is giving condoms out, an attack on your faith?

Sure, you could argue that it helps immorality... although, surely.. all it does is make immorality safer... but - how does that attack your faith?

Nobody says you HAVE to have sex, just because you have a condom.

And, to be honest, I don't see what effect latex has on Jesus.

It isn't an attack on my faith personally. For the most part I agree with you though I'd want to be asked for my consent before something was distributed to my hypothetical child. Of course, I'd have long since discussed the issue with my child anyway.

But the fact is, some faiths teach that the use of contaceptives is a sin, making it a religous issue for some.

I

As for making contraceptives available, if you mean drugstores don't sell them and the health dept. doesn't have them, I agree that is a problem. Having them distributed in school my again be infringing on religous freedoms related issues IMO.

Having them available in schools would only be a problem with the 1st Amendment if students were forced to take them.

It isn't an attack on my faith personally. For the most part I agree with you though I'd want to be asked for my consent before something was distributed to my hypothetical child. Of course, I'd have long since discussed the issue with my child anyway.

But the fact is, some faiths teach that the use of contaceptives is a sin, making it a religous issue for some.



But, even under THOSE circumstances... giving out the condom, doesn't mean that the person HAS to use them. It doesn't mean that children will have sex. It doesn't mean that a child will be more tempted by sex than by their religion.

What it does mean is: IF a teen decides they MUST have sex, and they can rationalise THAT with their faith, and they can rationalise a CONDOM with their faith.... that teen is less likely to get pregnant/get someone else pregnant... and less likely to contract a disease.

How is that bad, or an attack on faith?

Having them available in schools would only be a problem with the 1st Amendment if students were forced to take them.

Not even then... merely touching a condom doesn't infringe religious freedom.

It is only a problem with the first amendment is students are forced to USE them. Which, to be honest, seems unlikely, at most schools.

But, even under THOSE circumstances... giving out the condom, doesn't mean that the person HAS to use them. It doesn't mean that children will have sex. It doesn't eman that a child will be more tempted by sex than by their religion.

What it does mean is: IF a teen decides they MUST have sex, and they can rationalise THAT with their faith, and they can rationalise a CONDOM with their faith.... that teen is less likely to get pregnant/get someone else pregnant... and less likely to contract a disease.

How is that bad, or an attack on faith?

Your first statement is partially correct, but if there use is encouraged for a whole class in which someone of one of those faiths hypothetical child is present you have an abridgment.

The thing that is difficult in all of this, is... to teach any set of values as more or less acceptable, desireable, appropriate than another essentially violates someones religous freedom. If the state is to remain seperate from religion, it has to remain silent on values based thinking.

Did I say it was alive as an organism? Its cells are still alive, so you're still killing it.

This is the question that matters, however.

I kill skin cells every day when I scratch too hard. I kill stomach cells just by being alive. I kill bacteria, I kill *cells* all the time. If they are not a separate human organism, it doesn't matter.

Oh, and BTW, a definition of "kill": To deprive of life
Will the child live? No...you've deprived it of life...you've killed it.

Define child.

Nor do I want to force them to believe what I believe. But, I have the full right to try to persuade them to believe what I believe.

Persuading (speaking your mind) and forcing (legislating your particular belief into law) are two very different things.

I meant that a baby can be a separate life before it is born.

It depends on exactly what you mean by separate. It is a separate organism at the point I have defined above. However, it is living off of another, and is thus not truly separate. In other words, that other has a say in what is done with/to it on the basis that the other is the only thing providing it with nutrients/etc.

Then what's the difference between a viable, but unborn baby and a tapeworm? Why is a tapeworm separate but a baby isn't?

The only difference (not speaking from an emotional viewpoint) would be that the viable fetus could survive separated from the mother and the tapeworm could not survive separated from its host. Before viablility, the only difference is in the species.

Those are different circumstances.

No, they aren't. If you define an embryo as a human being - you must give it *all* the rights of a human being.

Oh, and BTW, that already happens to men...Double homicide, you know (not that I'm complaining, mind you).

Only one case that I know of has actually been prosecuted under the new double homicide laws - and that involved a viable fetus. Anything pre-viability will be appealed, and likely thrown out. If not, we'll start having cases where mothers are prosecuted for having miscarriages.

Actually, it did.

It made them into incubators who couldn't walk out the door without the fear that they might fall down and commit manslaughter? Funny, I never heard that part of the Civil War story.

The question I pose to you is, if your way of life is a crime, is destroying that way of life a good thing?

Do you really want to make college attendence (a very stressful existence) a crime? Do you really want to make heavy exercise a crime? Do you really want to make it a crime for a woman to work in industries requiring heavy labor?

Your first statement is partially correct, but if there use is encouraged for a whole class in which someone of one of those faiths hypothetical child is present you have an abridgment.

The thing that is difficult in all of this, is... to teach any set of values as more or less acceptable, desireable, appropriate than another essentially violates someones religous freedom. If the state is to remain seperate from religion, it has to remain silent on values based thinking.

Which is EXACTLY why creationsim SHOULD NOT be taught in science classes...

I find it curious that you can only see one edge of this sword...

Which is EXACTLY why creationsim SHOULD NOT be taught in science classes...

I find it curious that you can only see one edge of this sword...

Nice try, but again, if you are teaching all the perspectives, fine. If you only teach one perspective on origins you have to teach them all with no more or less emphasis or value being placed on one than another.

Notice, for me, we are not talking about science, we are talking about origins of life and or life as we know it. Evolution does teach one perspective on this and to be non-discriminatory all perspectives should be taught if any are taught.

Nice try, but again, if you are teaching all the perspectives, fine. If you only teach one perspective on origins you have to teach them all with no more or less emphasis or value being placed on one than another.

Notice, for me, we are not talking about science, we are talking about origins of life and or life as we know it. Evolution does teach one perspective on this and to be non-discriminatory all perspectives should be taught if any are taught.

You cannot remove science from a debate about evolution as science is all that is really involved. If you wish to remove science completely, by all means, voice that opinion. Otherwise, scientific theories will be taught in class. It is not discriminatory to say "this is the best theory currently available in science," it is true.

By your logic, we should teach the flat-earth idea alongside the round-earth theory, the idea that you think with your heart alongside the idea that you think with your brain, the geocentric theory alongisde the heliocentric one, etc. In order to be non-discriminatory, we should not present any evidence, but should just say that these are equal ideas on par with each other.

These are all things that religions hold to be true, and according to your convictions, they should all be taught.

Please explain to me why you are willing to accept that your child be taught every scientific theory except for the one that happens to deal with speciation?

Did I say it was alive as an organism? Its cells are still alive, so you're still killing it.
Oh, and BTW, a definition of "kill": To deprive of life
Will the child live? No...you've deprived it of life...you've killed it.

i scratched my head 30 seconds ago. i killed some cells on my scalp.

if you're opposed to killing cells then why do you take antibiotics when you're sick?

For example, killing people is a crime, and if your way of life involves randomly killing innocent people for no reason, shouldn't your way of life be destroyed?

one thing: they're not people.

I'll grant you that a very, very small number couldn't have been avoided... Those in rape cases. All others could be avoided by a personal choice. If you want to have a choice, make it then. Afterward, it's murder, IMO.
? what about multiple methods of contraception resulting in a pregnancy nonetheless?

what about people who have had vasectomies or tubal litigation (i think that's the term) and still conceive?

these people chose to try to prevent a pregnancy and their attempts were unsuccessful.

furthremore your statement is like saying that skiing accidents can be avoided by skiing responsably, with the exception of those where you're forced to go down a hill you're not ready for. thus, those who injure themselves for choosing to ski in difficult conditions or push their limits have no right to treatment should they get injured, as they made a personal choice to try a new hill or ignore the icy patch in front of them.... so they don't deserve to have their leg set.

Nice try, but again, if you are teaching all the perspectives, fine. If you only teach one perspective on origins you have to teach them all with no more or less emphasis or value being placed on one than another.

Notice, for me, we are not talking about science, we are talking about origins of life and or life as we know it. Evolution does teach one perspective on this and to be non-discriminatory all perspectives should be taught if any are taught.
fine. teach creationism. in a world religion class. in a class on creation myths, whatever. just not in a science class. evolution is the only theory of origins that belongs in a science class.

But also, read what I said. I said, NO REPORTED DEATHS. I didn't say people don't do it, I said no one in America has died from it.Okay... since you seem to subscribe to the 'shifting sands' argument style, let's go back to the beginning.

You first made a statement that illegal abortions were not induced with coat-hangers, etc. Not that no one died from those abortions.

I pointed out your error. You then changed your statement to 'no one died', arguing that IF there were coat-hanger abortions, then someone surely would have died, and cited a pro-life site.

I should have pointed out your strawman argument there. I did however, point out to you that such records are not likely to exist given the nature of medical records and cause-of-death statements, as well as, an unwillingness on the part of both the woman and the doctor to admit to illegal acts. You poo-pood the idea and demanded testimonial of even one death.

I provided you your requested testimonial (countering the second version of your statement). Now given that no pro-life site is likely to have testimonials of the horrors of self-induced abortion, I provided you with the most balanced pro-choice site found. Notice I didn't refer you to NARAL or OBOS or any of a number of other activist sites. I also provided cites to non-pro-choice sites indicating that 1) yes women do use sharp, pointy things to terminate their own pregnancies when legal abortion is not available (countering your first statement); 2) medical records don't adequately reveal the character or extent of illegal abortions in the U.S. (countering your poo-pooing) and 3) that women do indeed die from self-induced abortion. It is only natural that current studies concerning restriction of reproductive rights and illegal abortion focus on other countries besides the U.S. because abortion is currently legal here.

You now insist that you have all along been asking only for reported deaths in the U.S., but the thread reveals that to not be the truth.


I will give you the Nathanson "lie." It appears to be a recant, though I don't have his '79 book to see the context (and am curious that it's taken this long for pro-life folk to 'discover'). I would point out that any number of pro-choice leaders cite accurate mortality statistics. And lo and behold, even pro-life sites acknowledge mortality (aka "deaths") from illegal abortions (and given the documentation of other sources, including the insertion of pointy things).

You cannot remove science from a debate about evolution as science is all that is really involved. If you wish to remove science completely, by all means, voice that opinion. Otherwise, scientific theories will be taught in class. It is not discriminatory to say "this is the best theory currently available in science," it is true.

By your logic, we should teach the flat-earth idea alongside the round-earth theory, the idea that you think with your heart alongside the idea that you think with your brain, the geocentric theory alongisde the heliocentric one, etc. In order to be non-discriminatory, we should not present any evidence, but should just say that these are equal ideas on par with each other.

These are all things that religions hold to be true, and according to your convictions, they should all be taught.

Please explain to me why you are willing to accept that your child be taught every scientific theory except for the one that happens to deal with speciation?

Because it denies the reality that the specific creatures of this planet were created by God, thereby undermining a child's belief in the truth and reliability of the Bible, his/her church, his/her parents and God.

I am not saying that evidence for and against any given idea shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught as "the best" anything. That is to give it a value that supercedes an altertnate interpretation of the data, like creation theory.

? what about multiple methods of contraception resulting in a pregnancy nonetheless?

what about people who have had vasectomies or tubal litigation (i think that's the term) and still conceive?

these people chose to try to prevent a pregnancy and their attempts were unsuccessful.

furthremore your statement is like saying that skiing accidents can be avoided by skiing responsably, with the exception of those where you're forced to go down a hill you're not ready for. thus, those who injure themselves for choosing to ski in difficult conditions or push their limits have no right to treatment should they get injured, as they made a personal choice to try a new hill or ignore the icy patch in front of them.... so they don't deserve to have their leg set.

Comparing abortion to the treatment of a knee injury in skiing is like comparing an neuclear bomb to a hand gernade.

And yes, even if people attempt to stop pregnancies from happening, but, with all forms of contraception but abstinance, there is a chance that one will get pregnant and the individual is still responsible for taking that risk.

My wife and I use contraceptives, but if they fail, we have an obligation to the child we create together not to murder it simply because our contraceptive failed. We know the risks and we take that responsibility when we voluntarily engage in sexual behavior.

Because it denies the reality that the specific creatures of this planet were created by God, thereby undermining a child's belief in the truth and reliability of the Bible, his/her church, his/her parents and God.

It doesn't deny any such thing. All it points to is a method by which God may have placed these creatures there.

Of course, if you are really worried about a child not believing that the Genesis account is literal, you better make sure that they read a poor translation of Genesis, since reading it in Hebrew or in a proper translation to English will demonstrate the inconsistencies between the Priestly and Yahwist stories right off the bat.

I am not saying that evidence for and against any given idea shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught as "the best" anything. That is to give it a value that supercedes an altertnate interpretation of the data, like creation theory.

It is the best *scientific* viewpoint. If you wish to teach your child that the best scientific viewpoint is wrong, that is your business. If you want to lobby for science classes to be optional, that is your business But, in a science class, science is taught. No matter how you spin it, religion is not science.

First off, you assume too much.

Secondly, you happen to be right, I am a guy. But I might have to face having an unwanted child.

Regardless, there are NO documented deaths from coat-hanger abortions in America.

True, it is possible they would have been used, but I'm guessing there would be a lot more deaths...
Wanna see a neat little chart?
http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp

Oooooh, care to use an unbiased source, sailor? I don't take facts from sites with such biased bollocks as If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used. Why can’t we love them both?

Emotive language and non-scientific based points = not-trustworthy source.

She did have the option. The doctors wanted her to have one as they didn't think she would survive childbirth and she was being sick pretty much all the time from about the first week of being pregnant. (she did survive and I was born fine)

Without regards to how you would want the decision to go, would you have wanted your mother to have the choice of abortion?
absolutely. i am proud to know my parents choose to have me, and that my mother was not in any way coerced or forced into motherhood. i would rather have been aborted than have her right to choose restricted.

If you define an embryo as a human being - you must give it *all* the rights of a human being.

and if you give an embryo exactly the same rights as human beings then abortion should still be 100% legal with no restrictions whatsoever. no human being has claim to another human being's body, under any circumstances. no human may be forced to donate their body, their tissues, their organs, or their fluids against their will. humans who originally agree to such donations but then change their mind still have the right to say "no, i don't want my body used anymore." even if the donor was the cause of the need for tissues (such as by causing a car accident that injured the needy party) they cannot be forced to donate against their will. even if they INTENTIONALLY brought about the need for the donation they cannot be coerced.

if a fetus/embryo is given exactly the same rights as a full human then abortion should still be legal. so now can we drop the whole "is it really a person" thing?

and if you give an embryo exactly the same rights as human beings then abortion should still be 100% legal with no restrictions whatsoever. no human being has claim to another human being's body, under any circumstances. no human may be forced to donate their body, their tissues, their organs, or their fluids against their will. humans who originally agree to such donations but then change their mind still have the right to say "no, i don't want my body used anymore." even if the donor was the cause of the need for tissues (such as by causing a car accident that injured the needy party) they cannot be forced to donate against their will. even if they INTENTIONALLY brought about the need for the donation they cannot be coerced.

if a fetus/embryo is given exactly the same rights as a full human then abortion should still be legal. so now can we drop the whole "is it really a person" thing?

:fluffle:!
Can I use this quote in future abortion debates? It sums everything up so neatly...

:fluffle:!
Can I use this quote in future abortion debates? It sums everything up so neatly...
please do. i am so sick of people making the same stupid argument, and trying to say that if a fetus is a human that somehow means that it has a claim to the body of another human. i would love for more people to be pointing out the flaw there, so i don't have to do it as often :).

please do. i am so sick of people making the same stupid argument, and trying to say that if a fetus is a human that somehow means that it has a claim to the body of another human. i would love for more people to be pointing out the flaw there, so i don't have to do it as often :).

I've tried to spread the Point of Bottle before... people just tend to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Makes me wonder why they bother entering debate threads at all.

Having a handy, and well-worded, quote will just make things a thousand times easier.

I've tried to spread the Point of Bottle before... people just tend to stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Makes me wonder why they bother entering debate threads at all.

Having a handy, and well-worded, quote will just make things a thousand times easier.
honestly, nobody has ever responded to what you so adorably have dubbed the Point of Bottle. not a single Pro-lifer has been able to respond to it. or, at least, their responses do nothing to address it...usually they degenerate to "babies are cute we shouldn't kill them" or "women who have sex and like it are bad and should be forced to endure childbirth so they learn their lesson."

and to them i say: "BOOOOORRRRINNNNGGGG." new material, pro-lifers, please.

It doesn't deny any such thing. All it points to is a method by which God may have placed these creatures there.

No matter how you spin it, religion is not science.

In your opinion this is obviously the case. Your are entitled to it. I strongly disagree and you can't prove that I'm wrong any more than I can prove that you are.

In your opinion this is obviously the case. Your are entitled to it. I strongly disagree and you can't prove that I'm wrong any more than I can prove that you are.

She can't prove religion isn't science?

Um... you might want to rethink that... proving that religion doesn't follow the scientific standard is really, really easy.

In your opinion this is obviously the case. Your are entitled to it. I strongly disagree and you can't prove that I'm wrong any more than I can prove that you are.

All I have to do is point to the actual theory. The actual theory does not have anything whatsoever in it to preclude the idea that there was a Creator that started it all. It is pretty clear, and can only be a realm of opinion for someone who hasn't studied it.

Nice try, but again, if you are teaching all the perspectives, fine. If you only teach one perspective on origins you have to teach them all with no more or less emphasis or value being placed on one than another.

Notice, for me, we are not talking about science, we are talking about origins of life and or life as we know it. Evolution does teach one perspective on this and to be non-discriminatory all perspectives should be taught if any are taught.

And yet, you don't want condoms given out in schools - which would give a fair representation of Sex Education, because it conflicts with YOUR christian values about what sex should be.

You have to pick a lane.

Science is taught as one big subject, usually... because it is such an interdependent and interlinked process. PART of science is biology, and PART of biology is evolutionary theory - whether YOU like that or not.

Science is essential to our culture, and especially if we want a progressive culture that continues to do things like push back the boundaries of medicine and energy conservation, for example.

Now - if you can show me SCIENCE that fits the requirements for a science course, but is also EXPLICITLY religious, hell, I'll sign your petition to get it on the syllabus - but I will NOT support removing science to placate one faith, or choosing to temper science with what is 'acceptable' to one faith.

Like I said - Creationism is not scientific, so it shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE classes. If you think it should be taught in RELIGION classes, I agree... and, from what I recall, it IS. Now - if you TRULY have the courage of your convictions about 1st Amendment rights, YOU should be petitioning for OTHER religions to be better represented in the classrooms that YOUR child attends. I'd sign THAT petition, too.

Because it denies the reality that the specific creatures of this planet were created by God, thereby undermining a child's belief in the truth and reliability of the Bible, his/her church, his/her parents and God.

I am not saying that evidence for and against any given idea shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught as "the best" anything. That is to give it a value that supercedes an altertnate interpretation of the data, like creation theory.

Personally, I DO deny that ANY creatures on this planet were created by god - so, I should fully SUPPORT that view being taught.

But, I don't think that is the case. At my school, we were taught Creationist principles in RE (Religious Education), and Evolution principles in Biology. Neither was given precedence over the other, because they were not taught in the same format or class.

It's like saying that Mathematics is given precedence over art.

Responding to that last part, though... evolution SHOULD be taught as the BEST SCIENTIFIC theory to explain origins of life, because it IS the BEST SCIENTIFIC theory to explain the origins of life.

Creationism doesn't judge the data scientifically, and bases it's 'theory' on a different set of data (i.e. ONE book, no observed evidence) - thus it ISN'T a scientific theory, and it doesn't give an 'alternate interpretation of the data'... it just brings it's own set of data with it.

This is the question that matters, however.

I kill skin cells every day when I scratch too hard. I kill stomach cells just by being alive. I kill bacteria, I kill *cells* all the time. If they are not a separate human organism, it doesn't matter.
That's not what I was arguing...I was just saying you are killing something



Define child.
Regardless of when it is a child, will the child ever have a life?



Persuading (speaking your mind) and forcing (legislating your particular belief into law) are two very different things.
In which case, legalizing abortion forces me to accept your beliefs that it's ok. Thus, democracy, majority rules, greatest good for the greatest number...yeah...



It depends on exactly what you mean by separate. It is a separate organism at the point I have defined above. However, it is living off of another, and is thus not truly separate. In other words, that other has a say in what is done with/to it on the basis that the other is the only thing providing it with nutrients/etc.
Which, as I said, would define a tapeworm or any other parasite as not a separate organism. And guess what, the only organisms that don't depend on other organisms are plants. So by your definition, we're all one organism because we all live off of each other.



The only difference (not speaking from an emotional viewpoint) would be that the viable fetus could survive separated from the mother and the tapeworm could not survive separated from its host. Before viablility, the only difference is in the species.
So you agree then that a tapeworm is not a separate organism?



No, they aren't. If you define an embryo as a human being - you must give it *all* the rights of a human being.
Do minors have all the rights of adults?



Only one case that I know of has actually been prosecuted under the new double homicide laws - and that involved a viable fetus. Anything pre-viability will be appealed, and likely thrown out. If not, we'll start having cases where mothers are prosecuted for having miscarriages.
You also have to look at the circumstances. If a mother is doing everything legal, then there shouldn't be a case. The only time "manslaughter" is charged is when it happens while you're doing something illegal already, like speeding or whatever.




It made them into incubators who couldn't walk out the door without the fear that they might fall down and commit manslaughter? Funny, I never heard that part of the Civil War story.
No, it made their way of life a crime. Oh, and some of them felt they couldn't go out the door without getting killed by a former-slave angry mob.
Again, not what I'm arguing, stop putting words in my mouth.



Do you really want to make college attendence (a very stressful existence) a crime? Do you really want to make heavy exercise a crime? Do you really want to make it a crime for a woman to work in industries requiring heavy labor?
See above.
And what I meant was, if your way of life is destructive and harmful, it is worth re-evaluating your life, and perhaps doing away with harmful practices.
If some woman is pregnant, what the hell is she doing on heavy equipment anyways!? That's just common sense!
No, I don't mean to make it illegal, but it's just common sense! Kinda like smoking and drinking while you're pregnant. It's just a stupid thing to do.

That's not what I was arguing...I was just saying you are killing something

Which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, unless you are arguing that every time you kill something, it is the exact same as killing someone.

Regardless of when it is a child, will the child ever have a life?

If it is not a child, then there is no discussion of any child having or not having life.

In which case, legalizing abortion forces me to accept your beliefs that it's ok. Thus, democracy, majority rules, greatest good for the greatest number...yeah...

Legalizing abortion does not in any way force you to accept anything, least of all any beliefs of mine. Personally, I do not believe that abortion is ok. However, legalized abortion does not force me (or you) to have an abortion, or to accept anyone who does.

Smoking cigarretes is legal. Does that mean that I have been forced to accept the belief that smoking is ok? Not in the least! I think it is a vile habit and I know the health risks it causes.

Which, as I said, would define a tapeworm or any other parasite as not a separate organism. And guess what, the only organisms that don't depend on other organisms are plants. So by your definition, we're all one organism because we all live off of each other.

When I said separate, I meant "living outside its host." As such, any parasite would not be defined as separate (as it lives within and feeds off of its host).

When you say separate, you are obviously meaning any organism as an entity, which I have already shown that the fetus is once it develops a rudimentary nervous system.

So you agree then that a tapeworm is not a separate organism?

Defining separate as "living outside its host", yes.

Defining separate as its own entity, no.

Do minors have all the rights of adults?

No, but they have all the rights of human beings. Are you prepared to state that all human beings do not have the right to life?

You also have to look at the circumstances. If a mother is doing everything legal, then there shouldn't be a case. The only time "manslaughter" is charged is when it happens while you're doing something illegal already, like speeding or whatever.

You don't actually know what manslaughter is, do you? Anything you do that you know may cause harm to others (whether it is legal or not) which kills another person makes you liable for manslaughter. If you swerve to miss a kid that runs out in front of you and hit their parent instead, you have committed manslaughter without ever doing anything illegal. If you fire a gun on the 4th of July, not knowing that someone might be in its path, and you kill someone - that is manslaughter. If you place a potted plant in your window (perfectly legal), and freak accident causes it to fall on a passerby below, you are liable for manslaughter.

If an embryo is a human being, anything a woman does that induces a miscarriage, whether she knows she is pregnant or not, puts her at risk for prosectution of neglect and/or manslaughter, as she knows this might possibly be harming another human being.

See above.
And what I meant was, if your way of life is destructive and harmful, it is worth re-evaluating your life, and perhaps doing away with harmful practices.

And what you don't see is that the narrow definition of "destructive and harmful" that this would engender would make it impossible for any sexually active woman to lead a normal life.

If some woman is pregnant, what the hell is she doing on heavy equipment anyways!? That's just common sense!

You do realize that many miscarriages occur before the woman even knows she is pegnant, correct?

No, I don't mean to make it illegal, but it's just common sense! Kinda like smoking and drinking while you're pregnant. It's just a stupid thing to do.

Again, these things can occur *before* the woman knows she is pregnant. However, if conception is the beginning of human life, she is liable.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, unless you are arguing that every time you kill something, it is the exact same as killing someone.
You said nothing died. I said that something did. That's all I was trying to prove here.



If it is not a child, then there is no discussion of any child having or not having life.
Will whatever it is that's in the mother live as a child?



Legalizing abortion does not in any way force you to accept anything, least of all any beliefs of mine. Personally, I do not believe that abortion is ok. However, legalized abortion does not force me (or you) to have an abortion, or to accept anyone who does.
In that case, neither does illegalizing it force you to believe that it's not ok, nor does it force you not to do it: it just makes it significantly more unappealing.


Smoking cigarretes is legal. Does that mean that I have been forced to accept the belief that smoking is ok? Not in the least! I think it is a vile habit and I know the health risks it causes.
Your smoking cigarrettes doesn't hurt someone else. Rather, they can always walk away and not inhale it.



When I said separate, I meant "living outside its host." As such, any parasite would not be defined as separate (as it lives within and feeds off of its host).

When you say separate, you are obviously meaning any organism as an entity, which I have already shown that the fetus is once it develops a rudimentary nervous system.

Defining separate as "living outside its host", yes.

Defining separate as its own entity, no.
So a skin graft growing in a lab is a separate organism but conjoined twins aren't?



No, but they have all the rights of human beings. Are you prepared to state that all human beings do not have the right to life?
I'm saying all humans, including unborn ones, have the right to life. Your logic is flawed.



You don't actually know what manslaughter is, do you? Anything you do that you know may cause harm to others (whether it is legal or not) which kills another person makes you liable for manslaughter. If you swerve to miss a kid that runs out in front of you and hit their parent instead, you have committed manslaughter without ever doing anything illegal. If you fire a gun on the 4th of July, not knowing that someone might be in its path, and you kill someone - that is manslaughter. If you place a potted plant in your window (perfectly legal), and freak accident causes it to fall on a passerby below, you are liable for manslaughter.

If an embryo is a human being, anything a woman does that induces a miscarriage, whether she knows she is pregnant or not, puts her at risk for prosectution of neglect and/or manslaughter, as she knows this might possibly be harming another human being.
Take it to the judge. I think that's stupid. The definition of manslaughter needs to change, then, not the definition of a human.



And what you don't see is that the narrow definition of "destructive and harmful" that this would engender would make it impossible for any sexually active woman to lead a normal life.
You're putting words in my mouth.



You do realize that many miscarriages occur before the woman even knows she is pegnant, correct?
See above, and I dobut that many of them are caused by operating heavy equipment.
I don't know, so if you have the facts ready, fine. But my guess is it's not that many.



Again, these things can occur *before* the woman knows she is pregnant. However, if conception is the beginning of human life, she is liable.
Not usually. There are plenty of women who keep on doing any number of drugs when they know they're pregnant.
The other portion stop when they find out.

So if they don't stop they're stupid and if they do they should be commended for stopping.

You said nothing died. I said that something did. That's all I was trying to prove here.

I never said any such thing. I said that no *organism* died, which is true.

Will whatever it is that's in the mother live as a child?

Not if it doesn't reach the point at which it is defined as a child.

In that case, neither does illegalizing it force you to believe that it's not ok, nor does it force you not to do it: it just makes it significantly more unappealing.

Illegalizing it does force you not to do it, unless you want to give up your entire life anyways. The goverment cannot put a restriction on something without demonstrating a clear interest in doing so. If we cannot define such an interest which is not based in the religious views of a certain subset of the population, it is unconstitutional to illegalize it. Notice that illegalizing it puts a restriction on those who disagree. Legalizing it does not put any restriction on those who disagree.

Your smoking cigarrettes doesn't hurt someone else. Rather, they can always walk away and not inhale it.

Your having an abortion does not hurt someone else, by any non-religious standard.

So a skin graft growing in a lab is a separate organism but conjoined twins aren't?

A skin graft is not an organism at all. This argument really is pointless, however, as we have moved on to an entirely different definition of separate.

I'm saying all humans, including unborn ones, have the right to life. Your logic is flawed.

This is how the discussion went:

Dem: "If we define embryos as human beings, we must give them all the rights of a human being."

Rhy: "Do children have all the rights of adults?"

Dem: "No, but they do have all the rights of a human being."

If an embryo is not entitled to protection from undue harm due to negligence of the mother (which any miscarriage due to the lifestyle of the mother -- a very significant percentage of miscarriages -- would be), it is not entitled to all of the rights we subscribe to any human being.

Take it to the judge. I think that's stupid. The definition of manslaughter needs to change, then, not the definition of a human.

So you don't think someone should be punished when they kills someone while committing an action they know may harm another?

You're putting words in my mouth.

Not really. I am demonstrating the logical conclusion of your viewpoint.

See above, and I dobut that many of them are caused by operating heavy equipment.

My aunt had 3, all of them due to exertion in the early timepoints of pregnancy before she even knew she was pregnant. *Many* women are susceptible to stress-induced miscarriages, especially in the very early stages of pregnancy (when they may or may not be aware of their condition).

Not usually. There are plenty of women who keep on doing any number of drugs when they know they're pregnant.
The other portion stop when they find out.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made, which is that a woman may drink, smoke, or do other drugs *BEFORE* she even knows she is pregnant and cause significant developmental problems, or possibly even a miscarriage.

So if they don't stop they're stupid and if they do they should be commended for stopping.

I agree. However, in a world where an embryo was defined as a full human being, harm caused *before* she even knows could be charged against the mother, as she committed an action which she knew might possibly harm another (as any sexually active woman is aware that there is a chance she might be pregnant).

I never said any such thing. I said that no *organism* died, which is true.
Then I am sorry, there was a misunderstanding.



Not if it doesn't reach the point at which it is defined as a child.
That is my point. You have deprived it of life as a child. It could have lived as a child, you stopped it. You deprived it of life. You killed it.



Illegalizing it does force you not to do it, unless you want to give up your entire life anyways.
But you can still do it.
And obviously you don't have to give up your entire life because plenty of people had abortions when they were illegal before.

The goverment cannot put a restriction on something without demonstrating a clear interest in doing so. If we cannot define such an interest which is not based in the religious views of a certain subset of the population, it is unconstitutional to illegalize it.
Nor, I remind you, would it be constitutional to legalize it based on the religious views of a certain subset of the population
And actually it's perfectly constitutional to illegalize it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See, that says religion, not a law durived from one conclusion from a religion. And I would remind you that "separation of church and state" is a strong suggestion, and nowhere in the constitution, nor was it meant to be taken the way it was. And I would remind you that America was found, populated, and created as a country because of religious views.


Notice that illegalizing it puts a restriction on those who disagree. Legalizing it does not put any restriction on those who disagree.
So? Illegalizing slavery restricts those who disagree, but legalizing it wouldn't.
I believe in slavery (*hypothetically*), and I believe in slavery because of religious beliefs (again, *hypothetically*), so you cannot illegalize slavery because it restricts me, and I do not agree.


Your having an abortion does not hurt someone else, by any non-religious standard.
Scientifically it causes pain to the abortee if it is late enough.
And it hurts me emotionally.
And it hurts abortion survivors. (And yes, people have survived being aborted).


A skin graft is not an organism at all. This argument really is pointless, however, as we have moved on to an entirely different definition of separate.
Really?
When I said separate, I meant "living outside its host."
A skin graft lives outside of a host, so it is, according to you, a separate organism.
But, since a tapeworm lives inside a human, it is a human organ.



This is how the discussion went:

Dem: "If we define embryos as human beings, we must give them all the rights of a human being."

Rhy: "Do children have all the rights of adults?"

Dem: "No, but they do have all the rights of a human being."

If an embryo is not entitled to protection from undue harm due to negligence of the mother (which any miscarriage due to the lifestyle of the mother -- a very significant percentage of miscarriages -- would be), it is not entitled to all of the rights we subscribe to any human being.
That is a different argument. "Undue harm due to negligence" is completely different from an unfortunate accident due to circumstances beyond our control. You're confusing the two, and putting words in my mouth.



So you don't think someone should be punished when they kills someone while committing an action they know may harm another?
Cooking an excellent, delicious, and wonderful dinner may harm someone if they choke on it. Cooking with dirty utensils and tainted meat may harm someone for obvious reasons. Only one of the two will get a lawsuit against you.



Not really. I am demonstrating the logical conclusion of your viewpoint.
You are taking my logic out of context and adding conditions that I never specified.



My aunt had 3, all of them due to exertion in the early timepoints of pregnancy before she even knew she was pregnant. *Many* women are susceptible to stress-induced miscarriages, especially in the very early stages of pregnancy (when they may or may not be aware of their condition).
See above.



Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made, which is that a woman may drink, smoke, or do other drugs *BEFORE* she even knows she is pregnant and cause significant developmental problems, or possibly even a miscarriage.
See above.



I agree. However, in a world where an embryo was defined as a full human being, harm caused *before* she even knows could be charged against the mother, as she committed an action which she knew might possibly harm another (as any sexually active woman is aware that there is a chance she might be pregnant).
See above.

That is my point. You have deprived it of life as a child. It could have lived as a child, you stopped it. You deprived it of life. You killed it.

You cannot "deprive it of live as a child" if it never is a child in the first place. There is nothint to deprive.

If my house had never gotten built, no one could deprive me of it, because it wouldn't even exist. It has been built at this point, so now someone could attempt to deprive me of it.

But you can still do it.
And obviously you don't have to give up your entire life because plenty of people had abortions when they were illegal before.

Plenty? Very few, and these generally had to be accomplished through lies and made-up maladies. Doctor-performed abortions in sanitary conditions were only available to the very rich, while those with less money who felt they needed the procedure ended up with dirty tools, often leading to infections (which could destroy the womb) and other complications. Anyone caught could be prosecuted.

Nor, I remind you, would it be constitutional to legalize it based on the religious views of a certain subset of the population

You are missing a very significant point. There is no "legalizing it". Our criminal law system does not work off of a permissive system, it is restrictive. All things are assumed to be allowable unless there is a specific law against it.

There is no such thing as "legalizing" something, as this would require a law saying "You are allowed to do X, because the government says so."

For an example: There is no permissive law that says "You may drive 45 mph along the freeway." However, there is a restrictive law that says "You may not drive above the posted speed limit (generally between 55 and 75), nor may you drive below the speed minimum (generally 40). Our law is made up of "you may not"s rather than "you may"s. The former means that the government is limited in what it can restrict. The latter would mean that every action was restricted unless the government expressly permitted it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." See, that says religion, not a law durived from one conclusion from a religion.

Making a law based on a particular religion establishes that the government places that religion above all others.

And I would remind you that "separation of church and state" is a strong suggestion, and nowhere in the constitution, nor was it meant to be taken the way it was.

The majority of those who wrote it would have disagreed with you on this, and there are letters and writings by them to prove it.

And I would remind you that America was found, populated, and created as a country because of religious views.

Actually, the US was founded upon the ideal that people should have a say in the way they are treated by their government. The fact that many people first left their home countries for religious beliefs has nothing to do with the actual founding of the country.

So? Illegalizing slavery restricts those who disagree, but legalizing it wouldn't.

Illegalizing slavery restricts those who wish to have slaves.
Having slavery legal does not restrict those who do not wish to have slaves.

However, in this case, we can prove harm against another human being. As such, the government may provide a restrictive law prohibiting slavery in order to protect those who would be harmed by the law (ie. the slaves).

I believe in slavery (*hypothetically*), and I believe in slavery because of religious beliefs (again, *hypothetically*), so you cannot illegalize slavery because it restricts me, and I do not agree.

There is clear harm to another human being, without bringing religious beliefs into it. You are making a completely illogical jump here.

Scientifically it causes pain to the abortee if it is late enough.

And elective abortions are not allowed at this point in the US.

And it hurts me emotionally.

You have no right to not be offended.

And it hurts abortion survivors. (And yes, people have survived being aborted).

The only "survivor stories" I have heard have been hoaxes. However, the only possible way there could be survivors would be if we were talking about late-term abortions, which are only available in the US if the mother's life is in danger.

Really?

Yes, I explained this in my last post. When I said separate, I was specifically meaning "living completely off of its own systems". No parasite would meet this requirement. However, you have quite obviously been defining separate as "being its own lifeform," which I have already clearly stated that the fetus is after the development of a rudimentary nervous system, and as any parasite would be.

A skin graft lives outside of a host, so it is, according to you, a separate organism.

Wrong. A skin graft does not meet all of the requirements to be an organism. It has no way to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity.

But, since a tapeworm lives inside a human, it is a human organ.

Again, I never even came close to implying this.

That is a different argument. "Undue harm due to negligence" is completely different from an unfortunate accident due to circumstances beyond our control. You're confusing the two, and putting words in my mouth.

No, I am not. Try to follow my logic here:

Manslaugter is the death of another human being caused by an action of the perpetrator in which the perpetrator knew might cause harm to another person or was willfully negligent.

Any sexually active woman knows that she may be pregnant, despite any protections she has used.

You would define an embryo as a human being, with all the protections of a human being.

Any mother living a stressful lifestyle (lack of sleep - not eating - lots of tests - you know, any college student), doing heavy labor of any kind, or even going ice skating and falling down may induce a miscarriage, regardless of whether or not she knows she is pregnant.

Thus, any sexually active woman must refrain from any action that might cause a miscarriage if she is pregnant, or be liable for the death of an embryo.

You are taking my logic out of context and adding conditions that I never specified.

No, I am using the exact conditions that you specify - that an embryo be counted as a human being - and demonstrating the problems with it.

See above.

My aunt was well aware that she was sexually active, and thus could at any time possibly be pregnant. She was also aware that, if she were pregnant, any heavy lifting or other exertion could cause a miscarriage. This is not an "unforeseeable accident." Thus, by the legal definition of manslaughter and your assertion that an embryo should be viewed as a human being, she would liable for manslaughter.

See above.

Every sexually active woman knows that she may be pregnant and that drinking/smoking/doing drugs would cause harm to the embryo should she be pregnant. Thus, it is not an "unforeseeable accident".

See above.

See above.

Planned = Me

Accident = Bart Simpson

'nuff said

You cannot "deprive it of live as a child" if it never is a child in the first place. There is nothint to deprive.
Will there be a live child?

If my house had never gotten built, no one could deprive me of it, because it wouldn't even exist. It has been built at this point, so now someone could attempt to deprive me of it.
If you are going to build a house, are indeed in the process of building a house, and someone burns what's there down and steals the property....



Plenty? Very few, and these generally had to be accomplished through lies and made-up maladies. Doctor-performed abortions in sanitary conditions were only available to the very rich, while those with less money who felt they needed the procedure ended up with dirty tools, often leading to infections (which could destroy the womb) and other complications. Anyone caught could be prosecuted.
So, there weren't that many? But that would mean the pro-abortionists did lie and had fudged the figures...

So I stand by my point that illegalizing abortion would cause "very few" illegal abortions.



You are missing a very significant point. There is no "legalizing it". Our criminal law system does not work off of a permissive system, it is restrictive. All things are assumed to be allowable unless there is a specific law against it.

There is no such thing as "legalizing" something, as this would require a law saying "You are allowed to do X, because the government says so."
It's either legal or it's illegal. If it is illegal and you make it legal, you are therefore "legalizing" it.

For an example: There is no permissive law that says "You may drive 45 mph along the freeway." However, there is a restrictive law that says "You may not drive above the posted speed limit (generally between 55 and 75), nor may you drive below the speed minimum (generally 40). Our law is made up of "you may not"s rather than "you may"s. The former means that the government is limited in what it can restrict. The latter would mean that every action was restricted unless the government expressly permitted it.
That would be one interpretation of the constitution.
Another way one could interpret the speed sign is "you may go up to 45 mph" "You may drive any speed equal to or under 45 mph" "You may drive above 45 but you may get ticketed."


Making a law based on a particular religion establishes that the government places that religion above all others.
Except 1) There are plenty of atheist pro-lifers. 2) that applies to illegalizing abortion as well.



The majority of those who wrote it would have disagreed with you on this, and there are letters and writings by them to prove it.
You ever met them? You got a copy of those letters?
Again, I remind you that most of the founding fathers were Christian, or at least believed in a God. Why would they expressly forbid religion, the very thing that created their nation, to interfere with the government?



Actually, the US was founded upon the ideal that people should have a say in the way they are treated by their government. The fact that many people first left their home countries for religious beliefs has nothing to do with the actual founding of the country.
I said "found" not "founded." As in Columbus was sponsored in part to spread Christianity. And then it was founded mainly by Christians who were there in the first place because they didn't want England to tell them how to be Christian.
And then it was founded on Christian principles, the most prominent being "all men are created equal."


Illegalizing slavery restricts those who wish to have slaves.
Having slavery legal does not restrict those who do not wish to have slaves.
Exactly...So why isn't slavery legal?


However, in this case, we can prove harm against another human being. As such, the government may provide a restrictive law prohibiting slavery in order to protect those who would be harmed by the law (ie. the slaves).

There is clear harm to another human being, without bringing religious beliefs into it. You are making a completely illogical jump here.
But slaves aren't people, they aren't human, so it's ok. (hypothetically...I'm sorry to keep reminding you, but people seem to have problems with this, and I don't want people sending me angry TGs thinking that I said slavery is OK).


And elective abortions are not allowed at this point in the US.
I didn't say they weren't.

It also causes harm to the forming fetus. What a fetus is is obviously being debated, but it still gets harmed.



You have no right to not be offended.
First off, that doesn't make sense.
Secondly, I have every right to be offended. You have no right to tell what can and cannot offend me.
Lastly, I never said it did offend me. I said it hurts me emotionally. Difference.



The only "survivor stories" I have heard have been hoaxes. However, the only possible way there could be survivors would be if we were talking about late-term abortions, which are only available in the US if the mother's life is in danger.
www.abortionfacts.com
They have two testimonies.
And you said "abortions," you did not specify which kind. This is mainly for the benefit of those who think late-term abortions should be legal.



Yes, I explained this in my last post. When I said separate, I was specifically meaning "living completely off of its own systems". No parasite would meet this requirement. However, you have quite obviously been defining separate as "being its own lifeform," which I have already clearly stated that the fetus is after the development of a rudimentary nervous system, and as any parasite would be.
Why nervous system? Ameobas don't have nervous systems.

Wrong. A skin graft does not meet all of the requirements to be an organism. It has no way to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity.
Just trying to make a point.



Again, I never even came close to implying this.
Actually, you did come close. I'll concede that you didn't, but you came close.
If a tapeworm is not separate, what is it? It is separate from the human body, it is not human, it is only connected. So what do you mean by separate? Do you mean separated? As in not physically together?



No, I am not. Try to follow my logic here:

Manslaugter is the death of another human being caused by an action of the perpetrator in which the perpetrator knew might cause harm to another person or was willfully negligent.

Any sexually active woman knows that she may be pregnant, despite any protections she has used.

You would define an embryo as a human being, with all the protections of a human being.

Any mother living a stressful lifestyle (lack of sleep - not eating - lots of tests - you know, any college student), doing heavy labor of any kind, or even going ice skating and falling down may induce a miscarriage, regardless of whether or not she knows she is pregnant.

Thus, any sexually active woman must refrain from any action that might cause a miscarriage if she is pregnant, or be liable for the death of an embryo.
First off, she does not know she is pregnant. Secondly, you imply that her stressful lifestyle (tests and such) are a necessity. She cannot stop school, and she needs a job. That is beyond her control.
As for falling, that isn't negligence, that's an accident. That, too, is out of her control and in the control of gravity, the conditions of the ice, other skaters, and random wind patterns.

And as I said, driving my car completely and utterly legally could hurt someone. But that doesn't make driving a car illegal. She doesn't have to give up her lifestyle, just be careful, which is COMMON SENSE.


No, I am using the exact conditions that you specify - that an embryo be counted as a human being - and demonstrating the problems with it.
Those conditions are irrational and out of context.


My aunt was well aware that she was sexually active, and thus could at any time possibly be pregnant. She was also aware that, if she were pregnant, any heavy lifting or other exertion could cause a miscarriage. This is not an "unforeseeable accident." Thus, by the legal definition of manslaughter and your assertion that an embryo should be viewed as a human being, she would liable for manslaughter.
This is unforseeable, because she cannot be sure she is pregnant, nor can she be sure that it will cause a miscarriage.
After several times I would think it would be common sense, but that's just me.



Every sexually active woman knows that she may be pregnant and that drinking/smoking/doing drugs would cause harm to the embryo should she be pregnant. Thus, it is not an "unforeseeable accident".
See above.



See above.
See above. And just to save you some time...


See above. <- so you don't have to type it later.

Dempublicants said... The majority of those who wrote it would have disagreed with you on this, and there are letters and writings by them to prove it.You ever met them? You got a copy of those letters? Again, I remind you that most of the founding fathers were Christian, or at least believed in a God. Why would they expressly forbid religion, the very thing that created their nation, to interfere with the government?
<whole bunches snipped>:headbang: :headbang:No, no, no. The Founders who were Christian (and certainly not all were) were deists. Deism is as far away from modern theistic Christianity as chocolate is different from vanilla.

And there's obviously no reason to point you to Jefferson's or Madison's or anyone else's writings because I'm sure you've been sent there time and time again and either won't or can't absorb the truth therein. The Constitution is NOT based on Christian principles. Although some influence of the JudeoChristian philosophy can be found, the Constitution also shows much influence from Greek and Roman thought as well as the organic documents of the Seven Nations.

Why would the Founders expressly forbid religion from interfering with government?, you ask. Because they had real-life examples of religions (both Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism to name two) exerting formal control on governments and the problems that that influence caused.

:headbang: :headbang:

:headbang: :headbang:No, no, no. The Founders who were Christian (and certainly not all were) were deists. Deism is as far away from modern theistic Christianity as chocolate is different from vanilla.

And there's obviously no reason to point you to Jefferson's or Madison's or anyone else's writings because I'm sure you've been sent there time and time again and either won't or can't absorb the truth therein. The Constitution is NOT based on Christian principles. Although some influence of the JudeoChristian philosophy can be found, the Constitution also shows much influence from Greek and Roman thought as well as the organic documents of the Seven Nations.

Why would the Founders expressly forbid religion from interfering with government?, you ask. Because they had real-life examples of religions (both Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism to name two) exerting formal control on governments and the problems that that influence caused.

:headbang: :headbang:
First of all, no I haven't seen them.
Secondly, no, they only saw the government being the religious leaders. Anglican church, the pope, etc. SoCaS was a suggestion designed to prevent something like that from happening, to prevent anyone from controlling both the church and the state.
AND, regardless of what it means, it's still not in the constitution, and you still can't legally stop someone.

Wow.

Abortion, creationism and founding father's religious practices all in one thread? Impressive.

You are missing a very significant point. There is no "legalizing it". Our criminal law system does not work off of a permissive system, it is restrictive. All things are assumed to be allowable unless there is a specific law against it.

There is no such thing as "legalizing" something, as this would require a law saying "You are allowed to do X, because the government says so."

For an example: There is no permissive law that says "You may drive 45 mph along the freeway." However, there is a restrictive law that says "You may not drive above the posted speed limit (generally between 55 and 75), nor may you drive below the speed minimum (generally 40). Our law is made up of "you may not"s rather than "you may"s. The former means that the government is limited in what it can restrict. The latter would mean that every action was restricted unless the government expressly permitted it.
Very, very good point.

That would be one interpretation of the constitution.
Another way one could interpret the speed sign is "you may go up to 45 mph" "You may drive any speed equal to or under 45 mph" "You may drive above 45 but you may get ticketed."
No, you are wrong. The 9th Amendment is proof of this:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You can't get much more explicit than that--you are flat out wrong.

Will there be a live child?
Are you also against contraception, then?

First of all, no I haven't seen them.
Secondly, no, they only saw the government being the religious leaders. Anglican church, the pope, etc. SoCaS was a suggestion designed to prevent something like that from happening, to prevent anyone from controlling both the church and the state.
AND, regardless of what it means, it's still not in the constitution, and you still can't legally stop someone.

Something tells me this is a waste of time, but start here...
...with this summary article. (http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1476) There's a good set of links at the end.
Then, there's Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html).
Then feel free to ramble about in this set of articles (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_index.htm). They're very good.

Just for good measure... "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," Pres. John Adams, 1797.

I'm not sure how you can say the Establishment Clause (Amend. 1 to the U.S. Constitution) is just a suggestion. That the constitution does not contain the exact phrase "separation of church and state" signifies nothing. The constitution doesn't contain the phrase "right to a fair trial" either, yet that right is an established constitutional right.

Will there be a live child?

No, not if it does not reach that point.

If you are going to build a house, are indeed in the process of building a house, and someone burns what's there down and steals the property....

I still have not been deprived of a house.

So, there weren't that many? But that would mean the pro-abortionists did lie and had fudged the figures...

It depends on your definition of "many". The vast majority of women with unwanted pregnancies obeyed the law. However, the pure numbers of women who did seek illegal abortions were high.

It's either legal or it's illegal. If it is illegal and you make it legal, you are therefore "legalizing" it.

However, a law does not legalize something - the removal of a law does.

That would be one interpretation of the constitution.
Another way one could interpret the speed sign is "you may go up to 45 mph" "You may drive any speed equal to or under 45 mph" "You may drive above 45 but you may get ticketed."

Wrong. If you interpret the laws as being permissive, rather than restrictive, then we cannot do anything for which there is not a specific law allowing us to do so. This is quite obviously not the case. Every criminal law explains what the person *cannot* do. If there is not a law against it, it is assumed to be permitted. This is why we hear of cases of someone doing something which we find utterly repugnant, but nothing can be done - because there is no law against it.

Except 1) There are plenty of atheist pro-lifers.

None of which have an objective reason against it without making up or misinterpreting scientific facts.

2) that applies to illegalizing abortion as well.

It applies to illegalizing abortion - exactly what I said. There is no objective reason to illegalize 1st trimester abortion. The only reasoning is subjective and religious in nature. As such, it cannot be made into law, as the government can provide no compelling interest to do so.

You ever met them? You got a copy of those letters?

On me? No, most of them are pretty well-protected in museums.

Again, I remind you that most of the founding fathers were Christian, or at least believed in a God. Why would they expressly forbid religion, the very thing that created their nation, to interfere with the government?

The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that religion is subjective. Not all religions agree and none of their stances can be proven. As such, there is no place for them in law, as placing them there restricts the rights of some of the citizens. The founding fathers were also intelligent to realize that the only thing that comes from mixing church and state is the corruption and downfall of both.


And then it was founded on Christian principles, the most prominent being "all men are created equal."

These are not expressly Christian principles. The fact that they happen to overlap with Christian principles is irrelevant.

Exactly...So why isn't slavery legal?

Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to harm a human being.

Why isn't driving drunk legal? Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to put others in danger.

Why isn't shooting someone illegal? Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to harm another human being.

But slaves aren't people, they aren't human, so it's ok. (hypothetically...I'm sorry to keep reminding you, but people seem to have problems with this, and I don't want people sending me angry TGs thinking that I said slavery is OK).

Already objectively proven to be false, without religion (in fact, especially without religion, since most religions/religious texts - including Christianity - allow or even condone it).

First off, that doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does, and has been held by the court system to be true.

Secondly, I have every right to be offended. You have no right to tell what can and cannot offend me.

You misread it. I never said you don't have the right to be offended, I said that you do not have the right to restrict that which offends you - in other words, you have no right to *NOT* be offended.

Lastly, I never said it did offend me. I said it hurts me emotionally. Difference.

Not in this context. You are not being caused physical harm. The mental "harm" you claim to be feeling does not have any lasting effects - it will not give you a mental illness or anything of that sort. As such, all it really is is something which offends you.

www.abortionfacts.com
They have two testimonies.

Both of which provide no sources whatsoever and have details that don't really mesh with medical procedure.

And you said "abortions," you did not specify which kind. This is mainly for the benefit of those who think late-term abortions should be legal.

I have never spoken to anyone who seriously believed that late term abortions should be legal in any case other than a danger to the mother.

Why nervous system? Ameobas don't have nervous systems.

Why do you people refuse to read? Did you all fail reading comprehension?

I said that, in order to be a lifeform, something must have (among other factors), a method in which to sense and respond to stimuli as an organism.

And ameoba, a single-celled organism, has mechanisms for accomplishing this.

However, in nearly all (and definitely all higher order) animals - multicellular organisms, this requirement is accomplished through use of a nervous system. Until the nervous system is developed, each individual cell can respond to some stimuli, but the entity as a whole cannot. As such, it is not yet an organism.

Just trying to make a point.

Well, whatever the point was, you'll have to try again - using something that makes sense.

Actually, you did come close. I'll concede that you didn't, but you came close.

No, I didn't. And since I have explained the two possible interpretations of the word "separate" in this context 3 TIMES NOW, I will leave it to you to actually read them this time, or quite trying to push the matter.

First off, she does not know she is pregnant.

Doesn't matter. If I shoot a gun off a roof and hit someone who I didn't know was there, I am still liable for that death. Why? Because I knew that someone *could* be there, and if they were, they would be harmed.

Secondly, you imply that her stressful lifestyle (tests and such) are a necessity. She cannot stop school, and she needs a job. That is beyond her control.

Anyone can stop school, anyone can get a job which does not require heavy labor.

As for falling, that isn't negligence, that's an accident. That, too, is out of her control and in the control of gravity, the conditions of the ice, other skaters, and random wind patterns.

Simply going to the skating rink, under your definition of an embryo as a human being, would be something that the woman would know may put another's life in danger. I can ice skate if I want. However, if I ice skate under conditions that I know may cause me to endanger another person (ie. I am inebriated), I am liable for any harm caused to that person.

And as I said, driving my car completely and utterly legally could hurt someone. But that doesn't make driving a car illegal.

Driving a car is not illegal. Hitting someone with your car is, last time I checked. You are liable for harm caused to that person (unless they intentionally put themselves in the way of your car) because you were the one doing something which may be dangerous to others.

She doesn't have to give up her lifestyle, just be careful, which is COMMON SENSE.

The amount of careful a woman would have to be to ensure that a possible pregnancy was not spontaneously aborted would force many women (most of those in college, certain jobs, etc.) to give up their lifestyles.

Those conditions are irrational and out of context.

No, they aren't. The problem here is that you are rational enough to believe that a woman should not be liable for a miscarriage, but you still want to believe that an embryo is a full human being. In order to be truly rational, you either have to admit that we cannot give an embryo all the rights of a full human being, or that a sexually active woman is must always live in fear of being liable for the death of another.

This is unforseeable, because she cannot be sure she is pregnant, nor can she be sure that it will cause a miscarriage.

Ok, so if I shoot a gun randomly off the roof of a building and hit someone, that was unforeseeable, because I cannot be sure if there is someone in the path of the bullet, nor can I be sure that it will hit them if they are there.

If I demolish a building without being sure that there is noone inside and someone is killed, that is unforeseeable, because I cannot be sure if there is someone in the building, nor can I be sure that they will die if they are there.

Do you see the logical inconsistency here? It doesn't matter if you know for sure if someone is there. If you commit an act which you know may *possibly* harm another, and it does, you are liable for that action.

After several times I would think it would be common sense, but that's just me.

So, my aunt should have never exercised or done her yardwork, because there was a chance that she just might be pregnant? I guess you *do* subscribe to the "women as incubators" viewpoint.

See above.

You mistakenly think that not knowing for sure whether there is a person present absolves you of any liability. This is patently untrue and is basically the basis for having a charge called manslaughter in the first place.

Just for good measure... "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," Pres. John Adams, 1797.

A phrase also found very explicitly in the Treaty of Tripoli.

I have never spoken to anyone who seriously believed that late term abortions should be legal in any case other than a danger to the mother.

hey, yes you have!! you speak to me all the time! well, i mean, not technically SPEAKING, but in this technological era i think we can consider internet conversations "speaking" in many ways.

hey, yes you have!! you speak to me all the time! well, i mean, not technically SPEAKING, but in this technological era i think we can consider internet conversations "speaking" in many ways.

Well, I apologize. I could have sworn you said in another debate that you were not ok with elective abortion once the fetus was viable. I amend (why do I always want to spell this with two m's?) my statement. I have met (well, sort of =) one.

I amend (why do I always want to spell this with two m's?) my statement.
Because, phonetically speaking, the consonantal sound should be spelled with two m's.

Well, I apologize. I could have sworn you said in another debate that you were not ok with elective abortion once the fetus was viable. I amend (why do I always want to spell this with two m's?) my statement. I have met (well, sort of =) one.
well, i suppose that's the qualifier, sort of...i believe a woman always has the right to have a pregnancy terminated, at any time and for any reason. if technology is available that can remove the fetus intact, and if that procedure would not pose any more risk to the woman's health than the appropriate abortive procedure would, then i believe the fetus should be removed intact and allowed to survive if it can. however, i don't believe the woman should ever be refused the right to terminate the pregnancy, and if having the fetus removed intact is more expensive than having it aborted i believe she has the right to choose the cheaper procedure. (if somebody else wants to pay the difference then that's fine, of course.)

so i guess it's a matter of interpretation: i very strongly support the right to end pregnancies at any time and for any reason, and thus i support late term abortion rights for any reason. if it is feasible (sp?) to remove the fetus without ending its life then that's a fine option, in my opinion, but if it isn't then i still support the woman's right to say "not in my body" at any point in the process.

No, not if it does not reach that point.
You have then deprived it of living as a child. You have deprived it of child life. It will never be a child, you have deprived it of that life. You killed it.



I still have not been deprived of a house.
If you had no other way of getting a house?



It depends on your definition of "many". The vast majority of women with unwanted pregnancies obeyed the law. However, the pure numbers of women who did seek illegal abortions were high.
Pick a side. Were there many or were there not?

However, a law does not legalize something - the removal of a law does.
The 19th amendment legalizes women's suffrage, doesn't it? And it didn't remove a law.



Wrong. If you interpret the laws as being permissive, rather than restrictive, then we cannot do anything for which there is not a specific law allowing us to do so. This is quite obviously not the case. Every criminal law explains what the person *cannot* do. If there is not a law against it, it is assumed to be permitted. This is why we hear of cases of someone doing something which we find utterly repugnant, but nothing can be done - because there is no law against it.
Strict v. loose constitutionalism...we can argue this till the cows come home

None of which have an objective reason against it without making up or misinterpreting scientific facts.
1) arguable, 2) and you think that pro-abortionists never fudge the facts?

It applies to illegalizing abortion - exactly what I said. There is no objective reason to illegalize 1st trimester abortion. The only reasoning is subjective and religious in nature. As such, it cannot be made into law, as the government can provide no compelling interest to do so.
Whoops...typo on my part...
I meant to say that that applies to legalizing it as well.
As in, you cannot make a law based on your religion or lack thereof, because that's not fair to me and my religion. Thus, democracy: both sides can't be happy, one side is going to be unhappy, so make as few people unhappy as possible.
If the majority of Americans decide that abortion is wrong, then they can make it illegal, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now, as an example, Christians are not allowed to pray in school. Yeah yeah, separation crap. But, you cannot constitutionally stop a teacher from praying ("or prohibiting the free exercize thereof"), as garunteed by the 1st amendment. As long as the children are not forced to pray, I myself can pray as much as I want, when I want. But, as a minority (and yes, Christians are a minority...If you've heard otherwise, someone has been lying), there is little we can do about it, except what we are doing, which is to either gain the majority, or at least convince the majority that it is an unconstitutional law. The law was enacted primarily by those who so often champion the first amendment, but they now turn against that second have of the clause.
But, I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll pose the question that comes out of this:
If it is constitutional to ban prayer (at all), then is it not constitutional to ban abortion, especially since abortion is not a religious issue unto itself?


On me? No, most of them are pretty well-protected in museums.
Which answers neither of my questions, "Have you read them?" and "Do you have a copy?"

The founding fathers were intelligent enough to realize that religion is subjective.
That religion is subjective can be considered a subjective matter in itself.

Not all religions agree and none of their stances can be proven. As such, there is no place for them in law, as placing them there restricts the rights of some of the citizens. The founding fathers were also intelligent to realize that the only thing that comes from mixing church and state is the corruption and downfall of both.
Mixing and influencing are two entirely different things. All laws are inherently a moral issue...Is it ok to speed or steal or whatever. That is, obviously, a subjective matter. Morals are, always have been, and always will be influenced by your religion or lack thereof. So you cannot completely separate the state from the influence of religion. It's just impossible. Separation in this case can only mean separation from the church itself, church leaders not being political leaders.
To completely separate the church from the state in the way you mean to, you would have to force everyone working for the government to be agnostic, which you can't do because you can't make them give up their religion.
And, since the people are the ones voting and electing these people, you'd have to make them give up their religions, because their religious beliefs influence who they vote for. Obviously, this isn't going to happen.

These are not expressly Christian principles. The fact that they happen to overlap with Christian principles is irrelevant.
Can you name one other place it could have come from?

Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to harm a human being.

Why isn't driving drunk legal? Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to put others in danger.

Why isn't shooting someone illegal? Because it can be objectively and conclusively proven to harm another human being.

Already objectively proven to be false, without religion (in fact, especially without religion, since most religions/religious texts - including Christianity - allow or even condone it).
First off, Christianity does not condone it. You want to argue that, make a thread. I've argued about that way too many times.

Second, 200 years ago they could prove conclusively that blacks were not human, with science, without religion. "Crap science!" you say, but they didn't think so...How do you know that our science today isn't crap science?

Actually, it does, and has been held by the court system to be true.
So...I don't have the right to not be offended...I have to be offended, because I don't have the right not to be...

You misread it. I never said you don't have the right to be offended, I said that you do not have the right to restrict that which offends you - in other words, you have no right to *NOT* be offended.
Which applies to you as well. If I can't restrict you, then you can't restrict me. "But I'm not restricting you!" Yes you are, you're restricting me from restricting you. Cynical and twisted, I know, but according to you, it's true.
So either I can restrict you and vice versa, or neither of us can restrict anything, thus making all laws unconstitutional and wrong.


Not in this context. You are not being caused physical harm. The mental "harm" you claim to be feeling does not have any lasting effects - it will not give you a mental illness or anything of that sort. As such, all it really is is something which offends you.
How do you know it's not long-lasting? You don't know that.
And, I would like to point out, that the same excuse is used by 97.something% of the women who get abortions: childrearing causes mental harm, so we have to abort the baby. So if they can use mental harm to abort the baby why can't I use mental harm to stop them?


Both of which provide no sources whatsoever and have details that don't really mesh with medical procedure.
Have you provided anything better? Do you have anything better to provide?

I have never spoken to anyone who seriously believed that late term abortions should be legal in any case other than a danger to the mother.
I have...Here on NS, actually...


Well, whatever the point was, you'll have to try again - using something that makes sense.
Watch what you accuse others of, plank-eye.

Doesn't matter. If I shoot a gun off a roof and hit someone who I didn't know was there, I am still liable for that death. Why? Because I knew that someone *could* be there, and if they were, they would be harmed.
First off, a gun's purpose is to be lethal, and as such there are various regulations and laws that specify when and where and how they may be used (as in, not off of your rooftop, making all your rooftop-shootings a moot point).
And, you're a dumbass if you're stupid enough to shoot a gun without paying any attention to where the bullet is going (including randomly shooting off your rooftop), and you shouldn't have a gun in the first place, so yes, arrest them for being stupid with deadly things.
And, as I pointed out, a lot of things can cause harm to another person. Breathing too heavily while you're sick can harm a person. Some things are just rediculous. That needs to be taken up with the court, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Anyone can stop school, anyone can get a job which does not require heavy labor.
First of all, if it's that easy, why is it such a big deal? If you can just quit your job and leave school, why don't they?
And, it's not that easy, because you need money for food and housing, which only comes from a job, which you get with an education...no, you don't have to have education to get a job, but it's going to be a crappy job and it's certainly not going to pay rent and utilities, let alone necessities like food.
So either it's easy, and it shouldn't matter, or it's difficult, and special circumstances.
Either way, my point stands.


Simply going to the skating rink, under your definition of an embryo as a human being, would be something that the woman would know may put another's life in danger. I can ice skate if I want. However, if I ice skate under conditions that I know may cause me to endanger another person (ie. I am inebriated), I am liable for any harm caused to that person.
Iceskating does not normally hurt someone, except yourself, or someone else if you run into them...But then, I've never heard of someone getting sued for bumping into someone while skating.
Skating, 99% of the time won't hurt anyone but yourself, and that's only if you fall, which is your own fault anyways.
So again, this is an issue to be taken up with supreme court and has nothing to do with the validity of abortion.

Driving a car is not illegal. Hitting someone with your car is, last time I checked. You are liable for harm caused to that person (unless they intentionally put themselves in the way of your car) because you were the one doing something which may be dangerous to others.
A car crash is deadly a lot of times, and always expensive. Falling down while you skate is hardly ever deadly, nor expensive unless you fall hard enough to break your arm, which, again, is rare.

AND, if you are driving legally, at/under the speed limit, obeying all traffic signs and laws, then hitting someone is not illegal, because it'll be his fault.


The amount of careful a woman would have to be to ensure that a possible pregnancy was not spontaneously aborted would force many women (most of those in college, certain jobs, etc.) to give up their lifestyles.
Obviously not, since quite a few women do it all the time. I know girls in highschool who stay in school even after their kid is born. Socially, it's a little frazzling, but an abortion's not going to help that much because if you know anything about highschool, you'll know that word gets around, and anyway in todays society it's not that big of a deal. The vast majority of women who give up their lifestyles because of pregnancy do so willingly. The few I can think of are those in modeling or something, and even then, many of them go right back to it as soon as the kid is born, or they willingly stay at home with their children. And before you say anything, I realize that actually having a kid will change your lifestyle, but that's only if you keep the kid. If you give it up for adoption, it doesn't affect you at all.

No, they aren't. The problem here is that you are rational enough to believe that a woman should not be liable for a miscarriage, but you still want to believe that an embryo is a full human being. In order to be truly rational, you either have to admit that we cannot give an embryo all the rights of a full human being, or that a sexually active woman is must always live in fear of being liable for the death of another.
An intentional miscarriage or one due to neglect. Falling is not neglect...unforseeable accidents at work are not neglect...Drinking, smoking, drugs, stuff that you can't do with a born kid, that is neglect.
You are blowing this way out of proportion.

Ok, so if I shoot a gun randomly off the roof of a building and hit someone, that was unforeseeable, because I cannot be sure if there is someone in the path of the bullet, nor can I be sure that it will hit them if they are there.

If I demolish a building without being sure that there is noone inside and someone is killed, that is unforeseeable, because I cannot be sure if there is someone in the building, nor can I be sure that they will die if they are there.
Both have regulations to make sure that doesn't happen, so if it does happen you were doing something illegal anyways, and if you weren't then the person who got hurt was doing something illegal and it was his fault. Either way, it's not unforseeable.
When you shoot a gun, you know whatever the bullet hits is going to be harmed. So it's COMMON SENSE not to point it at anyone. Same goes for buildings...If you're going to demolish a building, something gets harmed (the building), so if you do your job correctly, you make sure no one is inside or close enough to get hurt.
So it's a moot point.

Do you see the logical inconsistency here? It doesn't matter if you know for sure if someone is there. If you commit an act which you know may *possibly* harm another, and it does, you are liable for that action.
"Possibly" and "most likely" are two different things. A gun will most likely kill someone, so it's common sense to pay attention to what you're shooting at. Ice skating can "possibly" harm someone, but only given extreme conditions, which are beyond your control anyways.

So, my aunt should have never exercised or done her yardwork, because there was a chance that she just might be pregnant?
No, she should have figured out the first time that she was more suceptable to miscarriages, so if she wanted a kid she should pay more attention to how much stress she's putting on herself.
But again, gardening does not normally hurt someone. You are being unreasonable, and no court would do something so extreme. If it does, that's the court's issue, and has nothing to do with abortion.

I guess you *do* subscribe to the "women as incubators" viewpoint.
I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

You mistakenly think that not knowing for sure whether there is a person present absolves you of any liability. This is patently untrue and is basically the basis for having a charge called manslaughter in the first place.
You're being unreasonable. There is an explanation for this, it's called "rationalization."

You have then deprived it of living as a child. You have deprived it of child life. It will never be a child, you have deprived it of that life. You killed it.
Then you must also be against contraception and ECP's.

The 19th amendment legalizes women's suffrage, doesn't it? And it didn't remove a law.
That was merely a clarification because people were abusing it, and it was unconstitutional. An amendment was not necessary to make it constitutional, but it was in the public eye, which was not accurate.

Strict v. loose constitutionalism...we can argue this till the cows come home
But you can't argue with the 9th Amendment, which explicitly states that you are wrong: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Now, as an example, Christians are not allowed to pray in school. Yeah yeah, separation crap. But, you cannot constitutionally stop a teacher from praying ("or prohibiting the free exercize thereof"), as garunteed by the 1st amendment. As long as the children are not forced to pray, I myself can pray as much as I want, when I want.
Let me also quote the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This does not mean that you can not pray in school. It means that the government can not endorse prayer, and a teacher, as a representative of the government, may not pray extrenally in front of the students in public schools. Otherwise, that is the government endorsing a religion.


But, as a minority (and yes, Christians are a minority...If you've heard otherwise, someone has been lying), there is little we can do about it, except what we are doing, which is to either gain the majority, or at least convince the majority that it is an unconstitutional law. The law was enacted primarily by those who so often champion the first amendment, but they now turn against that second have of the clause.[/QUOTE]
What? Christians are a large majority. It is something like 90-95% of Americans believe in a god. Care to guess how many are Christian? A helluva lot, though I don't know the exact statistics. I would guess something like 80-85% are Christian. If you think Christians are a minority, then you're just totally ignorant, and are victimising yourself. There's not much more annoying than a self-proclaimed martyr.

But, I don't want to hijack the thread, so I'll pose the question that comes out of this:
If it is constitutional to ban prayer (at all), then is it not constitutional to ban abortion, especially since abortion is not a religious issue unto itself?
Prayer can not be banned, per se. The government just may not endorse any religion. I fail to see your analogy. School prayer and abortion are separate issues. One is fundamentally religious, and one is connected to religion in many cases, but certainly not fundamentally religious.

That religion is subjective can be considered a subjective matter in itself.
No, not really. Even science is subjective, though it attempts to be as objective as possible, but that is just fanciful.

Mixing and influencing are two entirely different things. All laws are inherently a moral issue...Is it ok to speed or steal or whatever. That is, obviously, a subjective matter. Morals are, always have been, and always will be influenced by your religion or lack thereof. So you cannot completely separate the state from the influence of religion. It's just impossible. Separation in this case can only mean separation from the church itself, church leaders not being political leaders.
You seem to miss the whole part of victims. There are victims in car accidents and larsonies. There are no living victims in abortions before the third trimester. Banning abortions is causing the pregnant woman to be victimised, since she does not have full control over what she can do to her own body.

To completely separate the church from the state in the way you mean to, you would have to force everyone working for the government to be agnostic, which you can't do because you can't make them give up their religion.
No. No, no, no, no, no. N-o. Understand? The government itself may not endorse any religion. The whole government could be composed of Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus, but in a secular government, they do not let that influence legislation, execution, and judging.

And, since the people are the ones voting and electing these people, you'd have to make them give up their religions, because their religious beliefs influence who they vote for. Obviously, this isn't going to happen.
Now this is just getting ridiculous. See supra.

Second, 200 years ago they could prove conclusively that blacks were not human, with science, without religion. "Crap science!" you say, but they didn't think so...How do you know that our science today isn't crap science?
No, there was no scientific evidence at all that blacks were subhuman. It was all taken on faith. Just like leeches were thought to be cure by removing the bad blood. It was pseudo-science, not crap science. There's a fundamental difference--one is not scientific and the other is, even if it's untrue.

Which applies to you as well. If I can't restrict you, then you can't restrict me. "But I'm not restricting you!" Yes you are, you're restricting me from restricting you. Cynical and twisted, I know, but according to you, it's true.
So either I can restrict you and vice versa, or neither of us can restrict anything, thus making all laws unconstitutional and wrong.
No, that is the point of many laws, as you point out. To restrict. Restriction from restriction boils down to liberty.

So if they can use mental harm to abort the baby why can't I use mental harm to stop them?
Because that is subjective and circumstancial. Sometimes abortion will cause mental harm, and sometimes a lack thereof will cause mental harm. That gets into a whole 'nother issue.

And, as I pointed out, a lot of things can cause harm to another person. Breathing too heavily while you're sick can harm a person. Some things are just rediculous. That needs to be taken up with the court, and has nothing to do with abortion.
Oh, god in heaven, please make it stop. Do not bring epidemiology and pathology into this, or else I will whup your ass till there's no flesh left.

Obviously not, since quite a few women do it all the time. I know girls in highschool who stay in school even after their kid is born. Socially, it's a little frazzling, but an abortion's not going to help that much because if you know anything about highschool, you'll know that word gets around, and anyway in todays society it's not that big of a deal. The vast majority of women who give up their lifestyles because of pregnancy do so willingly. The few I can think of are those in modeling or something, and even then, many of them go right back to it as soon as the kid is born, or they willingly stay at home with their children. And before you say anything, I realize that actually having a kid will change your lifestyle, but that's only if you keep the kid. If you give it up for adoption, it doesn't affect you at all.
That is extremely ignorant. How can someone function comparably in school if they have a child than if they didn't? And some people don't want to bring a child into this world just to give it up for adoption. If they stop development before it reaches the stage of life, then they are sparing it the pain it might suffer. How would the mother feel if she just gave her child up and never saw him or her again, never knowing the fate of the child? And even if she did follow it, what happens if it turns out to be a really crappy life? Or what if she decides she wants the child back later? There are so many possibilities.

"Possibly" and "most likely" are two different things. A gun will most likely kill someone, so it's common sense to pay attention to what you're shooting at. Ice skating can "possibly" harm someone, but only given extreme conditions, which are beyond your control anyways.
Going into your health discussions supra, a gun can never kill anyone, that is from organ failure. This may have been caused by the gun, but the gun can not kill. And to not be quite so obnoxious, most gun wounds do not directly result in death. If there is poor sanitation, they can get infected, but a gun shoe to the arm or leg is not going to kill anyone who takes proper hygienic measures.

It depends on your definition of "many". The vast majority of women with unwanted pregnancies obeyed the law. However, the pure numbers of women who did seek illegal abortions were high.
Pick a side. Were there many or were there not?Even one woman not allowed to control her own body is too many.

Wrong. If you interpret the laws as being permissive, rather than restrictive, then we cannot do anything for which there is not a specific law allowing us to do so. This is quite obviously not the case. Every criminal law explains what the person *cannot* do. If there is not a law against it, it is assumed to be permitted. This is why we hear of cases of someone doing something which we find utterly repugnant, but nothing can be done - because there is no law against it.Strict v. loose constitutionalism...we can argue this till the cows come homeThere's nothing to argue. In terms of criminal law, Dempublicants has it pegged nine ways to Monday, which is just another way of saying you are wrong. And despite what you've read on the neocon sites, you really don't want to go to a system of strict constitutionalism. Laissez-faire as applied to social policy would most definitely not support the pro-life movement.

[edit to shorten]...you cannot make a law based on your religion or lack thereof, because that's not fair to me and my religion. Thus, democracy: both sides can't be happy, one side is going to be unhappy, so make as few people unhappy as possible.
If the majority of Americans decide that abortion is wrong, then they can make it illegal, and there is nothing you can do about it.Whoa, whoa, whoa. You have got to be kidding. Consider this, the First Amendment protects not only you and your religious beliefs from the government. It also protects you from me. I (in the form of the majority) cannot get together and decide that Christianity is a cancer on civilization and needs to be wiped out. It doesn't matter if the majority is correct or incorrect. The individual's rights are protected by the constitution. Thus, it doesn't matter a good goddamn what the majority wants in the matter of contraception/abortion. The constitution protects the right of privacy of the woman to make the decision as to what to do with her own body. You (both you personally and you the majority) can dislike it for whatever reason, it doesn't matter. Be offended, be aghast, be horrified. It's none of your fucking business. AND it's a good thing for you that it's that way, because you cannot guarantee that you will always be the majority.

But, as a minority (and yes, Christians are a minority...If you've heard otherwise, someone has been lying),You have got to get out more. The extreme religious right may be a minority (and that's doubtful some days), but statistics clearly show Christianity to be the majority religion in the U.S. and that the majority if the U.S. considers themselves to be Christian.
there is little we can do about it, except what we are doing, which is to either gain the majority, or at least convince the majority that it is an unconstitutional law. You misunderstand the Constitution and the way it works. See above for how the rights of the minority are protected. The U.S. is not a direct democracy; there is no tyranny of the majority.
If it is constitutional to ban prayer (at all), then is it not constitutional to ban abortion, especially since abortion is not a religious issue unto itself?Again, I think your confusion results from a misunderstanding of the protected rights. The rights of the individual are protected... thus an individual cannot be coerced into prayer nor can a government entity "endorse" a particular religion (which by default results in the banning of prayer in schools, although as you point out, any individual is quite free to pray). With abortion, again the rights of the individual are protected. The woman, not the government, has the right to decide (within limits) what to do about her medical condition.

edit for length... Morals are, always have been, and always will be influenced by your religion or lack thereof. So you cannot completely separate the state from the influence of religion. And that is total bull. A moral code is not necessarily associated with religion at all. Give yourself a little time, some deep thought and some world experience and you'll be able to understand that.
To completely separate the church from the state in the way you mean to, you would have to force everyone working for the government to be agnostic, which you can't do because you can't make them give up their religion.YES, YES, YES. You've hit the nail on the head. The government and everyone working for it while doing their official duties MUST be agnostic. This is the way government is meant to work. And it is in your best interests as well as mine. Do you really want your local law enforcement agency holding you accountable to shi'ia? Do you want to not have mail delivery on Saturday because your local PostMaster happens to be Jewish? Do you want to suddenly find that your church has lost its tax exemption because your county assessor is an atheist?

But you're right, each individual on their own time is guaranteed the right to practice the religion of their choice. They aren't however allowed to force anyone else to practice that religion.

...if they can use mental harm to abort the baby why can't I use mental harm to stop them?Uhm.. because you have absolutely no legal standing in the matter. To put it bluntly, it's none of your business.

And I'm going to just snip the rest of the drivel. Dempublicants can counter of hir wants to. But in closing, let me just say...

<sings>
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.</sings>:D

You have then deprived it of living as a child. You have deprived it of child life. It will never be a child, you have deprived it of that life. You killed it.

Again, you cannot deprive an entity of something if it has never possessed that something.

If you had no other way of getting a house?

Doesn't matter. I never had one to begin with, therefore I could not be deprived of it.

Pick a side. Were there many or were there not?

It has nothing to do with sides. Define "many".

The 19th amendment legalizes women's suffrage, doesn't it? And it didn't remove a law.

No. The 19th Amendment places a restriction on lawmakers that they cannot deny women the right to vote.

Strict v. loose constitutionalism...we can argue this till the cows come home

Actually, in truth, what I am saying is very strict and has little to do with constitutionalism. Criminal law in this country is restrictive - period. If it were permissive, we would have to have a law for every single thing that we were ever allowed to do in any circumstances.

1) arguable,

Not really.

2) and you think that pro-abortionists never fudge the facts?

Every group occasionally fudges the facts, but in most arguments one side or the other is guilty of it more often. In this case, it is the anti-choicers who tend to fudge the facts. For instance, they use pictures of late-term abortions and claim that these are what all elective abortions look like when, in fact, *NO* elective abortions look like that in our country.

Whoops...typo on my part...
I meant to say that that applies to legalizing it as well.

Again, there is no "legalizing it."

As in, you cannot make a law based on your religion or lack thereof, because that's not fair to me and my religion.

I have not suggested doing so. I have simply suggested (as the Constitution pretty clearly states) that the government must have a clear state interest in restricting my rights. That interest cannot be wholly based in any religion, even my own.


If the majority of Americans decide that abortion is wrong, then they can make it illegal, and there is nothing you can do about it.

By this logic, if the majority of Americans decide that women should wear burkas, they can require it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

If the majority of Americans feel that we can enslave blacks, they can do it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

If the majority of Americans feel that the Bible is wrong, we can ban it, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Do you see the problem with such logic?

Now, as an example, Christians are not allowed to pray in school.

This is patently untrue, so I will ignore the rest of the bullshit you spout afterwards. The only thing that is illegal is administrator-led prayer. Any person can pray to themselves at any time.


If it is constitutional to ban prayer (at all), then is it not constitutional to ban abortion, especially since abortion is not a religious issue unto itself?

It is consititutional to ban administrator-led prayer because the administrators are representatives of the government, which cannot establish a religion. Abortion is a religious issue, as the argument is over whether or not an embryo constitutes a full human being - which is a religious and philosophical discussion - one which cannot be satisfied because everyone has their own subjective definition of human being. Scientifically, one cannot say that an embryo is a full human being and legally, stating such would be dangerous.

Which answers neither of my questions, "Have you read them?" and "Do you have a copy?"

Have I read them - yes.
Do I have a copy - no.

Mixing and influencing are two entirely different things.

I am well aware of this. As I have stated previously, everyone is affected by their religious beliefs and, as such, religion will influence politics. However, a law that is completely based on one religion or another [/i]mixes[/i] the two, and is thus unconstitutional.

To completely separate the church from the state in the way you mean to, you would have to force everyone working for the government to be agnostic, which you can't do because you can't make them give up their religion.

Not at all. I can require that they not make laws completely based in their religion, however.

Can you name one other place it could have come from?

For the most part, it came from political writers such as Locke. Most religions have a similar statement and most atheists believe in the common good, so it could have come from the idea of morality itself. It really has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

First off, Christianity does not condone it. You want to argue that, make a thread. I've argued about that way too many times.

Really? I guess we really can pick and choose what we want to believe in the Bible then.

Second, 200 years ago they could prove conclusively that blacks were not human, with science, without religion. "Crap science!" you say, but they didn't think so...How do you know that our science today isn't crap science?

No, they couldn't, nor did they ever use science. All they said was "These people look different, therefore they are inferior." There was never any evidence put forth to back it up.

So...I don't have the right to not be offended...I have to be offended, because I don't have the right not to be...

Wrong. You don't have the right to restrict the actions of others that might offend you. You knew exactly what I was saying.

Which applies to you as well. If I can't restrict you, then you can't restrict me. "But I'm not restricting you!" Yes you are, you're restricting me from restricting you. Cynical and twisted, I know, but according to you, it's true.

It goes back to that old adage "Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face." The government protects me from unfair restriction on the part of others. In fact, that is its purpose.

How do you know it's not long-lasting? You don't know that.

As soon as you show me one person who has long-lasting mental illness from some woman they don't even know having an abortion, you might have a point.

So if they can use mental harm to abort the baby sub baby/embryo why can't I use mental harm to stop them?

You are not personally involved. By your logic, I could use mental harm to stop you from going to church. It hurts me so bad that you go to church...

Have you provided anything better? Do you have anything better to provide?

A negative cannot be proven. You have stated that you have conclusive proof that there are survivors of abortion. As such, you must provide such proof.

First off, a gun's purpose is to be lethal, and as such there are various regulations and laws that specify when and where and how they may be used (as in, not off of your rooftop, making all your rooftop-shootings a moot point).

Actually, in many places, it is perfectly legal to shoot a gun off your rooftop, especially on the 4th of July.

And, you're a dumbass if you're stupid enough to shoot a gun without paying any attention to where the bullet is going (including randomly shooting off your rooftop), and you shouldn't have a gun in the first place, so yes, arrest them for being stupid with deadly things.

One could just as easily say "You're a dumbass if you're stupid enough to do something that might cause a miscarriage if you don't know for sure whether or not you are pregnant, so yes, arrest them for being stupid."

First of all, if it's that easy, why is it such a big deal? If you can just quit your job and leave school, why don't they?

It would be very hard on them, as you describe, but it would be possible. If the only way a woman can provide for her child is to quit school and get a minimum wage job, would you not say that she should do so? Why do you make an exception for an embryo which, according to you, is exactly the same as a born child?

So either it's easy, and it shouldn't matter, or it's difficult, and special circumstances.
Either way, my point stands.

If this constitutes "special circumstances", then you are making a clear distinction between the rights due to an embryo and those due to a born human being.

Iceskating does not normally hurt someone, except yourself, or someone else if you run into them...But then, I've never heard of someone getting sued for bumping into someone while skating.
Skating, 99% of the time won't hurt anyone but yourself, and that's only if you fall, which is your own fault anyways.

If you fall and are pregnant, your chance of miscarriage are much higher.

So again, this is an issue to be taken up with supreme court and has nothing to do with the validity of abortion.

It has everything to do with your assertion that we can legally give an embryo all the rights of a born human being.

AND, if you are driving legally, at/under the speed limit, obeying all traffic signs and laws, then hitting someone is not illegal, because it'll be his fault.

This is patently false. Any time you hit a pedestrian, unless that person can be shown to have purposely jumped in front of you, it is considered to be your fault.

Obviously not, since quite a few women do it all the time. I know girls in highschool who stay in school even after their kid is born.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a stressful lifestyle can cause miscarriages. Congratulations for getting completely off-topic.

An intentional miscarriage or one due to neglect. Falling is not neglect...unforseeable accidents at work are not neglect...Drinking, smoking, drugs, stuff that you can't do with a born kid, that is neglect.
You are blowing this way out of proportion.

Not really. You are failing to realize the implication of your assertion because you don't want to.

When you shoot a gun, you know whatever the bullet hits is going to be harmed. So it's COMMON SENSE not to point it at anyone. Same goes for buildings...If you're going to demolish a building, something gets harmed (the building), so if you do your job correctly, you make sure no one is inside or close enough to get hurt.
So it's a moot point.

When you have sex, you know that you might be pregnant. So it's COMMON SENSE not to do anything that might cause a miscarriage.

See how your logic applies?

"Possibly" and "most likely" are two different things. A gun will most likely kill someone, so it's common sense to pay attention to what you're shooting at. Ice skating can "possibly" harm someone, but only given extreme conditions, which are beyond your control anyways.

How is it beyond your control when you choose to go there?

No, she should have figured out the first time that she was more suceptable to miscarriages, so if she wanted a kid she should pay more attention to how much stress she's putting on herself.

The woman was married. They weren't *trying* for a child, they just weren't opposed to having one.

But again, gardening does not normally hurt someone. You are being unreasonable, and no court would do something so extreme. If it does, that's the court's issue, and has nothing to do with abortion.

Again, it has everything to do with legally defining an embryo as a full human being. If an embryo is such, then the only way we can give them full rights is to protect them.

You're being unreasonable. There is an explanation for this, it's called "rationalization."

I am the only one being rational here. You are the one saying "It doesn't apply in this case, because I don't want it to."

Demi, you are a thing of beauty. RhynoD, consider yourself OWNED. it's amazing to me how thoroughly you have been taken to pieces...if i were just an inch more cynical i would think you were actually a pro-choice person who is creating a fictional pro-life persona in order to demonstrate how thoroughly such irrational stances can be deconstructed...but that would be a little too perfect...

Demi, you are a thing of beauty. RhynoD, consider yourself OWNED. it's amazing to me how thoroughly you have been taken to pieces...if i were just an inch more cynical i would think you were actually a pro-choice person who is creating a fictional pro-life persona in order to demonstrate how thoroughly such irrational stances can be deconstructed...but that would be a little too perfect...

I think this is the same thread I also congratulated Dempublicents on, a couple of days ago.

It has been impressive watching her dissect her opposition. :)

Compliments from Bottle and Grave? Ah, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside... =)

Again, you cannot deprive an entity of something if it has never possessed that something.


The rest of your argument is very convincing, but this statement is the flaw and since it is the foundation of your argument the rest of it crumbles along with it, IMO. It comes down to how one defines life, IMO it begins at conception.

We can argue about what constitutes a life and we'll probably never agree, even the supreme court justices don't agree, scientists don't agree, religionists don't agree, why should we.

Again, you cannot deprive an entity of something if it has never possessed that something.
Deprive: To keep from possessing or enjoying; deny
Which means, you don't have to have it for others to keep you from having it.

It has nothing to do with sides. Define "many".
Which still does not answer my question (which you understood all along), were there many or were there not? (many: Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous)

No. The 19th Amendment places a restriction on lawmakers that they cannot deny women the right to vote.
There was never a law restricting woman's voting. There was a law enabling white male property owners to vote, which was then amended to all white males, and then to all males, and then to all humans.
There was never any law telling woman they could not vote. There was never a law in England that said they couldn't vote for their king.

Actually, in truth, what I am saying is very strict and has little to do with constitutionalism. Criminal law in this country is restrictive - period. If it were permissive, we would have to have a law for every single thing that we were ever allowed to do in any circumstances.
Pay more attention in history class. Strict (and Loose) Constitutionalism is a political philosophy. And, as I said, we could argue this till the cows come home but it has nothing to do with abortion.

Not really.
Way to back yourself up.

Every group occasionally fudges the facts, but in most arguments one side or the other is guilty of it more often. In this case, it is the anti-choicers who tend to fudge the facts. For instance, they use pictures of late-term abortions and claim that these are what all elective abortions look like when, in fact, *NO* elective abortions look like that in our country.
Which does not prove that the site fudged facts, nor does it provide any facts to the contrary.
That provides nothing but your own opinion. I don't care about your opinion unless you can back it up, which you can't, or else you would have by now.

Again, there is no "legalizing it."
1) To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law
2) you knew what I meant, stop avoiding the issue.

I have not suggested doing so. I have simply suggested (as the Constitution pretty clearly states) that the government must have a clear state interest in restricting my rights. That interest cannot be wholly based in any religion, even my own.
In which case you can not restrict my from 1) voicing my opinion and 2) my rights as a citizen to submit and vote for laws.

By this logic, if the majority of Americans decide that women should wear burkas, they can require it, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Yup.

If the majority of Americans feel that we can enslave blacks, they can do it, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Yup. But, that's not going to happen because no one is going to vote for that and even if they did, the 15th amendment garuntees that they can always change it back.
And if it does happen and they can't get the vote overturned they have the right to go to a country for protection.
So it's a moot point.

If the majority of Americans feel that the Bible is wrong, we can ban it, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Nope. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Do you see the problem with such logic?
You're the one using it, not me.

This is patently untrue, so I will ignore the rest of the bullshit you spout afterwards. The only thing that is illegal is administrator-led prayer. Any person can pray to themselves at any time.
You accused me of not understanding a law...well, you obviously don't understand this one. That may be what it says, but it's certainly not enforced that way. Teachers aren't allowed to pray in view of children except during a meal...In fact, in many places that's the only place they're allowed to pray, and only silently. They are not allowed to encourage prayer of any kind (such as during a silent moment at the beginning of school), they are not allowed to discuss prayer at all unless a student approaches them first, they are not allowed to talk about religion except in context, as in, when talking about "The Scarlet Letter" or in historical context, neither of which really talks about religion, and invariably gets the whole thing wrong anyway. Anything mildly reflecting religion cannot be displayed, including a cross on your desk or posting the Ten Commandments, most of which are considered morally acceptable to society (like, don't steal or kill). Even when asked about religion(thus "permitting" them, because I approached them), many teachers are reluctant to say anything (I know, I've asked). Children are discouraged from praying around others because it "disrupts the learning environment."



It is consititutional to ban administrator-led prayer because the administrators are representatives of the government, which cannot establish a religion. Abortion is a religious issue, as the argument is over whether or not an embryo constitutes a full human being - which is a religious and philosophical discussion - one which cannot be satisfied because everyone has their own subjective definition of human being. Scientifically, one cannot say that an embryo is a full human being and legally, stating such would be dangerous.
Can you scientifically prove that stealing is wrong? Cuz I can scientifically prove that it's not...

I am well aware of this. As I have stated previously, everyone is affected by their religious beliefs and, as such, religion will influence politics. However, a law that is completely based on one religion or another [/i]mixes[/i] the two, and is thus unconstitutional.
And, as I pointed out, abortion is not based on just Christianity. Christians are just the largest and most vocal group.

Not at all. I can require that they not make laws completely based in their religion, however.
Actually, no you can't. So long as it doesn't force people to be of that religion or stop others from believing theirs, I can make any law. If I had the votes to do it I could make a law that requires every classroom to have a Bible in it. Now, you can also make a law that requires every class to have a copy of the Tora and the Ko'ran. But you can do it, because you don't have to read that Bible (or other text).

For the most part, it came from political writers such as Locke. Most religions have a similar statement and most atheists believe in the common good, so it could have come from the idea of morality itself. It really has nothing to do with Christianity per se.
Yes, because even though Christianity came 1000-some years before him, and Judaism (the "parent" of Christianity) even longer, Locke thought that up all by himself. Because even though the society he lived in was at the time under control of the Roman Catholic church, Christianiy had nothing to do with his writing of the idea.
And I hate to break it to you, but the idea of morallity comes from religion. Which religion in comes from is a debatable issue.

Really? I guess we really can pick and choose what we want to believe in the Bible then.
Again, I'm not going to dignify this with a response.

You want to argue it, make a thread and send me the url. Until then, I'm going to ignore this.

No, they couldn't, nor did they ever use science. All they said was "These people look different, therefore they are inferior." There was never any evidence put forth to back it up.
Which, at that time was scientific evidence...Hell, it was better than scientific. "Black men are human!" "Are you blind? They're black! Humans are white, fool!" (<- hypothetical situation, I don't actually believe that).
And what scientific evidence is there that a fetus isn't a human person from conception? You can prove all you like whether or not it's a human being or living or whatever, but science can never prove that it doesn't have a soul. I mean, science can't tell my why I think the way I think...Science can hardly tell me why I think at all. Why should I trust them to tell me what a fetus is?
Which means this will always be a moral issue, which cannot be proven by science, and thus falls into the realm of religious speculation. Which means that legalizing abortion (or not illegalizing it, or whatever the hell you mean) would be a decision made according to a religious belief or lack thereof, which is unfair to my religion. Which brings us once again to democracy, greatest good for the greatest number.


Wrong. You don't have the right to restrict the actions of others that might offend you. You knew exactly what I was saying.
Actually, I really didn't. Because you didn't say I didn't have the right to restrict others that offend me, you said I didn't have the right to be not offended. If you read that literally, it means I have to be offended, because I don't have the right not to be.
Which, of course, would mean you can't ban prayer in school because it offends you, nor can you stop me from saying various racial slurs, nor can you stop me from doing something as stupid and trivial as running around naked...It's offensive, so there are laws against it. According to you, however, you can't do that, because you don't have the right to stop my nakedness because it offends you.



It goes back to that old adage "Your right to swing your fist ends when it hits my face." The government protects me from unfair restriction on the part of others. In fact, that is its purpose.
Which doesn't address what I said, that you're restricting me from restricting you.
And what if I think that 55 mph is an unfair restriction? Who defines what restrictions are unfair?
Which brings us, once again, to democracy.

As soon as you show me one person who has long-lasting mental illness from some woman they don't even know having an abortion, you might have a point.
And as soon as you show me one person who has long-lasting mental illness from not having an abortion, I'll shut up.

You are not personally involved. By your logic, I could use mental harm to stop you from going to church. It hurts me so bad that you go to church...
Again, how do you know I'm not? How do you know that it's not my kid getting aborted or my sibling or a close friends' child? Cuz I can tell you, if it was my kid it'd screw me up pretty bad.

A negative cannot be proven. You have stated that you have conclusive proof that there are survivors of abortion. As such, you must provide such proof.
In other words, you have no proof. I provided proof, it's your own fault you won't accept it. So until you find something better, which you won't, you have no place telling me that my proof is false, because you have no proof that it is false. I can tell you that you're a monkey who learned to type, but that doesn't make it true...Or I can tell you that I'm einstein reincarnate, but that doesn't make it true.

Actually, in many places, it is perfectly legal to shoot a gun off your rooftop, especially on the 4th of July.
Which are, as I pointed out, special circumstances, and again, a gun's purpose is to be lethal, so it is understood that you need to pay attention to where the bullet is going.

One could just as easily say "You're a dumbass if you're stupid enough to do something that might cause a miscarriage if you don't know for sure whether or not you are pregnant, so yes, arrest them for being stupid."
That doesn't roll of the tongue as well...I'd say it's a bit harder to say that...
Gardening might cause a miscarriage, maybe 1 in a thousand.
Shooting someone will hurt them and will likely kill them.

So yes, if gardening was lethal other than during freak accidents, then you are a dumbass for doing it and not paying attention to whatever it is that kills people.
Last time I checked, though, not that many people died from gardening.

It would be very hard on them, as you describe, but it would be possible. If the only way a woman can provide for her child is to quit school and get a minimum wage job, would you not say that she should do so? Why do you make an exception for an embryo which, according to you, is exactly the same as a born child?
1) an embryo doesn't require food and shelter other than what you're already eating and sleeping in.
2) Pick a side, yes or no. If it is easy, then it's a moot point, because she can quit and not be bothered about it. If it isn't easy, then it is specialized circumstances, and, like I said about gardening, studying isn't exactly deadly.
So again, if studying regularly killed people, you would be a dumbass for studying while pregnant. But, last time I checked, nobody has died from studying. While studying, sure, but not because of the studying.

If this constitutes "special circumstances", then you are making a clear distinction between the rights due to an embryo and those due to a born human being.
No, because if you tell your husband to go mow the lawn and he has a heart attack, they're not going to arrest you for murder, are they?

If you fall and are pregnant, your chance of miscarriage are much higher.
And if you fall and knock someone into the road the chances of them getting hit by a car are much higher as well, but I've never heard of a guy getting 25 to life for falling a guy into the street, nor have I heard that many stories of something like that happening to begin with.

It has everything to do with your assertion that we can legally give an embryo all the rights of a born human being.
No, you're just making up rare and specific circumstances that happen very rarely. Those are to be taken up with the court, and it has nothing to do with abortion being right or wrong. I agree that charging a woman for neglect because she fell while skating and had a miscarriage is just stupid. I AGREE WITH YOU. That's not the issue here, so stop avoiding the issue.

This is patently false. Any time you hit a pedestrian, unless that person can be shown to have purposely jumped in front of you, it is considered to be your fault.
if you are driving legally, at/under the speed limit, obeying all traffic signs and laws

Which has nothing to do with the fact that a stressful lifestyle can cause miscarriages. Congratulations for getting completely off-topic.
Which has nothing to do with what that was addressing in the first place.
You said woman have to adjust their lifestyle...I know plenty who don't and don't have a problem whatever. Which means that a miscarriage caused by stress is a rare occasion and unforseeable, making your point moot.

Not really. You are failing to realize the implication of your assertion because you don't want to.
I am failing to realize how the hell you can conceivably charge someone for something they had no control over.
The court would not charge someone for any of those insane miscarriages, and if they would, that's stupid! I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT! BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT ABORTION IS RIGHT OR WRONG. That is a separate issue, of the US justice system and it's failings. That is an issue to be taken up if and when abortion is illegalized, and completely moot until then.

When you have sex, you know that you might be pregnant. So it's COMMON SENSE not to do anything that might cause a miscarriage.
Sex is not lethal. And there are few legal circumstances that can cause a miscarriage, and when it happens, it's rare.

See how your logic applies?
I see how my logic applies. The above is nowhere near my logic.

How is it beyond your control when you choose to go there?
because you can't choose not to fall if the ice is wierd and the wind hits you the wrong way and a million other factors that I don't know because no human on earth could figure them all out.
AND 99% of the time, falling doesn't kill someone.
Get off of this issue, because I AGREE WITH YOU! Something like that is horrible and stupid and it shouldn't happen. It's an ACCIDENT! Something YOU CANNOT CONTROL. You are blowing this way out of proportion.

I could kill you just by breathing on you if I had the flu and you were recovering from some horrendous disease. So it would be prudent of me to avoid contact with you, wouldn't it? But am I going to get arrested for manslaughter if I come to wish you well and accidently cough a little too hard?
If you can show me one example of a man getting charged with manslaughter while doing everything legal, I'll shut up.

Again, it has everything to do with legally defining an embryo as a full human being. If an embryo is such, then the only way we can give them full rights is to protect them.
Reasonably protect them. You can't protect everyone from every freak accident that could ever happen. There is a one in a billion billion billion or so chance that an asteroid will fall through my house and kill me, but I don't expect the government to protect me from that, do I?
You are being unreasonable. The circumstances you continually bring up are rare. As such they must be awarded special circumstances. This has nothing to do with fetal humanity, it has to do with the government's job. What the government does with human has nothing to do with whether or not it is human.
And, you keep saying that a fetus isn't human, so it should be a moot point for you. You should just dismiss it as "a fetus isn't human, so it doesn't matter." Which leads me to believe that you are only trying to rationalize your position. You have no proof, you have no logic, and you have no reason. Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else. You have proved nothing, you have said nothing beyond that you don't think a fetus is human. Your opinion, frankly, doesn't matter unless you can back it up, which you have done with only one real example, that being scientific evidence, which does not have the authority to decide on moral issues. That is the only bit of real evidence you have given in three days.
So far all you can tell me is that a fetus before a certain time is not a scientificly defined organism (which has no bearing on religious/moral issues) and that you don't think a fetus is human life. Your opinion I will accept, because you have the right to think that. The scientific evidence I will accept as your reasoning behind your opinion.
Other than that, you have nothing. No proof, no evidence, nothing but a bunch of empty opinions, slanted reasoning, hyped up circumstances, and biased propaganda. Get something real or shut up.

I am the only one being rational here. You are the one saying "It doesn't apply in this case, because I don't want it to."
You're trying to apply things to situations it clearly does not apply to. See above.

And for future reference, the only reply I have to anything you say (because I can already guess) is to read the above, until you actually do read the above and follow my advice.

Demi, you are a thing of beauty. RhynoD, consider yourself OWNED. it's amazing to me how thoroughly you have been taken to pieces...if i were just an inch more cynical i would think you were actually a pro-choice person who is creating a fictional pro-life persona in order to demonstrate how thoroughly such irrational stances can be deconstructed...but that would be a little too perfect...
I stopped caring about your opinion before I'd finished reading a single post of yours.
Bottle, consider yourself IGNORED.

There was never a law in England that said they couldn't vote for their king.
Bringing British laws intot his is invalid. And kings can't be voted for at all, though I guess people could vote if they wanted, but it wouldn't mean jack shit. Haven't you seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail?

Yup. But, that's not going to happen because no one is going to vote for that and even if they did, the 15th amendment garuntees that they can always change it back.
And if it does happen and they can't get the vote overturned they have the right to go to a country for protection.
So it's a moot point.


Nope. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


You're the one using it, not me.
No, he was saying that in response to you saying that if it is the will of the majority, it should be law. Which was your argument with abortion. You're completely missing the point.

You accused me of not understanding a law...well, you obviously don't understand this one. That may be what it says, but it's certainly not enforced that way. Teachers aren't allowed to pray in view of children except during a meal...In fact, in many places that's the only place they're allowed to pray, and only silently. They are not allowed to encourage prayer of any kind (such as during a silent moment at the beginning of school), they are not allowed to discuss prayer at all unless a student approaches them first, they are not allowed to talk about religion except in context, as in, when talking about "The Scarlet Letter" or in historical context, neither of which really talks about religion, and invariably gets the whole thing wrong anyway. Anything mildly reflecting religion cannot be displayed, including a cross on your desk or posting the Ten Commandments, most of which are considered morally acceptable to society (like, don't steal or kill). Even when asked about religion(thus "permitting" them, because I approached them), many teachers are reluctant to say anything (I know, I've asked).
That is because if the teachers were to do so, then they would be encouraging a religion from the governmental point of view. Would you like it if the teacher had reversed pentacles on his or her desk and prayed to Satan in front of your children?

And let me quote part of the Decalogue from Exodus:

Do not have any other gods before Me. Do not represent such gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heaven above, on the earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to such gods or worship them. I am God your Lord, a God who demands exclusive worship. Where My enemies are concerned, I keep in mind the sin of the fathers for their descendants, to the third and fourth generation. But for those who love Me and keep My commandments, I show love for thousands of generations. Do not take the name of God your Lord in vain. God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. You can work during the six weekdays and do all your tasks. But Saturday is the Sabbath to God your Lord. Do not do anything that constitutes work. This includes you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maid, your animal, and the foreigner in your gates. It was during the six weekdays that God made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on Saturday. God therefore blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Honor your father and mother. You will then live long on the land that God your Lord is giving you.

Those are not widely acceptable.

Children are discouraged from praying around others because it "disrupts the learning environment."
Is that legislated? And I know it would disrupt my learning if someone was mummering a prayer next to me.

Can you scientifically prove that stealing is wrong? Cuz I can scientifically prove that it's not...
What the hell? The illegality of stealing exists because it is necessary for social order. It is sociological, so I guess I just proved you wrong. Biologically speaking, there is nothing wrong at all with stealing of course, but sociologically there is. However, you can not prove through sociology that abortion is damaging to the threads of an orderly society.

Actually, no you can't. So long as it doesn't force people to be of that religion or stop others from believing theirs, I can make any law. If I had the votes to do it I could make a law that requires every classroom to have a Bible in it. Now, you can also make a law that requires every class to have a copy of the Tora and the Ko'ran. But you can do it, because you don't have to read that Bible (or other text).
You'd have to amend the Constitution first. You don't have to participate in school prayer, but it is still influential for everyone. It singles out those who don't, and shows them that their beliefs are "wrong" in everyone else's eyes.

And I hate to break it to you, but the idea of morallity comes from religion.
Nope. Morality was taken under the wing of religion, but is not the origin. They have been connected, but neither stems from the other.

Which religion in comes from is a debatable issue.
Not really, it obviously comes from a lack of understanding of the world.

Which, at that time was scientific evidence...Hell, it was better than scientific. "Black men are human!" "Are you blind? They're black! Humans are white, fool!" (<- hypothetical situation, I don't actually believe that).
Thank you this quote: "Hell, it was better than scientific." That completely destroys your argument that single sentence.

And what scientific evidence is there that a fetus isn't a human person from conception? You can prove all you like whether or not it's a human being or living or whatever, but science can never prove that it doesn't have a soul. I mean, science can't tell my why I think the way I think...Science can hardly tell me why I think at all. Why should I trust them to tell me what a fetus is?
Science can not prove that anything has a soul. Scientifically, souls are nonexistant. It is like the "aether" that space used to be made of. And theh heavens being made of crystalline spheres that rubbed against each other. And Helios riding his chariot across the sky.

Which brings us once again to democracy, greatest good for the greatest number.
Sorry, but are aware of the reason for the Bill of Rights? It was to protect the minority. There is no need to protect popular speech, only unpopular speech. Freedom for all is the idea, not rule by the majority.

Which doesn't address what I said, that you're restricting me from restricting you.
And what if I think that 55 mph is an unfair restriction? Who defines what restrictions are unfair?
Which brings us, once again, to democracy.
Judges, which are not elected, mind you.

I could kill you just by breathing on you if I had the flu and you were recovering from some horrendous disease. So it would be prudent of me to avoid contact with you, wouldn't it? But am I going to get arrested for manslaughter if I come to wish you well and accidently cough a little too hard?
Papthologically and epidemiologically speaking, that is very irresponsible to do that. But epidemiology has not been much legislated, so that is not a viable argument.

Of course. I'm pro-choice, what do you expect?

Here's a question-if a child is aborted...does it even know what's happening?

A man gets shot and dies instantly. Does he comprehend in his last living moment that he is dying?

Here's a question-if a child is aborted...does it even know what's happening?
I'm guessing that is rhetorical, if I understand correctly? It has already been established that the foetus is not even considered living until the third trimester, and if something is not alive, it certainly has no consciousness.

A man gets shot and dies instantly. Does he comprehend in his last living moment that he is dying?
Bad analogy. Being shot does not ensure death. Unless it is in the proper area of the brain, death is not instantaneous. It takes a while even if the heart is shot, several seconds or something like that. As long as a person is conscious as they die, unless they're stubborn or mentally deficient, they fully comprehend what is happening.

Of course. I'm pro-choice, what do you expect?

Here's a question-if a child is aborted...does it even know what's happening?

if a child were "aborted" then it would probably have some comprehension of that. however, i don't see what that sort of murder has to do with this discussion, since a human child cannot be aborted; only a fetus can be aborted, a pre-natal stage of human life that is not equivalent to a human child.

however, i don't see what that sort of murder has to do with this discussion, since a human child cannot be aborted; only a fetus can be aborted, a pre-natal stage of human life that is not equivalent to a human child.
0wnage!

0wnage!
slight tangent:

why do pro-life people often refer to fetuses as "children"? until the final stages of gestation, a fetus does not have the features that define a human child or infant, yet many pro-life people insist on misapplying those terms to embryos or even pre-zygotic cells.

when i ask them about this, they say that it's because "if nature is allowed to take its course then the fetus will become a child." but, by that logic, it is just as reasonable to refer to fetuses as "teenagers" or "adults" or "senior citizens." i mean, if nature takes its course as normally predicted, the fetus would develop into those stages of life, so why choose to only refer to fetuses as "children"? is it simply because saying "baby" or "child" evokes stronger sympathy and emotion from others?

and if a fetus is a child because it will one day (possibly) become one, then does that mean my 13 year old brother is an adult because he will one day become one? should we all refer to my friend's 4 month old as a "toddler" because he will be one in time? if the eventual form of a thing is what defines it in its current state, then aren't we all just corpses? that is what we will become, in time, and if our eventual state is the definition of our current rights and moral status then shouldn't we all regard each other as dead?

/\ i agree!!!

so lets not care about anything because we are all going to be dead soon anyway

hedonism is fun

/\ i agree!!!

so lets not care about anything because we are all going to be dead soon anyway

hedonism is fun
That's nihilism. Hedonism is trying to have as much fun and pleasure as possible, but not necessarily because we're all going to be dead soon.

That also wasn't Bottle's point at all.

slight tangent:

why do pro-life people often refer to fetuses as "children"? until the final stages of gestation, a fetus does not have the features that define a human child or infant, yet many pro-life people insist on misapplying those terms to embryos or even pre-zygotic cells.

when i ask them about this, they say that it's because "if nature is allowed to take its course then the fetus will become a child." but, by that logic, it is just as reasonable to refer to fetuses as "teenagers" or "adults" or "senior citizens." i mean, if nature takes its course as normally predicted, the fetus would develop into those stages of life, so why choose to only refer to fetuses as "children"? is it simply because saying "baby" or "child" evokes stronger sympathy and emotion from others?

and if a fetus is a child because it will one day (possibly) become one, then does that mean my 13 year old brother is an adult because he will one day become one? should we all refer to my friend's 4 month old as a "toddler" because he will be one in time? if the eventual form of a thing is what defines it in its current state, then aren't we all just corpses? that is what we will become, in time, and if our eventual state is the definition of our current rights and moral status then shouldn't we all regard each other as dead?

I like this. It's thought-provoking.
G'job Bottle!

That's nihilism. Hedonism is trying to have as much fun and pleasure as possible, but not necessarily because we're all going to be dead soon.

That also wasn't Bottle's point at all.

yes i realise that, what i meant but very poorly expressed, was if we are all going to die, then we might as well have a much fun and debauchery as possible between time.

and i realise that wasnt the point of the original post. ;)

Which still does not answer my question (which you understood all along), were there many or were there not? (many: Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous)

Again, to answer that question, you have to define what you mean by many. Many is a very subjective term, and I need to know exactly what you are asking for here? Exactly how many would be "many"?

There was never a law restricting woman's voting. There was a law enabling white male property owners to vote, which was then amended to all white males, and then to all males, and then to all humans.

Have you ever read the Amendment? It clearly states that no government body shall abridge the right to vote.

However, even if you would like to interpret it this way, it is a moot point, since we are talking about *criminal* law, in the first place.

Pay more attention in history class. Strict (and Loose) Constitutionalism is a political philosophy. And, as I said, we could argue this till the cows come home but it has nothing to do with abortion.

I am well aware of the terms. They have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Take *any* political science course, or even just bother to read a few articles on law. Criminal law is restrictive. If it were permissive, we would only be allowed to do that which the laws specifically said we could.

Which does not prove that the site fudged facts, nor does it provide any facts to the contrary.

Which was not something I was trying to prove. The site brings up procedures and the descriptions of them are faulty. This may be due to misunderstanding, or misrepresentation. For instance, a "saline abortion" would be extremely unlikely to be used in a late-term procedure. My biggest problem was that there were no references given, just something someone said.

In which case you can not restrict my from 1) voicing my opinion and 2) my rights as a citizen to submit and vote for laws.

Neither of which I am in any way trying to do. You can say whatever you want, and you can vote for whatever law you want. Congress could *pass* a law that said we had to sacrifice a virgin on every second Tuesday in November. It would be unconstitutional, and would be found as such, but they could pass it.

Yup.

Oh, so you would be ok with an unconstitutional law getting passed as long as the majority was ok with it? Alright then, that is apparently the fundamental difference between you and I.

Nope. "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Ok, so basically what you have said in the past two points was "Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is ok, as long as it doesn't involve my Bible." After all, requiring all women to wear a burqua would clearly establish Islam (and extreme Islam at that) as the state-sponsored religion - and you said that was ok. However, if it comes to restricting your religious book, you claim the 1st Amendment. Cute.

You're the one using it, not me.

I am not the one who stated "As long as the majority believe it, it is ok to put into law."

You accused me of not understanding a law...well, you obviously don't understand this one. That may be what it says, but it's certainly not enforced that way.

Everything you continue to say after this point involves a situation in which a representative of the state espouses a religion and/or pushes it upon another person. As such, they are *exactly* how I said it was enforced.

Children are discouraged from praying around others because it "disrupts the learning environment."

Obviously, praying aloud in the middle of class would disrupt others.

Can you scientifically prove that stealing is wrong? Cuz I can scientifically prove that it's not...

I can demonstrate that it harms another human being. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, so there is a clear role for government here.

And, as I pointed out, abortion is not based on just Christianity. Christians are just the largest and most vocal group.

Did I say Christianity? Nope, sure didn't. I said "religion." Just so you know, Christianity is not the only religion out there.

So long as it doesn't force people to be of that religion or stop others from believing theirs, I can make any law.

Wrong. It cannot stop others from "practicing" theirs. Enforcing your own religious rules upon people keeps them from practicing their own.

If I had the votes to do it I could make a law that requires every classroom to have a Bible in it. Now, you can also make a law that requires every class to have a copy of the Tora and the Ko'ran. But you can do it, because you don't have to read that Bible (or other text).

Wrong. Putting *any* religious text into a public classroom by public decree would clearly establish that religion. Required reading has nothing to do with it.

Yes, because even though Christianity came 1000-some years before him, and Judaism (the "parent" of Christianity) even longer, Locke thought that up all by himself. Because even though the society he lived in was at the time under control of the Roman Catholic church, Christianiy had nothing to do with his writing of the idea.

Even though Buddhism came before Christ...

And Judaism never had *any* statement implying that all men were created equal. In fact, the laws in Torah make it perfectly clear that Hebrew men are much more important than non-Hebrew men, who are more important than Hebrew women, who are much more important than non-Hebrew women.

And I hate to break it to you, but the idea of morallity comes from religion. Which religion in comes from is a debatable issue.

Your idea of morality comes from religion. It is idiotic to state that all morality comes from religion.

Which, at that time was scientific evidence...Hell, it was better than scientific. "Black men are human!" "Are you blind? They're black! Humans are white, fool!" (<- hypothetical situation, I don't actually believe that).

Which is in no way scientific.

And what scientific evidence is there that a fetus isn't a human person from conception? You can prove all you like whether or not it's a human being or living or whatever, but science can never prove that it doesn't have a soul. I mean, science can't tell my why I think the way I think...Science can hardly tell me why I think at all. Why should I trust them to tell me what a fetus is?

Soul is a completely religious idea.

The idea of "human person" is in the realm of philosophy. However, the law is pretty clear that only a living thing can be classified as human with respect to the law. We don't call rocks human, after all, nor do we attribute the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the dead.

Which means this will always be a moral issue, which cannot be proven by science, and thus falls into the realm of religious speculation. Which means that legalizing abortion (or not illegalizing it, or whatever the hell you mean) would be a decision made according to a religious belief or lack thereof, which is unfair to my religion. Which brings us once again to democracy, greatest good for the greatest number.

How exactly is it unfair to your religion for the state to allow others to practice their own religions?

Which, of course, would mean you can't ban prayer in school because it offends you,

which no one has done.

nor can you stop me from saying various racial slurs,

which no one has done.

nor can you stop me from doing something as stupid and trivial as running around naked...It's offensive, so there are laws against it.

Actually, the government has argued that its compelling state interest in this case is to keep children from seeing nudity. I would argue that all this does is *promote* sexual curiosity and experimentation in teens - as nudity is a big taboo, but that is a discussion for another time.

According to you, however, you can't do that, because you don't have the right to stop my nakedness because it offends you.

I don't.


And what if I think that 55 mph is an unfair restriction? Who defines what restrictions are unfair?

Such restrictions are not arbitrary.

And as soon as you show me one person who has long-lasting mental illness from not having an abortion, I'll shut up.

Big difference here - the other person is directly affected, as they are the person having or not having the abortion. You are a completely disconnected (and, as such, are completely without legal recourse) observer.

Again, how do you know I'm not? How do you know that it's not my kid getting aborted or my sibling or a close friends' child? Cuz I can tell you, if it was my kid it'd screw me up pretty bad.

Then don't have sex with a woman who would want an abortion.

In other words, you have no proof. I provided proof, it's your own fault you won't accept it.

You cannot state that you have provided proof by providing an emotive letter with no sources. I could write out a letter stating that aliens impregnated me and then forced me to have an abortion and post it on the internet. Would you then count that as proof?

I have not stated that it is false, only that it in no way conclusive proof.

That doesn't roll of the tongue as well...I'd say it's a bit harder to say that...
Gardening might cause a miscarriage, maybe 1 in a thousand.
Shooting someone will hurt them and will likely kill them.

Shooting into an area which you believe to be uninhabited will only kill someone *maybe* one time in a million. What is your point?

1) an embryo doesn't require food and shelter other than what you're already eating and sleeping in.

However, it does require that the woman's body be hospitable to pregnancy. Granted, many women are more robust than others, but no woman can know for sure how robust she is?

2) Pick a side, yes or no. If it is easy, then it's a moot point, because she can quit and not be bothered about it. If it isn't easy, then it is specialized circumstances, and, like I said about gardening, studying isn't exactly deadly.

Anyone can quit. However, requiring it would place women at second-class status, which is not something I and most other females would allow.

No, because if you tell your husband to go mow the lawn and he has a heart attack, they're not going to arrest you for murder, are they?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement you were replying to.

No, you're just making up rare and specific circumstances that happen very rarely. Those are to be taken up with the court, and it has nothing to do with abortion being right or wrong. I agree that charging a woman for neglect because she fell while skating and had a miscarriage is just stupid. I AGREE WITH YOU. That's not the issue here, so stop avoiding the issue.

(a) I made it *VERY* clear that I was talking about your assertion that an embryo be legally defined as a human being, not abortion specifically.

Second of all, I am aware that you agree with me - that has been very clear. However, the very fact that you agree demonstrates that you already acknowledge a fundamental difference between the rights afforded to the unborn and those afforded to the born.

Which has nothing to do with what that was addressing in the first place.
You said woman have to adjust their lifestyle...I know plenty who don't and don't have a problem whatever. Which means that a miscarriage caused by stress is a rare occasion and unforseeable, making your point moot.

It is rare, therefore it doesn't count? Wow, I'll tell that to all the people with rare diseases. They're rare, so we shouldn't worry about them at all.

Do you really think that this is a *rare* occurence? Did you know that 20% of all *known* pregnancies are miscarried? And evidence suggests that, when the unknown pregnancies are counted, actually about 40-50% of total pregnancies are miscarried. Rare and abnormal my ass.

http://www.miscarriage-statistics.com/
http://www.2womenshealth.com/12-07-941.htm

I am failing to realize how the hell you can conceivably charge someone for something they had no control over.

I am failing to realize how the hell you think someone has no control over their own lifestyles.

The court would not charge someone for any of those insane miscarriages, and if they would, that's stupid! I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT!

Again, the fact that you agree demonstrates that you already make a clear distinction between the protections afforded to the born (which include situations in which the person causing their death does not know they are there) and protections afforded to the unborn.

Sex is not lethal. And there are few legal circumstances that can cause a miscarriage, and when it happens, it's rare.

Yup, only 50%. That's real rare.

I see how my logic applies. The above is nowhere near my logic.

Your logic is "I don't like the way this sounds, so I'm going to say it doesn't count, even though it is illogical to do so."

because you can't choose not to fall if the ice is wierd and the wind hits you the wrong way and a million other factors that I don't know because no human on earth could figure them all out.

You could choose not to be there in the first place.

If you can show me one example of a man getting charged with manslaughter while doing everything legal, I'll shut up.

Findlaw.com is currently down, but I will find something later. The fact remains that nothing in the definition of manslaughter implies that the action must be illegal, simply that you must know it can cause harm. I cannot find case names without the search engine, but there have been many cases in which someone did something that was not illegal, but was classified as neglect because they knew that the action *could* cause harm to others.

Reasonably protect them.

Do you believe that it is reasonable to ask that a mother do anything within her power to protect her born children from harm?

My guess is that you would say yes. However, you have made it very clear that you do not expect her to do the same for possible unborn children. As such, you have made a clear distinction.

You are being unreasonable. The circumstances you continually bring up are rare.

Again, I don't see miscarriage as being a rare occurence. I have given you the percentages, do you?

As such they must be awarded special circumstances. This has nothing to do with fetal humanity, it has to do with the government's job. What the government does with human has nothing to do with whether or not it is human.

However, if we do not afford an embryo all the rights of a born human being, then your entire argument falls flat on its face.

And, you keep saying that a fetus isn't human, so it should be a moot point for you. You should just dismiss it as "a fetus isn't human, so it doesn't matter." Which leads me to believe that you are only trying to rationalize your position. You have no proof, you have no logic, and you have no reason. Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else. You have proved nothing, you have said nothing beyond that you don't think a fetus is human. Your opinion, frankly, doesn't matter unless you can back it up, which you have done with only one real example, that being scientific evidence, which does not have the authority to decide on moral issues. That is the only bit of real evidence you have given in three days.

Actually, I have never once said that *I* don't think a fetus is human. What I have said is that the only reason to define it as such is religious. In all truth, you have agreed with me. However, you have not provided a single reason why you should be able to force your religion upon any other person.

Also, I never stated that science can decide moral issues. However, when issues cannot be decided through objective means (ie. the philosophical question of whether or not an embryo is human), noone can force their religious views to be enforced upon others.

So far all you can tell me is that a fetus before a certain time is not a scientificly defined organism (which has no bearing on religious/moral issues)

But has all bearing on an objective definition, as a religious definition is not acceptable in a law which will be applied to all citizens.

and that you don't think a fetus is human life.

Again, not something I ever said and, in fact, patently false.

Your opinion I will accept, because you have the right to think that.

That's good, since it is the same as yours.

The scientific evidence I will accept as your reasoning behind your opinion.

Actually, the scientific evidence is in opposition to my opinion. However, unlike you, I do not feel that I have the right to force my religion upon others.

Other than that, you have nothing. No proof, no evidence, nothing but a bunch of empty opinions,

If my opinion is empty, so is yours - since they are the same.

slanted reasoning, hyped up circumstances, and biased propaganda. Get something real or shut up.

Wow, someone is getting defensive - a true sign of one who is completely unsure of their position. Never mind that everything I have said has been backed up quite a bit more than your "It doesn't apply in this situation because I think the situation is stupid!" In truth, the law doesn't apply in this situation specifically because the embryo is not defined as human in our laws.

You're trying to apply things to situations it clearly does not apply to. See above.

It currently does not apply.

Man, you guys totally missed my point xD

I was trying to say "a people aware of their own deaths after it has happened?"

In short I was maliciously attempting a hijack >_>




Oh, and I use "child" instead of "fetus" because-and I have no clue why-but "fetus" makes me think "cleatus" and that brings up the image of a slack jawed yokel. Which makes it very hard to concentrate on anything serious.

this thread should be retitled Demipublicents OWNS The Universe.

The rest of your argument is very convincing, but this statement is the flaw and since it is the foundation of your argument the rest of it crumbles along with it, IMO. It comes down to how one defines life, IMO it begins at conception.

We can argue about what constitutes a life and we'll probably never agree, even the supreme court justices don't agree, scientists don't agree, religionists don't agree, why should we.

Well, the bible clearly tells us that the breath is the start of life, in the book of Genesis... so the official christian view MUST be that life starts with the first breath.

My view, is the hard science view - which defines death as the cessation of brain function. Life, therefore, must be delineated by the commencement of brain function - and that is some time in the 20 weeks area.

slight tangent:

why do pro-life people often refer to fetuses as "children"? until the final stages of gestation, a fetus does not have the features that define a human child or infant, yet many pro-life people insist on misapplying those terms to embryos or even pre-zygotic cells.

when i ask them about this, they say that it's because "if nature is allowed to take its course then the fetus will become a child." but, by that logic, it is just as reasonable to refer to fetuses as "teenagers" or "adults" or "senior citizens." i mean, if nature takes its course as normally predicted, the fetus would develop into those stages of life, so why choose to only refer to fetuses as "children"? is it simply because saying "baby" or "child" evokes stronger sympathy and emotion from others?

and if a fetus is a child because it will one day (possibly) become one, then does that mean my 13 year old brother is an adult because he will one day become one? should we all refer to my friend's 4 month old as a "toddler" because he will be one in time? if the eventual form of a thing is what defines it in its current state, then aren't we all just corpses? that is what we will become, in time, and if our eventual state is the definition of our current rights and moral status then shouldn't we all regard each other as dead?

For the same reason that one of the threads terms (totally inappropriately) high levels of abortion as 'genocide'.

You use a word that is charged with meaning as a euphemism for something with less urgency.

So - rather than a conceptus or foetus, abortion is about 'Babies!' and 'Children!'.

It's all about marketing your idea... it's the same reason Anti-Abortionists like to call themselves 'Pro-Life', despite the fact that once the little lump drops out, they are happy to sweep it under the rug.

My view, is the hard science view - which defines death as the cessation of brain function. Life, therefore, must be delineated by the commencement of brain function - and that is some time in the 20 weeks area.
my view is sort of like that, only a bit more specific. i believe that "life" never begins, because a human person arises from living human tissues (gametes, zygotes, etc) and thus is always "alive." i believe that personhood begins when the structure and processes that give rise to the interpretation of incoming stimuli are functioning, since i define personhood based on consciousness and individual thought rather than on having toes or breathing. brain function alone is inspecific, since much of our brain function merely directs autonomic functions or movement of body parts, and those functions are not necessary for personhood (in my opinion).

For the same reason that one of the threads terms (totally inappropriately) high levels of abortion as 'genocide'.

You use a word that is charged with meaning as a euphemism for something with less urgency.

So - rather than a conceptus or foetus, abortion is about 'Babies!' and 'Children!'.

It's all about marketing your idea... it's the same reason Anti-Abortionists like to call themselves 'Pro-Life', despite the fact that once the little lump drops out, they are happy to sweep it under the rug.
it just seems so thin and obvious. how come so many people actually listen when a nutjob shrieks "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!!!"?

this thread should be retitled Demipublicents OWNS The Universe.

She does indeed.

it just seems so thin and obvious. how come so many people actually listen when a nutjob shrieks "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!!!!!"?

They should think a bit more about the children who have already been born and how we can help them. So many of them are living in poor conditions and have needs that arent being met.

They should think a bit more about the children who have already been born and how we can help them. So many of them are living in poor conditions and have needs that arent being met.
and, perversely, if they concerned themselves with those born children then it would be less likely that they would get pregnant at 14 and need an abortion.

my view is sort of like that, only a bit more specific. i believe that "life" never begins, because a human person arises from living human tissues (gametes, zygotes, etc) and thus is always "alive." i believe that personhood begins when the structure and processes that give rise to the interpretation of incoming stimuli are functioning, since i define personhood based on consciousness and individual thought rather than on having toes or breathing. brain function alone is inspecific, since much of our brain function merely directs autonomic functions or movement of body parts, and those functions are not necessary for personhood (in my opinion).

I'm purely basing it on the clinical concept of 'dead'.

I am not letting it be shaded by degrees, or the arbitrary nature of developement, etc...

But, the way I figure it, if you have one mechanism that delineates the END when it stops, surely it should delineate the START when it begins?

But - this is just my view.

They should think a bit more about the children who have already been born and how we can help them. So many of them are living in poor conditions and have needs that arent being met.

Exactly! Peechland ALSO owns the universe. :)

Exactly! Peechland ALSO owns the universe. :)

Hey darlin'!

I'm purely basing it on the clinical concept of 'dead'.

I am not letting it be shaded by degrees, or the arbitrary nature of developement, etc...

and i am :). i don't see anything particularly unusual about using "arbitrary" development to measure when a human life enters a given stage, since such arbitrary development already determines our transition between other stages (like how puberty signals the transition from a physical child to a physical adult).


But, the way I figure it, if you have one mechanism that delineates the END when it stops, surely it should delineate the START when it begins?

but, as i said, human life doesn't have any beginning, since there is no time at which non-living or non-human material become living and human.

at any rate, i still have just one mechanism that delineates the beginning and end of the existence of a human person: the brain functions that give rise to personhood come into existence at a certain point in development, and brain death will cause them to stop.

But - this is just my view.
and we essentially don't have any conflict, i just define human life and human personhood separately. i believe that it is possible to have an adult human body that is alive, but to have that body utterly empty of personhood, and i believe that the rights afforded to human persons should not be granted to a mere body even if the body is alive.

Just to make this really personal and less 'sciency'. i'd like to add that abortion isn't fun for anyone involved. although i am pro-choice i chose to continue with my unintended pregnancy at 17 and had a miscarriage. This caused me some impressive psych trauma and i know abortion also does this to a lot of people. Although i will never be pro-life, abortion can really mess with your head and shouldn't be entered into lightly. Maybe there could be mandatory councelling or something? i don't know the answer

But do 'think of the children'. i was 17 pregnant and sleeping on other peoples floors, i couldn't have looked after a baby properly.

Hey darlin'!

Hi hi, sugar pie. TG.

and i am :). i don't see anything particularly unusual about using "arbitrary" development to measure when a human life enters a given stage, since such arbitrary development already determines our transition between other stages (like how puberty signals the transition from a physical child to a physical adult).


but, as i said, human life doesn't have any beginning, since there is no time at which non-living or non-human material become living and human.

at any rate, i still have just one mechanism that delineates the beginning and end of the existence of a human person: the brain functions that give rise to personhood come into existence at a certain point in development, and brain death will cause them to stop.

and we essentially don't have any conflict, i just define human life and human personhood separately. i believe that it is possible to have an adult human body that is alive, but to have that body utterly empty of personhood, and i believe that the rights afforded to human persons should not be granted to a mere body even if the body is alive.

Agreed - ultimately, we are not opposed.. it is mainly semantic.

I agree about the 'empty body' thing, also... I argue that (since brain function of a trivial level continues) the body is still alive... and I also argue that, from a perspective of being an 'individual', the purpose of the meat has passed....

So, I can see where you are going with the foetal 'life' or 'not-life' markers... but, like I say, I am just trying to make a clear measurable... scientific... marker for where a HUMAN (not some tissue) could legitimately be considered to be a functioning machine.

I can also see possible defences for 'first breath', and , arguably 'first words' also.

For me, though... it's that mechanical ideal... the machine is made to run, so it is alive... when it stops running, beyond repair, it is dead.

Again, to answer that question, you have to define what you mean by many. Many is a very subjective term, and I need to know exactly what you are asking for here? Exactly how many would be "many"?



Have you ever read the Amendment? It clearly states that no government body shall abridge the right to vote.

However, even if you would like to interpret it this way, it is a moot point, since we are talking about *criminal* law, in the first place.



I am well aware of the terms. They have nothing to do with the argument at hand. Take *any* political science course, or even just bother to read a few articles on law. Criminal law is restrictive. If it were permissive, we would only be allowed to do that which the laws specifically said we could.



Which was not something I was trying to prove. The site brings up procedures and the descriptions of them are faulty. This may be due to misunderstanding, or misrepresentation. For instance, a "saline abortion" would be extremely unlikely to be used in a late-term procedure. My biggest problem was that there were no references given, just something someone said.



Neither of which I am in any way trying to do. You can say whatever you want, and you can vote for whatever law you want. Congress could *pass* a law that said we had to sacrifice a virgin on every second Tuesday in November. It would be unconstitutional, and would be found as such, but they could pass it.



Oh, so you would be ok with an unconstitutional law getting passed as long as the majority was ok with it? Alright then, that is apparently the fundamental difference between you and I.



Ok, so basically what you have said in the past two points was "Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is ok, as long as it doesn't involve my Bible." After all, requiring all women to wear a burqua would clearly establish Islam (and extreme Islam at that) as the state-sponsored religion - and you said that was ok. However, if it comes to restricting your religious book, you claim the 1st Amendment. Cute.



I am not the one who stated "As long as the majority believe it, it is ok to put into law."



Everything you continue to say after this point involves a situation in which a representative of the state espouses a religion and/or pushes it upon another person. As such, they are *exactly* how I said it was enforced.



Obviously, praying aloud in the middle of class would disrupt others.



I can demonstrate that it harms another human being. The purpose of government is to protect its citizens, so there is a clear role for government here.



Did I say Christianity? Nope, sure didn't. I said "religion." Just so you know, Christianity is not the only religion out there.



Wrong. It cannot stop others from "practicing" theirs. Enforcing your own religious rules upon people keeps them from practicing their own.



Wrong. Putting *any* religious text into a public classroom by public decree would clearly establish that religion. Required reading has nothing to do with it.



Even though Buddhism came before Christ...

And Judaism never had *any* statement implying that all men were created equal. In fact, the laws in Torah make it perfectly clear that Hebrew men are much more important than non-Hebrew men, who are more important than Hebrew women, who are much more important than non-Hebrew women.



Your idea of morality comes from religion. It is idiotic to state that all morality comes from religion.



Which is in no way scientific.



Soul is a completely religious idea.

The idea of "human person" is in the realm of philosophy. However, the law is pretty clear that only a living thing can be classified as human with respect to the law. We don't call rocks human, after all, nor do we attribute the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to the dead.



How exactly is it unfair to your religion for the state to allow others to practice their own religions?



which no one has done.



which no one has done.



Actually, the government has argued that its compelling state interest in this case is to keep children from seeing nudity. I would argue that all this does is *promote* sexual curiosity and experimentation in teens - as nudity is a big taboo, but that is a discussion for another time.



I don't.



Such restrictions are not arbitrary.



Big difference here - the other person is directly affected, as they are the person having or not having the abortion. You are a completely disconnected (and, as such, are completely without legal recourse) observer.



Then don't have sex with a woman who would want an abortion.



You cannot state that you have provided proof by providing an emotive letter with no sources. I could write out a letter stating that aliens impregnated me and then forced me to have an abortion and post it on the internet. Would you then count that as proof?

I have not stated that it is false, only that it in no way conclusive proof.



Shooting into an area which you believe to be uninhabited will only kill someone *maybe* one time in a million. What is your point?



However, it does require that the woman's body be hospitable to pregnancy. Granted, many women are more robust than others, but no woman can know for sure how robust she is?



Anyone can quit. However, requiring it would place women at second-class status, which is not something I and most other females would allow.



This has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement you were replying to.



(a) I made it *VERY* clear that I was talking about your assertion that an embryo be legally defined as a human being, not abortion specifically.

Second of all, I am aware that you agree with me - that has been very clear. However, the very fact that you agree demonstrates that you already acknowledge a fundamental difference between the rights afforded to the unborn and those afforded to the born.



It is rare, therefore it doesn't count? Wow, I'll tell that to all the people with rare diseases. They're rare, so we shouldn't worry about them at all.

Do you really think that this is a *rare* occurence? Did you know that 20% of all *known* pregnancies are miscarried? And evidence suggests that, when the unknown pregnancies are counted, actually about 40-50% of total pregnancies are miscarried. Rare and abnormal my ass.

http://www.miscarriage-statistics.com/
http://www.2womenshealth.com/12-07-941.htm



I am failing to realize how the hell you think someone has no control over their own lifestyles.



Again, the fact that you agree demonstrates that you already make a clear distinction between the protections afforded to the born (which include situations in which the person causing their death does not know they are there) and protections afforded to the unborn.



Yup, only 50%. That's real rare.



Your logic is "I don't like the way this sounds, so I'm going to say it doesn't count, even though it is illogical to do so."



You could choose not to be there in the first place.



Findlaw.com is currently down, but I will find something later. The fact remains that nothing in the definition of manslaughter implies that the action must be illegal, simply that you must know it can cause harm. I cannot find case names without the search engine, but there have been many cases in which someone did something that was not illegal, but was classified as neglect because they knew that the action *could* cause harm to others.



Do you believe that it is reasonable to ask that a mother do anything within her power to protect her born children from harm?

My guess is that you would say yes. However, you have made it very clear that you do not expect her to do the same for possible unborn children. As such, you have made a clear distinction.



Again, I don't see miscarriage as being a rare occurence. I have given you the percentages, do you?



However, if we do not afford an embryo all the rights of a born human being, then your entire argument falls flat on its face.



Actually, I have never once said that *I* don't think a fetus is human. What I have said is that the only reason to define it as such is religious. In all truth, you have agreed with me. However, you have not provided a single reason why you should be able to force your religion upon any other person.

Also, I never stated that science can decide moral issues. However, when issues cannot be decided through objective means (ie. the philosophical question of whether or not an embryo is human), noone can force their religious views to be enforced upon others.



But has all bearing on an objective definition, as a religious definition is not acceptable in a law which will be applied to all citizens.



Again, not something I ever said and, in fact, patently false.



That's good, since it is the same as yours.



Actually, the scientific evidence is in opposition to my opinion. However, unlike you, I do not feel that I have the right to force my religion upon others.



If my opinion is empty, so is yours - since they are the same.



Wow, someone is getting defensive - a true sign of one who is completely unsure of their position. Never mind that everything I have said has been backed up quite a bit more than your "It doesn't apply in this situation because I think the situation is stupid!" In truth, the law doesn't apply in this situation specifically because the embryo is not defined as human in our laws.



It currently does not apply.
You have no proof, you have no logic, and you have no reason. Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else. You have proved nothing, you have said nothing beyond that you don't think a fetus is human. Your opinion, frankly, doesn't matter unless you can back it up, which you have done with only one real example, that being scientific evidence, which does not have the authority to decide on moral issues. That is the only bit of real evidence you have given in three days.
So far all you can tell me is that a fetus before a certain time is not a scientificly defined organism (which has no bearing on religious/moral issues) and that you don't think a fetus is human life. Your opinion I will accept, because you have the right to think that. The scientific evidence I will accept as your reasoning behind your opinion.
Other than that, you have nothing. No proof, no evidence, nothing but a bunch of empty opinions, slanted reasoning, hyped up circumstances, and biased propaganda. Get something real or shut up.

Well, the bible clearly tells us that the breath is the start of life, in the book of Genesis... so the official christian view MUST be that life starts with the first breath.

My view, is the hard science view - which defines death as the cessation of brain function. Life, therefore, must be delineated by the commencement of brain function - and that is some time in the 20 weeks area.


Of course when you consider that God said that He knew us before He knitted us together in our mother's wombs and that He has/had a purpose for us before we were conceived there might be some argument over that idea.

For the same reason that one of the threads terms (totally inappropriately) high levels of abortion as 'genocide'.

You use a word that is charged with meaning as a euphemism for something with less urgency.

So - rather than a conceptus or foetus, abortion is about 'Babies!' and 'Children!'.

It's all about marketing your idea... it's the same reason Anti-Abortionists like to call themselves 'Pro-Life', despite the fact that once the little lump drops out, they are happy to sweep it under the rug.

Now now GI, I though you knew better than to go generalizing about us Pro-Lifer's like that. Not all of us are happy with sweeping a child under the rug.

You are right that genocide is a misnomer, but that doesn't make abortion any more morally tolerable.

You have no proof, you have no logic, and you have no reason. Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else.

Look! More personal attacks! Yippee!

You have proved nothing, you have said nothing beyond that you don't think a fetus is human.

I have never said any such thing.

Your opinion, frankly, doesn't matter unless you can back it up, which you have done with only one real example, that being scientific evidence, which does not have the authority to decide on moral issues.

Government has no authority to decide on *moral* issues. It can only protect its citizens.

So far all you can tell me is that a fetus before a certain time is not a scientificly defined organism (which has no bearing on religious/moral issues) and that you don't think a fetus is human life.

I have never once stated that I do not believe a fetus is human life.


Your opinion I will accept, because you have the right to think that.

Good, since it is exactly what you think and not accepting my opinion would mean that you didn't accept your own.

The scientific evidence I will accept as your reasoning behind your opinion.

The scientific evidence actually goes in opposition to my opinion. However, unlike you, I do not feel the need nor do I feel that I have the right to force others to abide by my religion.

By the way, did anyone else notice that RhynoD replied with exact quotes from his previous reply - proving that he didn't bother reading my post? If you ask for "something real," and then neglect to even read the reply - doesn't that demonstrate that you have basically stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "LALALALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!!"?

Of course when you consider that God said that He knew us before He knitted us together in our mother's wombs and that He has/had a purpose for us before we were conceived there might be some argument over that idea.

(a) The fact that God knew us before we were conceived says absolutely nothing about exactly what point human life begins.

(b) If God has a plan for everyone (assuming that everyone is someone before they are conceived), then God has a plan that includes some abortions.

...Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else. ... Get something real or shut up.You, boyo, have no business telling anyone else to shut up and start thinking. Every single argument you've posted has been by the pro-lifers book. You've swallowed their thinking hook, line and sinker and are simply regurgitating it in response to specific cues. So hold up a mirror to your face, Mr. Kettle.

You, boyo, have no business telling anyone else to shut up and start thinking. Every single argument you've posted has been by the pro-lifers book. You've swallowed their thinking hook, line and sinker and are simply regurgitating it in response to specific cues. So hold up a mirror to your face, Mr. Kettle.

Thank you very much for pointing that out to him (Now he'll just repeat the same liines at you).

Meanwhile, all of my arguments have either been straight out of my own head, or products of legal conversations I have had with others. Go figure.

... (Now he'll just repeat the same liines at you).It's that famous NS Echoooo. :p

You have no proof, you have no logic, and you have no reason. Shut up, sit down, and start thinking instead of spouting off the crap that you get from everyone else. You have proved nothing, you have said nothing beyond that you don't think a fetus is human...

...Other than that, you have nothing. No proof, no evidence, nothing but a bunch of empty opinions, slanted reasoning, hyped up circumstances, and biased propaganda. Get something real or shut up.
and the judges throw up the flag! wow, major foul, my friend. you have just utterly embarassed yourself and confirmed that you are definitely losing this debate (and badly, at that). personal insults and such ludicrous statements from you only underscore how badly you are being owned by Demi; she's refuted every point you've made, and even pre-emptively responded to a few, and for you to then shout that she's not being logical or reasoning is just plain pitiful.

honestly, for you own good, you need to rethink your approach. you are not making solid points, you are repeating the same falacies ad nauseum, and you are making yourself look like a tool by then throwing temper fits at the person who is pointing out your errors. if you really believe in anti-abortion ideas then you need to start cleaning up your act...right now you are making the anti-choice position look even worse than it would otherwise.

i believe that "life" never begins, because a human person arises from living human tissues (gametes, zygotes, etc) and thus is always "alive."
The requirements for life are:

1) Growth
2) Metabolism
3) Motion (including internal)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

I can not remember, embarassingly as I'm so into biology, if eggs are actually considered alive... Perhaps I'm confusing life with organisms. God, it's been too long...been paying to much attention to Filoviridae, Lentivirus, and Mycobacterium, as well as a little...recreational pharmacology. Other pathogens and parasites have been thrown in here and there as well. A little fringe entomology, but I'm into pathology at the moment.

Edit:
Sorry, I forgot TSE's.

The requirements for life are:

1) Growth
2) Metabolism
3) Motion (including internal)
4) Reproduction
5) Response to stimuli

many living human cells do not ever reproduce or grow.


I can not remember, embarassingly as I'm so into biology, if eggs are actually considered alive... Perhaps I'm confusing life with organisms.

yup :)

God, it's been too long...been paying to much attention to Filoviridae, Lentivirus, and Mycobacterium, as well as a little...recreational pharmacology. Other pathogens and parasites have been thrown in here and there as well. A little fringe entomology, but I'm into pathology at the moment.

lol, you sound like almost as much of a nerd as i am!

Now now GI, I though you knew better than to go generalizing about us Pro-Lifer's like that. Not all of us are happy with sweeping a child under the rug.

You are right that genocide is a misnomer, but that doesn't make abortion any more morally tolerable.

Oh - I actually have a get-out clause set up for the pro-life thing! :)

If you read my post... it says that "Anti-Abortionists" call themselves Pro-Life. I think that leaves me sufficient wiggle room to argue that there must be some True Pro-Life people, but that not everyone who calls themselves 'Pro'Life' actually deserves the title.... wiggly enough?

Kind of the same logic I have about Christians... that most 'christians' aren't truly following the example of Christ... so, they are, at best 'Paulines'... but there are also some True Christians.

Damn, I'm smooth.

and the judges throw up the flag! wow, major foul, my friend. you have just utterly embarassed yourself and confirmed that you are definitely losing this debate (and badly, at that). personal insults and such ludicrous statements from you only underscore how badly you are being owned by Demi; she's refuted every point you've made, and even pre-emptively responded to a few, and for you to then shout that she's not being logical or reasoning is just plain pitiful.

honestly, for you own good, you need to rethink your approach. you are not making solid points, you are repeating the same falacies ad nauseum, and you are making yourself look like a tool by then throwing temper fits at the person who is pointing out your errors. if you really believe in anti-abortion ideas then you need to start cleaning up your act...right now you are making the anti-choice position look even worse than it would otherwise.

I was going to post... but Bottle has (as usual) said everything I was going to say - and, probably, said it better than I would have done.

(And in about half as many words!) :)

many living human cells do not ever reproduce or grow.

This isn't really true. Some stop reproducing or growing, but both are necessary in every cell type at some point. And nearly all cells can be induced to do both, depending on the circumstances.

Not that it matters, as the definitions above define a living organism, not a living cell. These two can be the same (in single-celled organisms) but are not necessarily the same.

(a) The fact that God knew us before we were conceived says absolutely nothing about exactly what point human life begins.

(b) If God has a plan for everyone (assuming that everyone is someone before they are conceived), then God has a plan that includes some abortions.

A) Depends on your perspective. I disagree.
B) Just because God has a plan for each of us doesn't mean we follow it. That whole "free will" thing again.

A) Depends on your perspective. I disagree.

The only way you could reasonably disagree with that statement is if you believe all human beings have been alive since the beginning of time, which I doubt you really believe.

B) Just because God has a plan for each of us doesn't mean we follow it. That whole "free will" thing again.

However, if you trully believe in an omnsicient God, everything that ever occurs is part of the plan, whether it is what God wishes us to do or not.

Think about it this way, God's plan for you may be that you should argue against abortion. Of course, if there was no abortion, that couldn't be the plan.

Oh - I actually have a get-out clause set up for the pro-life thing! :)

If you read my post... it says that "Anti-Abortionists" call themselves Pro-Life. I think that leaves me sufficient wiggle room to argue that there must be some True Pro-Life people, but that not everyone who calls themselves 'Pro'Life' actually deserves the title.... wiggly enough?

Kind of the same logic I have about Christians... that most 'christians' aren't truly following the example of Christ... so, they are, at best 'Paulines'... but there are also some True Christians.

Damn, I'm smooth.

:p Actually, the problem I was pointing out was not that there wasn't a potential difference between pro-lifer's and anti-abortionists as much as I was saying that not all members of either group are for sweeping living children under the carpet, thereby making your comment both potentially offensive to those to whom it doesn't apply as well as fallatious. (breath, that was a run on sentence and a half :rolleyes: )

As for your seperation of Pauline theology from Christian theology, are you trying to bait me? I don't see them as being in disagreement, though taken out of context just about anyone can be made to disagree, even with him/her self.

The only way you could reasonably disagree with that statement is if you believe all human beings have been alive since the beginning of time, which I doubt you really believe.



However, if you trully believe in an omnsicient God, everything that ever occurs is part of the plan, whether it is what God wishes us to do or not.

Think about it this way, God's plan for you may be that you should argue against abortion. Of course, if there was no abortion, that couldn't be the plan.


Not alive, but rather planned to be alive, having the value of life when their appointed time for existance comes about...

An omniscient (all knowing in common english) God, just means that He knows what will happen... who needs to argue what, when... who will choose to and choose not to follow His plan... doesn't mean He's pulling our strings, just that He knows the process through outcome. Also, just because He knows what is going to happen, doesn't make it part of the plan. That whole free will to do something other than His plan again...

As for your seperation of Pauline theology from Christian theology, are you trying to bait me? I don't see them as being in disagreement, though taken out of context just about anyone can be made to disagree, even with him/her self.

Actually, I think the point was that the majority of Christians who try to force their religion on others are following Pauline writings (and OT writings), but largely ignoring the actual teachings of Christ.

Not alive, but rather planned to be alive, having the value of life when their appointed time for existance comes about...

Which, again, says absolutely nothing about when actual human life begins.

Which, again, says absolutely nothing about when actual human life begins.

Again, depends on perspective. I disagree.

Actually, I think the point was that the majority of Christians who try to force their religion on others are following Pauline writings (and OT writings), but largely ignoring the actual teachings of Christ.

Actually, they are synergistic and Christ Himself, gave the great commission to "go into all the world" and neither recommend forcing anyone to do anything.

Again, depends on perspective. I disagree.

Either you are completely illogical, or you have other caveats that you have not mentioned. The fact that I know that a chicken will eventually come out of a chicken egg does not tell me the exact day it will hatch, nor does it define the hatching itself.

Actually, they are synergistic and Christ Himself, gave the great commission to "go into all the world" and neither recommend forcing anyone to do anything.

They may be synergistic (although I believe Paul got some things wrong), but many people only follow Paul's writings and ignore the actual words of Christ. Paul himself talked an awful lot about what *not* to do. Christ talked a lot about what we should do and how to treat other people. A huge number of "Christians" ignore the nice stuff, and only want to rant and rail about who is going to hell.

Either you are completely illogical, or you have other caveats that you have not mentioned. The fact that I know that a chicken will eventually come out of a chicken egg does not tell me the exact day it will hatch, nor does it define the hatching itself.

Actually, it takes a fertilized egg for a chicken to come out. I'm not completely illogical, I just disagree with you and your definition of life.

IMO life begins at conception, that conception is the defining moment of the beginning of a human life. You are free to disagree with my definition of the beginning of human life. That doesn't make it illogical.

They may be synergistic (although I believe Paul got some things wrong), but many people only follow Paul's writings and ignore the actual words of Christ. Paul himself talked an awful lot about what *not* to do. Christ talked a lot about what we should do and how to treat other people. A huge number of "Christians" ignore the nice stuff, and only want to rant and rail about who is going to hell.

Actually, both talk about both what we should do, how we should treat people and relate to God and what we shouldn't do, how we shouldn't treat people and relate to God.

Actually, I think the point was that the majority of Christians who try to force their religion on others are following Pauline writings (and OT writings), but largely ignoring the actual teachings of Christ.

Exactly.

Too many people seem to 'water down' the Jesus teaching, to 'fit in' with the rest of the bible... and that makes NO sense to me.

Exactly.

Too many people seem to 'water down' the Jesus teaching, to 'fit in' with the rest of the bible... and that makes NO sense to me.

Actually, the watering down goes both ways. People just want to pick and choose what they like/agree with and discount everything else. It just shouldn't work that way.

I must take this opportunity to pay homage to George Carlin...

"You ever notice that women who are against abortion are women you would never want to fuck in the first place?"

Seriously now. This goes back to my arguments on another thread where I said that conservatives and christians want to chip away at our rights until the entire twentieth century is nothing but a "distant and maligned memory."

You don't want an abortion? DON'T GET ONE! To claim sympathy for the unborn in this way is to ignore the already living. There are so many other things much more richly deserving of your time and effort in fighting against them. Like drug addiction, homelessness, poverty, kids with guns, OVERPOPULATION, etc. etc.

Sadly a sizable portion of the US has turned into single issue voters, and this seems to STILL be a hot-button issue. Everyone here should read "What's The Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank. It will help demonstrate how christian conservatives get people to vote against their own best interest. It's bothe enlightening, and frightening at the same time... :eek:

Actually, the watering down goes both ways. People just want to pick and choose what they like/agree with and discount everything else. It just shouldn't work that way.

See - I don't buy that.

If Jesus IS god - then the rest of the NT is irrelevent... because it's just other people trying to express god.... while Jesus IS god.

IMO life begins at conception, that conception is the defining moment of the beginning of a human life. You are free to disagree with my definition of the beginning of human life. That doesn't make it illogical.

I never said that your designation of when human life begins was illogical. However, trying to use the particular Bible you verse you mentioned, which has absolutely nothing to whatsoever to do with when life begins, as your support is completely illogical.

Actually, the watering down goes both ways. People just want to pick and choose what they like/agree with and discount everything else. It just shouldn't work that way.

Well, the picking and choosing has to happen, to a point.

However, it should not be a personal choice, but a choice led by God.

Well, the picking and choosing has to happen, to a point.

However, it should not be a personal choice, but a choice led by God.

I think that God leading is important, but I believe that any thing that appears to be in disagreement that would appear to cause a need for a choice, is rather a lack of fallible human understanding rather than a discord of the ideas contained in scripture

See - I don't buy that.

If Jesus IS god - then the rest of the NT is irrelevent... because it's just other people trying to express god.... while Jesus IS god.

Even Christ said that the "Spirit" would guide us "into all truth", implying that He didn't reveal it all while He was here. That doesn't make any portion of Christ's teaching non-applicable mind you. Just that there was more to be revealed.

I think that God leading is important, but I believe that any thing that appears to be in disagreement that would appear to cause a need for a choice, is rather a lack of fallible human understanding rather than a discord of the ideas contained in scripture

"An eye for an eye" v. "Turn the other cheek" is pretty clearly a contradiction.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth" v. turning all the poor into slaves is a pretty clear contradiction.

All-good God v. condoning slavery is a pretty clear contradiction.

Then we get into the factual contradictions. Christ is born in two different years, under two different kings, with two different lineages. If you take Genesis literally, animals were created before all human beings, and then they were created between the creation of a single man and a single woman.

These are not really things that can be simply misunderstood (although most people completely misunderstand the "turn the other cheek," passage - interpreting it to mean "stand there and take it," rather than the form of passive resistance that it is actually represents. Even so, there is a fairly clear contradiction).

I never said that your designation of when human life begins was illogical. However, trying to use the particular Bible you verse you mentioned, which has absolutely nothing to whatsoever to do with when life begins, as your support is completely illogical.

Actually, if God knew us prior to putting us together in our mother's wombs and putting us together is the act of giving life, then the beginning of that process (the giving of life) would be conception. The beginning of life thereby being conception.

God knowing you from prior to this point, lends credence to the idea that this point, the putting of us together in our mothers wombs, carries signifigance in our source of origin... making the connection logical. Perhaps not complete, but logical none the less.

"An eye for an eye" v. "Turn the other cheek" is pretty clearly a contradiction.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth" v. turning all the poor into slaves is a pretty clear contradiction.

All-good God v. condoning slavery is a pretty clear contradiction.

Then we get into the factual contradictions. Christ is born in two different years, under two different kings, with two different lineages. If you take Genesis literally, animals were created before all human beings, and then they were created between the creation of a single man and a single woman.

These are not really things that can be simply misunderstood (although most people completely misunderstand the "turn the other cheek," passage - interpreting it to mean "stand there and take it," rather than the form of passive resistance that it is actually represents. Even so, there is a fairly clear contradiction).

The "factual" contridictions are not something I'd argue over as they have little to do with the ideological truths and we can do that till we are blue in the face and never come up with anything that has much practical value in life or eternal life for that matter.

The eye for an eye issue can be looked at as a revelation God's justice and fairness and turning the other cheek a revelation of mercy both of which meet at the cross, where one equal to the law takes the penalty of the law in the place of all who chose to accept its gift.

On the surface it does look like a significant conflict and my way of looking at it may not be "the Way" to look at it. It took me a long time to see many of the paradoxes in Christianity to be synergistic and there are some I still don't get but it is common in ancient middle eastern thought for apparent paradoxes to be accepted as both sides being true even while attempting to figure out how they fit together. It is a very foreign concept to our western minds to deal with as we much perfer "If Then" statements that rule out opposites.

The "factual" contridictions are not something I'd argue over as they have little to do with the ideological truths and we can do that till we are blue in the face and never come up with anything that has much practical value in life or eternal life for that matter.

((I would agree here. The factual contradictions are only for those who insist on taking the entire document literally, despite the fact that it is a collection of stories and writings passed on and jotted down by very fallible human beings.))

The eye for an eye issue can be looked at as a revelation God's justice and fairness and turning the other cheek a revelation of mercy both of which meet at the cross, where one equal to the law takes the penalty of the law in the place of all who chose to accept its gift.

On the surface it does look like a significant conflict and my way of looking at it may not be "the Way" to look at it. It took me a long time to see many of the paradoxes in Christianity to be synergistic and there are some I still don't get but it is common in ancient middle eastern thought for apparent paradoxes to be accepted as both sides being true even while attempting to figure out how they fit together. It is a very foreign concept to our western minds to deal with as we much perfer "If Then" statements that rule out opposites.

And how do we know which case to use both sides? We ask God.

This isn't really true. Some stop reproducing or growing, but both are necessary in every cell type at some point. And nearly all cells can be induced to do both, depending on the circumstances.

i should have specified: there are cells in a normal, developed human body that are not going to grow or divide unless artificially stimulated by unnatural methods. sorry for the imprecision of my language.

Well, the picking and choosing has to happen, to a point.
Especially when the God has DID.

i should have specified: there are cells in a normal, developed human body that are not going to grow or divide unless artificially stimulated by unnatural methods.
But those are pretty much reserved to neurons after a certain point. All cells in the human body must grow and reproduce at one point, or else the human would not develop past a unicellular level in that area.

But those are pretty much reserved to neurons after a certain point. All cells in the human body must grow and reproduce at one point, or else the human would not develop past a unicellular level in that area.
so? the fact remains that it is not necessary for a cell to be capable of growth or reproduction for it to be considered alive. once such cells reach the point where they lose those capabilities we still consider them living cells, and rightfully so. as has been said already, the criterion you posted were for status as ORGANISM, not life.

((I would agree here. The factual contradictions are only for those who insist on taking the entire document literally, despite the fact that it is a collection of stories and writings passed on and jotted down by very fallible human beings.))



And how do we know which case to use both sides? We ask God.

As active an fertile as you mind is, it would be amazing to see what you came up with if you tried to find all the ways the Bible agrees rather than the ways it disagrees. Either way, you have been blessed with an amazing intellect. It's probably a shame that it doesn't get put to more practical use than arguing theology and logic here...

It's probably a shame that it doesn't get put to more practical use than arguing theology and logic here...

What makes you think it doesn't?

What makes you think it doesn't?

Not at all suggesting that you're never doing anything productive. Just that you spend a significant amount of time arguing with people here, many of who's arguments aren't really worth your intellect.

Actually, the watering down goes both ways. People just want to pick and choose what they like/agree with and discount everything else. It just shouldn't work that way.

I don't accept that the teaching of Jesus can water anything down.

If he was god incarnate... I don't see how anything can be added or taken from what he says.

And - regarding more of the message being related by the spirit... I just don't go for it... if Jesus took the time out of his day to explain how he felt about taxes... I find it hard to believe he left out anything worth mentioning.

Also -if you go for that clause 'all scripture is inspired by god'... that means, if you are going to accept Paul as inspired... you also have to accept Mohammed as inspired.

so? the fact remains that it is not necessary for a cell to be capable of growth or reproduction for it to be considered alive. once such cells reach the point where they lose those capabilities we still consider them living cells, and rightfully so. as has been said already, the criterion you posted were for status as ORGANISM, not life.
Yes, exactly what I said. I said that I couldn't quite remember that, since I've been immersing myself too deeply in pathology, that I'd forgotten some of my more basic biology.