NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. The Jews were not considered people and were killed in horrible ways. Now fetuses are not considered people and are murdered in equally horrid ways. Both were killed by "Doctors." Dr. Mengel killed Jews. Abortion doctors like George Tiller kill babies. I am going to say what many other pro-lifers avoid saying: ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL. The world and USA said "never again" to the holocaust, yet has embraced abortion with open arms, therefore starting the evil genocide program all over again. With that being said, I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

-
^view pictures of fetal development, pictures of what aborted babies look like, find out what the abortionists don't want you to see

http://www.whatthenursesaw.com/
^the ugly but true testimony from a former pro-abortion nurse who participated in abortions

-
^this is what it looks like.....is it really a choice?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/13/62648
^Baby body parts for sale
I'm not making this up. Here's a real article describing what happens to the "parts" of aborted babies.....people are making a fortune with the limbs and organs of little children.....

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30586
^DYNAMITE: MUST READ

This very well may convert you to a pro-life stance. What happened is a SWAT team raided a house and found a horribly disfigured baby that they thought was the result of a satanic ritual. No. Instead these were the remains of a tortured, mutilated baby that a pro-lifer had found in an abortion clinic and taken them to show the world the genocide of abortion.

http://www.gargaro.com/choicetolife.html
^Sundry women reveal why they have converted to a pro-Life position. Pro-Woman means to be Pro-Life!

Now an abortionist might say something like - "Quit showing those disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. You're just trying to entice emotions."

Here are answers borrowed from cathinsight.com

Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.
Answer 2: You didn't have a problem with anti-war Protesters showing photos of napalmed babies back during the time of the Vietnam war. The war ended much earlier because of those pictures. They showed that what was going on was wrong. If it wasn't wrong to show those pictures then, why should it be wrong now to show the even grislier reality of what is legal here in this country?
Answer 3: Funny you should bring up emotionalism. Because it's pro-abortion supporters like you who are actually arguing on emotional and therefore fallacious grounds. You are the ones who argue from pity, as in, "But look, she can't afford to have a baby right now" or, "But this poor woman was raped!" These are emotional arguments because they ignore reason (which tells us that being raped or not having time or money for a baby are not sufficient reasons to kill the child) and favor pure emotionalism and pity instead.
Answer 4: Stop killing children and we'll stop showing those pictures.

Commando3']http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/13/62648
^Baby body parts for sale
I'm not making this up. Here's a real article describing what happens to the "parts" of aborted babies.....people are making a fortune with the limbs and organs of little children.....


"Warning" at the beginning of this article:

Warning: Michael Savage is the most exciting and controversial radio host in America. The views expressed here are his own. Certified liberals and politically correct individuals should proceed with caution.

In other words, Michael Savage is a self-promoting, sensationalist jackass. I didn't read the article.

lovely stuff*

*may not be true, i hate black shirts.

gee, i wonder if this thread is going to turn into a flame-fest?

:rolleyes: It's a holocaust. So what?

Abortion is supposed to kill unborn babies. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong :p

Abortions are just scrambled eggs before you put 'em on the pan.

Sooner or later, when we all get our heads out of our collective asses, we will finally start killing off unwanted already born people.

Abortions are just scrambled eggs before you put 'em on the pan.

Which tastes better?

I suppose you’d like us all go back to the unwed mothers houses (cant remember what they were called) and the back street abortions that killed thousands of women each year.

no to mention likening it to the holocaust it probably.... hmmm what’s the word

yes an abominations.

Im going to give you and example now.
Suppose you wake up one morning and find that a famous violinist's circulatory system has been plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from her blood as well as from your own. She needs to remain plugged into you for nine months. If you unplug her, she will die because there is no other person who has the right blood type. Here is a clear situation in which the violinist's right to life comes into conflict with your right to control what happens to your own body. Is it morally permissible for you to unplug the violinist simply because she had no right to be there in the first place , its not nice thing to do, but it is morally justifiable.

Your a fascist idiot really.

Abortions are just scrambled eggs before you put 'em on the pan.
oh man...i gotta remember that one...so wrong, and yet...:D

look at the alternative: women mutilating themselves with coat hangers
illegal abortions in which the conditions are unsanitary and the fetus as well as the mother dies from infection a week later in a slow painful death
these things happened before roe v wade

How many incarnations of "Commando" are there going to be before people get that he likes to troll?

I suppose you’d like us all go back to the unwed mothers houses (cant remember what they were called) and the back street abortions that killed thousands of women each year.

I can answer in 3 different ways-

Answer 1: That people will "do it anyway" is no argument to legalize something heinous. By the same token, should we legalize rape now so that no rapist will have to do it in secret, or because he would do it otherwise anyway? Are you kidding?
Answer 2: While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by, it is my guess, about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it were legal, do you think? Certainly plenty more than do now! Obviously, making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
Answer 3: Don't tell me with a straight face that you care about needless deaths. Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless. There is never a "need" to kill your child. By making abortion illegal, we are reducing the number of needless deaths.

Commando3']
Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.


Photographs *are* emotional. If I started waving a picture of somebody having open heart surgery in your face, you'd probably feel sick and be a little disgusted at me for parading around such horrible images. Is heart surgery disgusting and wrong?

(note: I'm not directly comparing abortion to heart surgery. I'm just making the point that things are not necessarily wrong just because they look unpleasant)

look at the alternative: women mutilating themselves with coat hangers
illegal abortions in which the conditions are unsanitary and the fetus as well as the mother dies from infection a week later in a slow painful death
these things happened before roe v wade

If some mother decides to murder her child then suffers from it it's not my problem.

Dr. Mengel killed Jews.

That's "Mengele", genius. As in "Dr. Josef Mengele", also known as the "Angel of Death".

I think you spend too much time on the GameFAQs boards. Try reading a book, sometimes...

Commando3']Don't tell me with a straight face that you care about needless deaths. Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless. There is never a "need" to kill your child. By making abortion illegal, we are reducing the number of needless deaths.

:confused: so you're saying women get abortions by accident? they just accidently wander into an abortion clinic and next thing they know they're on the table with a dead baby being pulled out of them?

How many incarnations of "Commando" are there going to be before people get that he likes to troll?

You, like everyone else, are either afraid to see the light or are stumped by my reasonable arguement.

Commando3']You, like everyone else, are either afraid to see the light or are stumped by my reasonable arguement.

That sounds just like Jesussaves. It's eerie.

:confused: so you're saying women get abortions by accident? they just accidently wander into an abortion clinic and next thing they know they're on the table with a dead baby being pulled out of them?

No. The person wa saying if we make baby genocide illegal then we will have women dying needless deaths in backalleys and I said 45 million innocent babies have died needless deaths in the US at the hands of abortionist nazis.

That sounds just like Jesussaves. It's eerie.

That was a parody account by someone that couldn't even spell.

What can't I post?

Any content that is:

* obscene
* illegal
* threatening
* malicious
* defamatory
* spam


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obscene


You have had enough nations deleted now to know the rules. Next time we will seriously consider just banning you from this site.

Commando3']I can answer in 3 different ways-

Answer 1: That people will "do it anyway" is no argument to legalize something heinous. By the same token, should we legalize rape now so that no rapist will have to do it in secret, or because he would do it otherwise anyway? Are you kidding?
Answer 2: While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by, it is my guess, about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it were legal, do you think? Certainly plenty more than do now! Obviously, making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
Answer 3: Don't tell me with a straight face that you care about needless deaths. Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless. There is never a "need" to kill your child. By making abortion illegal, we are reducing the number of needless deaths.
no i dont care

Because post 24 weeks the baby is simply a parasite, have your read my above example, the fact is its is morally most justifiable for the woman to have a right to choose, than the potential life unwanted life’s right to stay in the womb as a parasitie.

The reason abortion was made legal is because young women were dying on mass from pre-op infections due to back street abortion, a 1800 year old book aside it was the most moral thing to do.

Stop living in the past, you want a country without abortion, why don’t we made a Christian fundamentalist state all you black shirts can live in so you stop freaking bothering us.

A man once said the needs of the many outdo the needs of the few what is more important Saving millions of lives through the fetuses abborted and used for curing things such as lung cancer or the needs of a single unwanted child that will lead to a teen pregnancy and child at a young age. thats all i will say

This is just so pointless. The side that people take on abortion all rests on whether people consider unborn foetuses to be the same as any other baby, or whether they think they're just a bunch of cells until they're born. The goriness of abortions is therefore irrelevant, so gory pictures make no difference. No one is saying 'Well, I agree it was an actual baby, but because it died in a non-gory way it was actually ok.' That is not the pro-choice position. If you're pro-choice it is like seeing a placenta - gross, but not morally alarming.

Commando3']That was a parody account by someone that couldn't even spell.

Commando3']arguement

I know.

If you are so pro-life, I have an idea, why don't you adopt every single child that would be aborted for non-medical reasons, then you'll feel better and shut the hell up. On an even better note you can have your balls cut off, since you'll have plenty of children already you won't need those any more.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obscene


You have had enough nations deleted now to know the rules. Next time we will seriously consider just banning you from this site.

I'll tell YOU what's obscene. The genocide of babies and the ignorance of the general population, who have been brainwashed by feminists into thinking abortion is a "choice."

Commando3']No. The person wa saying if we make baby genocide illegal then we will have women dying needless deaths in backalleys and I said 45 million innocent babies have died needless deaths in the US at the hands of abortionist nazis.

And I was saying that abortions are unlikely to be 'needless' - if a woman didn't feel she had a need to get rid of a baby, why would she have an abortion?

Commando3']I'll tell YOU what's obscene. The genocide of babies and the ignorance of the general population, who have been brainwashed by feminists into thinking abortion is a "choice."

Adios, amigo.

Commando3']No. The person wa saying if we make baby genocide illegal then we will have women dying needless deaths in backalleys and I said 45 million innocent babies have died needless deaths in the US at the hands of abortionist nazis.
Yes lets purge the entire doctor profession, after all their medicine is ungodly.

the welfare oh a fully coconscious mother outweighs the welfare of an ball of cells or a unconscious foetus.

I want you to imagine all the women bleeding to death in shame becuase they coulnt possibly have the child for social/cultral/economic reasons, and had to get an abortion, and are dying from post op infection.

i love your views there so narrowmindely compassionate.

And I was saying that abortions are unlikely to be 'needless' - if a woman didn't feel she had a need to get rid of a baby, why would she have an abortion?

he seems to think abortions are some off hand thing.

pop in one afternoon and its done of corse, no mental thought needed.

Abortions are just scrambled eggs before you put 'em on the pan.
:D

Commando3']You, like everyone else, are either afraid to see the light or are stumped by my reasonable arguement.


See the light? Reasonable argument? Excuse me as I call the emergency room to patch the lung I just burst from laughing too hard.

Commando3'] *snip*

Your hysterical argument is wrong in many respects.

1. You make the common error of most anti-abortionists in ignoring completely the only undeniably human, living, person effected by an abortion -- the mother. Women have rights to self-ownership and to control over their own body. They are not slaves or cattle. Do not treat them as such.

2. Jews satisfy all of the criteria of personhood and are entitled to rights. Zygotes, embryos, and unviable fetuses do not. We make distinctions as to what entities are entitled to rights. Monkeys, pigs, and dolphins are closer to personhood than the subjects of most abortions, yet we deny them rights.

3. Most "abortionists" are oby/gyns and/or surgeons. They deliver babies, provide prenatal care, etc. They save lives. They also provide the simple medical service of abortion. The ones that label them as evil are the ones closest to meriting that title.

4. Most of your "documentation" below focuses on late-term abortions -- which are banned throughout the United States except when necessary for the life and health of the mother or other extreme circumstances. Such abortions are also extremely rare.

Commando3']http://www.angelfire.com/yt/abcouns/
^view pictures of fetal development, pictures of what aborted babies look like, find out what the abortionists don't want you to see

Link works, but internal links do not.

Commando3']http://www.whatthenursesaw.com/
^the ugly but true testimony from a former pro-abortion nurse who participated in abortions

Brenda Schafer claims to be "pro-choice" but makes her living from anti-abortion activism. Her claims have been proven false.

Commando3']http://www.operationrescue.org/abortion/babypics.asp
^this is what it looks like.....is it really a choice?

Link not work.

Commando3']http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/13/62648
^Baby body parts for sale
I'm not making this up. Here's a real article describing what happens to the "parts" of aborted babies.....people are making a fortune with the limbs and organs of little children.....

Michael Savage is about as unreliable and biased as they come. These are lies.

Commando3']http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30586
^DYNAMITE: MUST READ

This very well may convert you to a pro-life stance. What happened is a SWAT team raided a house and found a horribly disfigured baby that they thought was the result of a satanic ritual. No. Instead these were the remains of a tortured, mutilated baby that a pro-lifer had found in an abortion clinic and taken them to show the world the genocide of abortion.

Lies.

This story is an internet myth.

Moreover, it is common for anti-abortionists to steal the corpses of stillborn babies and pass them off as the results of an abortion. In your story -- even if it were true -- your protagonist only assumes where the corpse came from.

Commando3']http://www.gargaro.com/choicetolife.html
^Sundry women reveal why they have converted to a pro-Life position. Pro-Woman means to be Pro-Life!

1. We have no way of knowing if any of these stories are true. They often are not.

2. Statistically women overwhelming feel a sense of relief and emotional benefit from abortion.

3. From 1973 to 2000, over 39 million legal abortions have taken place in the United States. That a handful of women have issues with the experience is hardly suprising and not particularly noteworthy.

Commando3']Now an abortionist might say something like - "Quit showing those disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. You're just trying to entice emotions."

1. Most anti-abortion pictures are misleading, inaccurate, or false.

2. I can show pictures that are gross or repulsive of lots of medical procedures that are nonetheless undeniably good - brain surgery, for example.

Commando3'] I am going to say what many other pro-lifers avoid saying: ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL. The world and USA said "never again" to the holocaust, yet has embraced abortion with open arms, therefore starting the evil genocide program all over again. With that being said, I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.



After all, yours is the openest mind i've ever seen.

(sorry im blitzing this thread, i find this man repulsive to the extreme)

Commando3']You, like everyone else, are either afraid to see the light or are stumped by my reasonable arguement.
And I thought SB's post would be the funniest in this thread.

Commando3']I'll tell YOU what's obscene. The genocide of babies and the ignorance of the general population, who have been brainwashed by feminists into thinking abortion is a "choice."

Two wrongs make a right now?

Two wrongs make a right now?


I don't know about two wrongs makin' a right, but I do know that three rights make a left.

Abortions are just scrambled eggs before you put 'em on the pan.
That's just sick :mad:

This file is a potential source for answers to all conceivable pro-abortion arguments. The abortionist statements will be bolded and a pro-life response is below. (thanks to http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/plalibrary.htm)

"Keep your laws off my body."
Answer 1: It's not about your body; it's about someone else's body, namely the baby's. Why will you not allow the baby a right to his/her own body, when this is a right you claim so insistently for yourself?
Answer 2: What do you mean, my laws? Moral laws are universal; they're not mine. Just like laws against murdering born people aren't any individual's laws, neither are laws against murdering unborn people. The pro-Life side can demonstrate the correctness of its positions irrefutably through science and reason.
Answer 3: Yeah, that's what the unborn baby says, too: Hello, woman, keep your "choices" off my body!
"Every woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body."
Answer: It's NOT her body! The baby is in her body, yes, but not part of her body. The baby, from the moment of conception, has his/her own DNA and its very own and unique genetic code. This is impossible if the child is part of the mother's body.
"Everyone has a right to choose."
Answer 1: Choose what, please? The phrase "right to choose" is empty and deceptive if we stop there. Whether or not someone has a right to choose something depends on the object of the choice, i.e. what it is that we're choosing! There are many things we can't choose: we can't choose to do whatever we want and we can't choose to kill whomever we want, for instance. Duh!
Answer 2: It's a child, not a choice.
Answer 3: Somebody's right to choose something can never exceed someone else's right to live. The right to live is the first of all rights; no other rights can infringe upon it. The right to live can only be taken away by one's own actions, through being guilty of a very serious and heinous crime. All unborn children, however, are innocent and have committed no crime.
Answer 4: So everyone has a right to choose? Really? Can I choose to have slaves, too? The point is, choice falls flat when that choice involves harming innocent humans beings.
"Abortion is simply a reproductive choice."
Answer 1: <cough> Some "choices" are wrong. Women are free to make reproductive choices before they get pregnant (such as being chaste), not after. Once you're pregnant, that's it, no more choices, because then we're dealing with a human being, completely unique and separate, and all a mother's choices must bow to the sanctity of innocent human life.
Answer 2: In the 1800's, there were people in the U.S. who had slaves. On top of that, many punished their slaves and made them suffer. They could have called that a "property choice," since they believed that slaves were property, and what they did with their "property" was a matter of their own choosing. The point is: we must look beyond the rhetoric to see the reality of what is signified. You can call killing people (or making them suffer) all you want; the truth still remains that the action is wrong. Even euphemisms like "reproductive choice" won't change the facts, just like "property choice" changes nothing when it signifies wronging human beings.
[to a male:] "Have you ever been pregnant?"
Answer 1: No, but I've been an unborn child!
Answer 2: No, but that's beside the point, because this issue is about what's right and wrong, moral and immoral, and these facts don't depend upon whether you are a man or a woman or whether you've ever been pregnant. To deny this amounts to saying that no one can say whether it's right to kill Jews unless he's a German Nazi, or whether it's right to have a slave unless he's a white American living during the time of slavery.
Answer 3: If males can't talk about abortion, then the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, is null and void, because the justices were all male.

"Women shouldn't be forced to be pregnant against their will." / "Women shouldn't have a compulsory pregnancy."
Answer 1: That's an argument from pity, and therefore fallacious. Since what's at stake in that "pregnancy" is an innocent human life, the baby's right to life overrides the woman's wish not to be pregnant. [An innocent human being's right to life, being the most basic of all rights and guaranteed by the Constitution, overrides any other rights or wishes.]
Answer 2: Everybody must take responsibility for his actions. If a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. [Obviously, this argument doesn't work in rape cases.]
"I can have an abortion because it's my body!"
Answer 1: What is your body? Your preborn baby? No, your preborn baby is not your body; your baby is in your body. As a former fetus, I know that I have never been my mother. I have been in my mother, but not identical to my mother. We know by science that beginning from the moment of conception, the preborn child has his own unique DNA, and all the material necessary to develop into a full-grown adult is contained in the zygote. The baby has his own cardiovascular system and does not share in his mother's system! The baby has his own blood type, too. It is totally false, even from a merely scientific point of view, to say that the preborn child is your body. The child is in your body, but not identical to it.
Answer 2: Gee, that's about as smart as saying that I can murder people in my house because it's my house! No! There are a lot of things you can do in your house, but murdering people is not one of them!
More to come! Stay Tuned!


"The object of abortion is a fetus, not a child or a baby."
Answer: So what's a fetus, huh? "Fetus" is simply a term denoting an unborn child from eight weeks after conception until birth. Just like we use terms like "toddler" or "teenager" to refer to humans at different stages of development after birth, so also we use words like "fetus" and "embryo" to refer to humans at different states of preborn development. In short, a fetus is a child, simply at a preborn state of development. By the way, "fetus" comes from the Latin word foetus, meaning "little one."
"The object of abortion is a product of conception. It's tissue."
Answer 1: You and I, too, are "products of conception." And you bet we contain a bunch of tissue (especially if you're my weight!). But you are omitting a significant deal; in fact, so much that it changes the entire deceptive situation you have created through your rhetoric. The real question is: what is it tissue of? A human being! And no preborn child consists merely of tissue. Oh no. Very quickly, fingernails are present, hair develops, bones are starting to grow, etc. So you're wrong in saying that it's tissue because you are implying it's tissue only, kind of like just a bunch of cells clogged together and floating around. But that is not so, unless you wish to refer to yourself as just a blob of tissue, a product of conception.
Answer 2: The fact is that any human product of conception is a human being! Humans are--thank God!--naturally incapable of producing any offspring other than human beings. You'll never have a sheep or squirrel; it'll always be a human being, a baby.

"Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"
Answer 1: "Gee, don't like slavery? Don't have a slave!" --See how stupid that is?
Answer 2: "Gee, don't like pedophilia? Don't be a pedophile then!" --See how stupid that is? We can justify any crime this way.
Answer 3: If we know that an injustice is done to somebody, we have a moral obligation (!) to speak out and oppose this and try to end the injustice or right the wrong if still possible. [If you are talking to a person who professes to believe in the Bible, you can add Proverbs 24:11: "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter."] We must speak for those who cannot speak and defend those who are too weak to defend themselves.
[to a male:] "Have you ever been pregnant?"
Answer 1: No, but that's beside the point, because this issue is about what's right and wrong, moral and immoral, and these facts don't depend upon whether you are a man or a woman or whether you've ever been pregnant. To deny this amounts to saying that no one can say whether it's right to kill Jews unless he's a German Nazi, or whether it's right to have a slave unless he's a white American living during the time of slavery.
Answer 2: If males can't talk about abortion, then the Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, is null and void, because the justices were all male.
"Quit showing those disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. You're just trying to entice emotions."
Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.
Answer 2: You didn't have a problem with anti-war Protesters showing photos of napalmed babies back during the time of the Vietnam war. The war ended much earlier because of those pictures. They showed that what was going on was wrong. If it wasn't wrong to show those pictures then, why should it be wrong now to show the even grislier reality of what is legal here in this country?
Answer 3: Funny you should bring up emotionalism. Because it's pro-abortion supporters like you who are actually arguing on emotional and therefore fallacious grounds. You are the ones who argue from pity, as in, "But look, she can't afford to have a baby right now" or, "But this poor woman was raped!" These are emotional arguments because they ignore reason (which tells us that being raped or not having time or money for a baby are not sufficient reasons to kill the child) and favor pure emotionalism and pity instead.
Answer 4: Stop killing children and we'll stop showing those pictures.
Answer 5: The sooner you believe that abortion is wrong, the sooner we can end it. That's why we show those ugly pictures.
More to come! Stay Tuned!


"You can't legislate morality."
Answer: Of course you can. We do it all the time. Even you do it by saying abortion should be legal--that is legislating morality, just the wrong way. Legislating morality is what laws are for. We legislate that you can't murder anybody, we legislate that you can't rape anybody, we legislate that you can't molest children, we legislate that you can't steal, etc. So what are you talking about? Of course you can legislate morality. That's exactly what many laws do.
"The fetus is really just a parasite and not a human being."
Answer: Let's see about that. First, what makes a human being a human being? The unique genetic makeup, of course, which is present from conception, and the fact that the child is the offspring of two human beings. Secondly, what exactly does "parasite" means? It's a word that is sure to get people's attention and is used to sway opinion in the pro-abortion direction. But what about the reality behind the word? The American Heritage Dictionary defines "parasite" as: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." That may perhaps apply to the human child, though even that is not always --if ever--so, as the following story shows (click): "Unborn Baby Helps Keep Mother Alive." But let's just say that the above-quoted definition of "parasite" applies to every human preborn child. So what? Calling a preborn human baby a "parasite" is simply using the weapon of rhetoric--the art of speaking. It doesn't really tell us much. It tells us that the human child is totally dependent on the mother. Yes, we know that. So? The human child is completely dependent on others, especially the mother, even after birth. Children are always dependent on their parents. The elderly are often dependent on their children or on other adults. So what? Do we have the right to kill dependent people now? The word "parasite" does not only have a biological meaning, of course, but also a social meaning. The same dictionary defines the social meaning as: "One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return." I suspect that the abortion advocate relies on the fact that many people will associate the word "parasite" with the social meaning (which really suggests that a parasite is a spoiled bum) before considering the actual biological definition, which is quite innocent. So there we have it again: rhetoric. That's all they have, the pro-aborts. Reason goes out the window. Just use such loaded terms like "parasite" and hope that people will stop thinking and simply be swayed by the rhetoric. So, stripped of the rhetoric, the pro-abortion claim is that the preborn child is dependent on the mother and therefore has no right to live. Right? That's what they're saying. But why should anyone believe this? Why should the mother have the right to kill this child who is dependent on her? Why? Any reason they may give is either arbitrary or can equally be applied to BORN babies.
"Abortion is a constituional right in the United States of America. We shouldn't be in the business of taking away rights afforded us by the Constitution."
Answer 1: This is total baloney. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Constitution of the United States of America that could be construed as a right to abortion. The majority of Supreme Court justices in the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade simply made it up. That's right. They made it up! Don't believe me? Here is a link to the U.S. Constitution. You will not find a right to abortion in there. Not even close. But even if it were a constitutional right, remember that at one point the U.S. Supreme Court said that owning slaves was a constitutional right! We can and ought to oppose what the U.S. Supreme Court rules if it is wrong.

"If abortion is made illegal again, women will have back-alley abortions, and they will die needlessly."
Answer 1: That people will "do it anyway" is no argument to legalize something heinous. By the same token, should we legalize rape now so that no rapist will have to do it in secret, or because he would do it otherwise anyway? Are you kidding?
Answer 2: While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by, it is my guess, about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it were legal, do you think? Certainly plenty more than do now! Obviously, making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
Answer 3: Don't tell me with a straight face that you care about needless deaths. Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless. There is never a "need" to kill your child. By making abortion illegal, we are reducing the number of needless deaths.
"So what are you going to do with all the unwanted babies if abortion is made illegal? Will you take them?"
Answer 1: If there should indeed be a grave need to give up own's own child, these children can be put up for adoption. There are countless couples who would like to adopt children but cannot because there are not enough children available. In the year 2000, approximately 1.3 million children were killed through abortion, and approximately 1.3 million people were waiting to adopt children. The number of children released for adoption was a mere 35,000 (statistics by National Council for Adoption; see Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 2nd ed., p. 122). So the truth is that we are not in a sitution in which there are not enough people to take "unwanted" children!
Answer 2: Even if no one wanted to take the "unwanted" children, this does not mean that we can kill them. Deliberately killing innocent people is always wrong, and there are no circumstances that can change that. Just because you don't want your child and I don't want your child doesn't mean you have the right to kill your child!
Answer 3: So that is your alternative? Kill them because no one wants them? Should we simply kill everyone that is "burdensome" or "unwanted"? The very thought of a child being "unwanted" by his own mother disgusts me!


Note: If you dismiss these it shows you have no counter arguement.

I dismiss them anyway. If I wanted an abortion, I'd get one. Period.

Someone is itching to be 'martyred' I see.

ahh its good to have a troll back

I dismiss them anyway. If I wanted an abortion, I'd get one. Period.

I cannot get an abortion :(

I dismiss them anyway. If I wanted an abortion, I'd get one. Period.

Then you'd be a murderer.

You have a little spittle there.

Commando3'] This file is a potential source for answers to all conceivable pro-abortion arguments. The abortionist statements will be bolded and a pro-life response is below. (thanks to http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/plalibrary.htm)

*snip*

Note: If you dismiss these it shows you have no counter arguement.

You already have one thread on this in which your arguments have been challenged and you have simply run away.

If you wish to break out actual arguments and state them independently rather than argue with strawmen and mass cut and paste from a website, I will happily refute your propositions.

You have a little spittle there.

LOL. :D

Commando3']If some mother decides to murder her child then suffers from it it's not my problem.
But if she doesn't suffer, it is? And as for your comment on legalizing rape: legalizing rape would not solve any problems, it would just make them worse. More women would be violated against their will, and more women would be killed as a result of such. Legal abortions on the other hand saves the lives of many of those women who must have them, thus solving a problem. Honestly, babies don't even have the mental ability to care whether or not they are born, I don't see what the big problem is.

ahh the catholics.

after all relgion and morality go hand in hand dont they.

and they have no blood what so ever on there hands, no none at all.

You already have one thread on this in which your arguments have been challenged and you have simply run away.

He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day ;)

He who fights and runs away, lives to troll another day ;)

:rolleyes:

Pro-Abortion Answer to Anti-Abortion rants: [NS]Commando3. :p ;) :D

Commando3']Then you'd be a murderer.
Not under the law.

From the same site

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/capital.htm

apprenlty the death penanlty is ok, becuase thats 'just' killing

is not hypocracy lovely?

Commando3']I'll tell YOU what's obscene. The genocide of babies and the ignorance of the general population, who have been brainwashed by feminists into thinking abortion is a "choice."

No, you won't tell me anything. I'm the one with the 'Game Moderator' badge on their nation. Not you.

Commando3']
"The fetus is really just a parasite and not a human being."
Answer: Let's see about that. First, what makes a human being a human being? The unique genetic makeup, of course, which is present from conception, and the fact that the child is the offspring of two human beings.

Complete rubbish. If you're defining people as their DNA, then all those dead skin cells you put in the bin each time you sweep up your floor are people. People are the minds their bodies contain. Fetuses do not have minds, and therefore are NOT human.

ahh the catholics.

after all relgion and morality go hand in hand dont they.

and they have no blood what so ever on there hands, no none at all.


Thanks for generalizing. I'm Catholic, and I disagree with the original poster.

I would say, "Abortion is a choice that is not for me; however, we have no right to tell someone else how to live their life. They need to choose to follow the religion/moral system of their choice."

I love the rampant hypocrisy of "pro-life ranters" -- will they pay the bills to support the child? Adopt it themselves? Provide counseling, pre-natal care, pay for medical bills associated with giving birth? No. But they feel perfectly justified in imposing their opinions on others and crucifying them at the same time.

Thanks for generalizing. I'm Catholic, and I disagree with the original poster.

I would say, "Abortion is a choice that is not for me; however, we have no right to tell someone else how to live their life. They need to choose to follow the religion/moral system of their choice."

I love the rampant hypocrisy of "pro-life ranters" -- will they pay the bills to support the child? Adopt it themselves? Provide counseling, pre-natal care, pay for medical bills associated with giving birth? No. But they feel perfectly justified in imposing their opinions on others and crucifying them at the same time.
Sorry i was catholic, and it left me slighty bitter,

i keep saying im pig headed at times.

hell ill put it in my sig

Question:

Do anti-abortionists eat eggs? Isn't that interfering with the reproductive process?

Now that was a rant! My question is, though: is it better for a child to have a horrendous childhood, raised in near poverty by an uncaring mother, or for that child to have never been born?

That's just sick :mad:

It's sick but accurate. If you incubate an egg a baby bird will grow inside it. By [NS]Commando3's logic, aren't you killing a poor defenceless baby bird when you have a nice poached egg?

Commando3']Answer 1: It's not about your body; it's about someone else's body, namely the baby's.

Answer 3: Yeah, that's what the unborn baby says, too: Hello, woman, keep your "choices" off my body!

The baby, from the moment of conception, has his/her own DNA and its very own and unique genetic code. This is impossible if the child is part of the mother's body.

Answer 2: It's a child, not a choice.


You believe it is a child. Many of us believe that the potential for life is important and would not give that up. However, there are certain biological requirements that must be met to truly be considered life - and simply having DNA doesn't cut it.

Commando3']Answer 2: What do you mean, my laws? Moral laws are universal; they're not mine.

Some "choices" are wrong.


Who gets to decide that? You? Some people think that praying to God is wrong, should we allow them to force that upon us? Of course not! By that same token, we cannot force our subjective moral decisions upon them.

Commando3']We know by science that beginning from the moment of conception, the preborn child has his own unique DNA, and all the material necessary to develop into a full-grown adult is contained in the zygote. The baby has his own cardiovascular system and does not share in his mother's system! The baby has his own blood type, too. It is totally false, even from a merely scientific point of view, to say that the preborn child is your body. The child is in your body, but not identical to it.

No one is saying that the embryo is part of their body, just that they can take it out of their body at will. Meanwhile, the embryo does not have it's own cardiovascular system or blood at conception. I think you may need to go back to science class here.

In truth, the embryo is not scientifically even its own life until it develops a rudimentary nervous system (around the end of the first trimester - when elective abortions are generally no longer allowed).

Commando3']Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.

The photographs you use are *not* "reality as it is". The photographs that anti-choicers like to flash are all of late-term abortions - ignoring the fact that a late-term aboriton required a medical reason in the first place. 1st-term abortions look nothing like that and are the vast majority of the procedures - and the only elective ones.

Commando3']Answer: Of course you can. We do it all the time. Even you do it by saying abortion should be legal--that is legislating morality, just the wrong way. Legislating morality is what laws are for. We legislate that you can't murder anybody, we legislate that you can't rape anybody, we legislate that you can't molest children, we legislate that you can't steal, etc. So what are you talking about? Of course you can legislate morality. That's exactly what many laws do.

You do not legislate what is legal, you only legislate what is illegal. We live under a restrictive system, not a prescriptive system.

Meanwhile, you need to look up the terms subjective and objective. There is an objective reason to disallow rape, murder, etc. There is only a subjective "my religion tells me so!" to disallow early term aboriton.

Commando3']Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless.

Yeah, I'll tell that to the women who really, really, really wanted to have children but had tubal pregnancies, dead fetuses, or fetuses with extreme hydrocephaly.

Commando3']There are countless couples who would like to adopt children but cannot because there are not enough children available.

Bullshit. There are countless children waiting for adoptions. What you *meant* to say was that there are countless couples who want white, blonde, blue-eyed little babies with no risk of drug addiction or health problems and haven't gotten any older than about 6 months.

This is just so pointless. The side that people take on abortion all rests on whether people consider unborn foetuses to be the same as any other baby, or whether they think they're just a bunch of cells until they're born. The goriness of abortions is therefore irrelevant, so gory pictures make no difference. No one is saying 'Well, I agree it was an actual baby, but because it died in a non-gory way it was actually ok.' That is not the pro-choice position. If you're pro-choice it is like seeing a placenta - gross, but not morally alarming.

This actually, is untrue. Many of us are personally morally opposed to abortion, but recognize that our personal subjective religious and moral choices should not be forced upon others. I do not truly think of the unborn as "just a bunch of cells" until birth. (Meanwhile, neither do most pro-choice people, as most do put restrictions on when a woman can get an abortion). However, from a purely objective and scientific viewpoint, a bunch of cells with the potential to become life is what they are in the first trimester.

Commando3']Answer 2: While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by, it is my guess, about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it were legal, do you think? Certainly plenty more than do now! Obviously, making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
I haven't read most of this thread so I'm sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has said, but evidence suggests that the quoted statement is wholly inaccurate. The Birkett Committee estimated that in the UK at least, 16 - 20% of pregnancies in 1939 ended in abortion (abortion was not legalised in the UK until 1967). Today, the rate is similar.

Furthermore, the Republic of Ireland has extremely strong anti-abortion laws, whereas The Netherlands has liberal ones. The rates of abortion in the two countries are very similar (with Irish women travelling to the UK or Europe to terminate their pregnancies).

If you need confirmation of these facts, see Bryson, V (1999) Feminist Debates: Issues of Theory and Political Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan. It may be a feminist text (and therefore somewhat predictably pro-choice), but it does present statistical and outside, impartial evidence for the above facts.

If you are seriously trying to convert people, using facts, or at least comments based on evidence, may at least be a start towards your cause.

I am pro-choice(even though I prefer people who don't want children to use contraception). I think that after so many abortions you should need to pay for them yourself, I don't like society to spend money senseless.

Everyone, well most people, who have abortions have good reason(a stupid teen that didn't use contraception, or something like that). Again, if it happens a lot they should have to pay for it themself.

A fetus isn't living. It's like claiming sperms have rights.

I suppose you’d like us all go back to the unwed mothers houses (cant remember what they were called) and the back street abortions that killed thousands of women each year.


You know, if we made murder legal, think how many lives we could save. If only people could take others to murder shops, it would make killing so much simpler. Many people each year are accidently shot and take a bullet meant for someone else. Think of all those people who drink a poisoned cup of coffee that was meant for someone else. These are innocent lives LOST. But if we opened murder shops, we could make sure that only the ones we want murdered get killed and no innocent bistanders get in the way. These would be especially handy in the middle east because instead of suicide bombing, the killer could simply take his victims to the shop to be killed and wouldn't have to die himself. That's one life saved.

Makes sense to me.

Commando3']Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. The Jews were not considered people and were killed in horrible ways. Now fetuses are not considered people and are murdered in equally horrid ways. Both were killed by "Doctors." Dr. Mengel killed Jews. Abortion doctors like George Tiller kill babies. I am going to say what many other pro-lifers avoid saying: ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL. The world and USA said "never again" to the holocaust, yet has embraced abortion with open arms, therefore starting the evil genocide program all over again. With that being said, I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

The Jews were not considered people. Science indicated that they in fact were people. Foetuses are not considered people. Science indicates that they in fact are not living people. Also most Jews were killed by slave labour or shooting.

That quote is stupid. Doesn't Reagan realise that Abortion is also opposed only by persons who themselves have been born? When Ronald Reagan was in office what did he do to stop abortion? Nothing!

Commando3'] ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL.

The reason you never hear that is because the Christian stand point (Christians being the main thrust behind to pro-life movement) is to love the sinner but hate the sin. We're all sinners. Even if our sins aren't as grave as aborting children, it isn't our place to call abortion doctors evil. It is our place to call abortion evil, of course.

I like your holocaust analogy. It's interesting, I'm currently in a "Literature of American Slavery" class, and a lot of the pro-slavery arguments remind me of pro-choice arguments today.

I agree with you post and I liked a lot of the points you raised. I think that the typical American has the attitude that "Abortion isn't the best, but it's ok, I guess". They're fed just enough pro-choice propoganda to not speak out against abortion. I think stances like the one outlined in your post will help to move some of those people off of the fence.
However, this forum is extremely liberal for the most part, and no amount of discussion will change their mind about abortion.

However, this forum is extremely liberal for the most part, and no amount of discussion will change their mind about abortion.Well, I am not a liberal, but I like to have evidence for a point of view, and have seen little (if any) impartial, objective evidence that foetuses are sentient human beings. I've seen little evidence (if any) that as abortion rules become more lax, abortions become more common (see my post above, for example). I've seen little evidence (if any) that pro-life people are willing to bring up the thousands of unwanted children in the world, who are currently living horrible lives in orphanages, abusive homes or on the streets.

Prove either that abortion is murder in the legal sense of our countries, or at least prove that you are willing to do something for the kids that would otherwise be aborted, and then you might be able to make a pro-choicer think twice.

Ah, I see a lot of "fetuses aren't alive until such and such time" and science says so. Could someone link me to a good, solid, nonbiased scientific website that shows clearly that embryos and fetuses aren't alive?

Perhaps you can show me an experiment done where scientists use their "life-o-meter" on a group of fetuses and then on a group of fake "control group" fetuses to determine if they really are alive.

To me, that's one of the greatest lies of the pro-choice argument "Science is on our side". I see several posts in succession saying "fetuses aren't alive until X" where X can be anything ranging from a functioning nervous system, to a beating heart, to the ability to survive on their own, to the ability to throw a 90 mph fastball. Noone seems to care that "Science" says different things depending on who you talk to. Seems odd doesn't it? What's even more odd is that people sound so confident when they invoke science to support their argument.

The next great lie of the pro-choice arguments is that people shouldn't "press their beliefs on others". However, they turn a blind eye when a mother "presses her beliefs" on the fetus in her body by destroying him.

Well, I am not a liberal, but I like to have evidence for a point of view, and have seen little (if any) impartial, objective evidence that foetuses are sentient human beings. I've seen little evidence (if any) that as abortion rules become more lax, abortions become more common (see my post above, for example). I've seen little evidence (if any) that pro-life people are willing to bring up the thousands of unwanted children in the world, who are currently living horrible lives in orphanages, abusive homes or on the streets.

Prove either that abortion is murder in the legal sense of our countries, or at least prove that you are willing to do something for the kids that would otherwise be aborted, and then you might be able to make a pro-choicer think twice.

Killing is wrong. Adding any stipulations (such as "killing is ok as long as it prevents kids from having rough childhoods") to that is moral relativism.

The next great lie of the pro-choice arguments is that people shouldn't "press their beliefs on others". However, they turn a blind eye when a mother "presses her beliefs" on the fetus in her body by destroying him.

So, your claim is that a mother violates the fetus' wishes when she aborts it? I would love to see that argument fleshed out.

are you "pro-life" people really going to use pictures of pregnancies aborted after the first trimester to help your argument?after the first trimester,yes,abortion is bad.the mother should consider abortion before the pregnancy gets to that point.if she gets pregnant,i believe that she should get a chance to make the descision that is right for her,but if she puts that off for that long,then in my opinion,she has had her second chance,and she has made two bad descisions.however,most abortions are during the first trimester.so that really isn't the topic of discussion,is it?
also:the fetus's existance is the mother's responsibility.it is her descision whether it lives or dies.if her descision isn't the one you would make,DEAL WITH IT.

So, your claim is that a mother violates the fetus' wishes when she aborts it? I would love to see that argument fleshed out.

She pushs her opinion that "a fetus is not alive" onto the fetus by destroying it (this would be the ultimate case of forcing one's beliefs on someone else). Yet, pro-choice arguers don't want pro-lifers to push their beliefs onto them.

She pushs her opinion that "a fetus is not alive" onto the fetus by destroying it (this would be the ultimate case of forcing one's beliefs on someone else). Yet, pro-choice arguers don't want pro-lifers to push their beliefs onto them.

And the fetus objects to this?

And the fetus objects to this?
If a small child doesn't object to being raped or murdered, that makes it ok?

If a small child doesn't object to being raped or murdered, that makes it ok?

A small child is capable of doing so.

A small child is capable of doing so.

Wow, you're seriously trying to argue that being able to object to something is important in it's moral implications?

A little boy may or may not object to being raped, but it is wrong in both situations. A baby may or may not cry if it's inappropriately touched, but it's wrong whether or not he cries.

A person in a coma can't object to being raped, but it's still wrong.

Wow, you're seriously trying to argue that being able to object to something is important in it's moral implications?

Having the capacity to do so certainly is. Why is it ok for us to dissect frogs? Well, they don't have the capacity to know what is going on and it is better for us if we learn what we need to learn.

An embryo that has not yet developed the ability to sense and respond to its surroundings is not only not biologically alive, but cannot possibly comprehend its own existence, feel pain, or object to anything.

Having the capacity to do so certainly is. Why is it ok for us to dissect frogs? Well, they don't have the capacity to know what is going on and it is better for us if we learn what we need to learn.

An embryo that has not yet developed the ability to sense and respond to its surroundings is not only not biologically alive, but cannot possibly comprehend its own existence, feel pain, or object to anything.

I (as well as NScommando) have already addressed everything you've written in this passage, if you choose to simply ignore it, there's nothing I can do.

I (as well as NScommando) have already addressed everything you've written in this passage, if you choose to simply ignore it, there's nothing I can do.

Funny, I read through the thread and didn't see a single place that you provided evidence that an embryo meets the requirements of life.

An embryo cannot sense and respond to its environment. It hasn't devleoped that capability. As such, it is objectively no more a living entity than a tumor. The difference is only in the potential to become something else - a tumor is highly unlikely to ever become a living creature, but an embryo might. Some of us place moral importance on that potential. Some of us believe that the potential human receives a soul at some point and *that* is what makes them human.

However, this importance of the potential is purely subjective. It is a moral and religious choice made by every human being - and it is not one which any one person has a right to force upon another.

If you wish to argue objectively, you cannot refute my points. If you wish to argue subjectively, you cannot legislate your views (although you couldn't argue with me anyways, as I also believe abortion to be morally wrong in nearly all cases).

I (as well as NScommando) have already addressed everything you've written in this passage, if you choose to simply ignore it, there's nothing I can do.
I read through the thread again. I don't see any counterargument addressing the argument which Dempublicants presented.
Perhaps a link to it?

You people amuse me. I'm guessing none of you are scientists. You cannot prove anything. We can't prove whether or not fetuses are people. We can't prove that the grass is green or that roses smell good. To a color blind person the grass might look blue, and there may be people that don't like the smell of roses. Some people think that fetuses are people, some think they aren't. It just depends on how you define a person. Once people form an opinion about it, the opinion is usually pretty strong. You can argue forever, and you're not likely to convert anybody.

Commando3']I can answer in 3 different ways-

Answer 1: That people will "do it anyway" is no argument to legalize something heinous. By the same token, should we legalize rape now so that no rapist will have to do it in secret, or because he would do it otherwise anyway? Are you kidding?
Answer 2: While some women may still have abortions, the abortion rate will definitely decrease by, it is my guess, about 90% or even more. How many people would commit murder if it were legal, do you think? Certainly plenty more than do now! Obviously, making something illegal is always a deterrent for a large amount of people.
Answer 3: Don't tell me with a straight face that you care about needless deaths. Every single abortion that has ever been done was needless. There is never a "need" to kill your child. By making abortion illegal, we are reducing the number of needless deaths.

1. Yes it is, because here are your options: one, you allow abortion to happen safely, or you allow it to happen very dangerously.

2. Um... it's a truism. Of course something is going to happen less if you illegalize it. That doesn't prove that abortion is bad. Actually, I'm not even sure what you were trying to prove here.

3. No, abortion is not always needless. If the mother's health is endangered by being pregnant, then it makes no sense to let them both die. It's sad for one of them to die, but you tell me which is worse: one death or two?

I'm guessing none of you are scientists. You cannot prove anything. We can't prove whether or not fetuses are people.

I am, although I haven't claimed to be able to prove anything.

I can demonstrate that an embryo is *not* life as biology has defined it, as I can test for the requirements thereof and find that at least one of them is not met until the end of the first trimester.

Some people think that fetuses are people, some think they aren't. It just depends on how you define a person. Once people form an opinion about it, the opinion is usually pretty strong. You can argue forever, and you're not likely to convert anybody.

This is true, however. And these opinions are generally subjectively based, hence the reason why one person cannot force their opinion upon others.

Dem wins.

agreed

LOL! Spiffy! I guess.

You people amuse me. I'm guessing none of you are scientists. You cannot prove anything. We can't prove whether or not fetuses are people. We can't prove that the grass is green or that roses smell good. To a color blind person the grass might look blue, and there may be people that don't like the smell of roses. Some people think that fetuses are people, some think they aren't. It just depends on how you define a person. Once people form an opinion about it, the opinion is usually pretty strong. You can argue forever, and you're not likely to convert anybody.
grass is green because green is a word defined by humans to encompass grass.
anything smelling good or having any quality of betterness is by definition subjective. life is objective, therefore your analogy is false.
it doesnt matter if you "think" a fetus is alive because it simply does not meet the definition (consult any dictionary or biology textbook)
the only subjective form of defining life comes from religion and is thus excluded from the discussion of how it affects law.

I read through the thread again. I don't see any counterargument addressing the argument which Dempublicants presented.
Perhaps a link to it?

Let me lend you aid.

In response to this quote, I'll offer you two from earlier in the thead that address this issue.


An embryo that has not yet developed the ability to sense and respond to its surroundings is not only not biologically alive, but cannot possibly comprehend its own existence, feel pain, or object to anything.



"The object of abortion is a fetus, not a child or a baby."
Answer: So what's a fetus, huh? "Fetus" is simply a term denoting an unborn child from eight weeks after conception until birth. Just like we use terms like "toddler" or "teenager" to refer to humans at different stages of development after birth, so also we use words like "fetus" and "embryo" to refer to humans at different states of preborn development. In short, a fetus is a child, simply at a preborn state of development. By the way, "fetus" comes from the Latin word foetus, meaning "little one."




Ah, I see a lot of "fetuses aren't alive until such and such time" and science says so. Could someone link me to a good, solid, nonbiased scientific website that shows clearly that embryos and fetuses aren't alive?

Perhaps you can show me an experiment done where scientists use their "life-o-meter" on a group of fetuses and then on a group of fake "control group" fetuses to determine if they really are alive.

To me, that's one of the greatest lies of the pro-choice argument "Science is on our side". I see several posts in succession saying "fetuses aren't alive until X" where X can be anything ranging from a functioning nervous system, to a beating heart, to the ability to survive on their own, to the ability to throw a 90 mph fastball. Noone seems to care that "Science" says different things depending on who you talk to. Seems odd doesn't it? What's even more odd is that people sound so confident when they invoke science to support their argument.

The next great lie of the pro-choice arguments is that people shouldn't "press their beliefs on others". However, they turn a blind eye when a mother "presses her beliefs" on the fetus in her body by destroying him.


In those passages, I challenge his view of "science" and point out the hypocricies of the pro-choice argument. Neither point has been adequately addressed in this thread.




In response to this:


Having the capacity to do so certainly is. Why is it ok for us to dissect frogs? Well, they don't have the capacity to know what is going on and it is better for us if we learn what we need to learn.


An issue I addressed in the passage right above his.



Wow, you're seriously trying to argue that being able to object to something is important in it's moral implications?

A little boy may or may not object to being raped, but it is wrong in both situations. A baby may or may not cry if it's inappropriately touched, but it's wrong whether or not he cries.

A person in a coma can't object to being raped, but it's still wrong.


In these examples, I outline why an action's morality isn't based on the victim's ability to object. He simply repeated that it is based on a person's ability to object without addressing my examples.

Dem wins.

I'm glad to see that we have mature attitude.

In response to this quote, I'll offer you two from earlier in the thead that address this issue.

Neither of them actually address anything. They are semantics and subjective views of a word that is clearly defined in biology.

As I pointed out before, we all have our own subjective views of what constitutes a person. However, only objective views can really be legislated. Objectively, it is easy to show that an embryo (not a fetus mind you - an embryo) does not meet the biological definition of life.


In these examples, I outline why an action's morality isn't based on the victim's ability to object. He simply repeated that it is based on a person's ability to object without addressing my examples.

Funny, I didn't say anything about "ability", I said "capacity." A child may not object to something, but can. A person in a coma may not currently be objecting to something, but has the necessary organs to do so.

Ah, I see a lot of "fetuses aren't alive until such and such time" and science says so. Could someone link me to a good, solid, nonbiased scientific website that shows clearly that embryos and fetuses aren't alive?

Perhaps you can show me an experiment done where scientists use their "life-o-meter" on a group of fetuses and then on a group of fake "control group" fetuses to determine if they really are alive.

To me, that's one of the greatest lies of the pro-choice argument "Science is on our side". I see several posts in succession saying "fetuses aren't alive until X" where X can be anything ranging from a functioning nervous system, to a beating heart, to the ability to survive on their own, to the ability to throw a 90 mph fastball. Noone seems to care that "Science" says different things depending on who you talk to. Seems odd doesn't it? What's even more odd is that people sound so confident when they invoke science to support their argument.

The next great lie of the pro-choice arguments is that people shouldn't "press their beliefs on others". However, they turn a blind eye when a mother "presses her beliefs" on the fetus in her body by destroying him.

I can actually see something like a point with this argument; there is some validity to saying every has science on their side if they ask the right person. Knowing this let's (mostly) put science aside, let's make the argument from common sense.

A fetus, without a functioning nervous system, a beating heart, the ability to live on its own, or a means of sensing/reacting to its environment, has no claim to life. The fetus fitting this description (which they all do in early development) is simply a cluster of cells developing at an unchecked rate (at the cost of the "host," I might add). Frankly, a tumor is as much a living being as a fetus at this point in its development. Are procedures to remove tumors wrong?

I'm sure the analogy to some may seem callous, but regardless of whether or not you find it offensive, it is inarguably true, be you a Christian Scientist or no. (I hate that term by the way, even though I am neither Christian nor a scientist; it seems to imply that as a good religous person, you are required to view any objective data you may find from a Christian [read: SUBJECTIVE] standpoint. It seems to take all the "science" out. But that's a rant for another thread :) )

Beyond that point in development, when a fetus has developed some means of distinguishing itself from a tumor, at THAT point you may have some basis for saying opting for an abbortion is wrong. But then again, by that point, abortions (in the United States) are generally outlawed, so you really have no basis for complaint. You want to outlaw the killing of innocent humans? It's already been done; fetuses that meet the above requirements of living organism are NOT legally aborted in the US. So please, guys, quit the line about the slaughter of innocents, and the New Holocaust and what not. You so big on Rights to Life? Protest the systematic wholesale murder committed on behalf of the government (read: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT). Haha once again, a rant for a different thread.

I can actually see something like a point with this argument; there is some validity to saying every has science on their side if they ask the right person. Knowing this let's (mostly) put science aside, let's make the argument from common sense.

You *do* realize that you use a science argument just below?

Meanwhile, if I asked my doctor what the law on X was, would I be able to say I had law on my side? In order to use science, one must actually either understand it, or talk to a scientist - not just anyone who claims to be one.

A fetus, without a functioning nervous system, a beating heart, the ability to live on its own, or a means of sensing/reacting to its environment, has no claim to life. The fetus fitting this description (which they all do in early development) is simply a cluster of cells developing at an unchecked rate (at the cost of the "host," I might add). Frankly, a tumor is as much a living being as a fetus at this point in its development. Are procedures to remove tumors wrong?

Just to be pedantic, you are talking about an *embryo* here. The change to "fetus" comes just about the point that a rudimentary nervous system is developed (and elective abortions are largely outlawed).

I'm sure the analogy to some may seem callous, but regardless of whether or not you find it offensive, it is inarguably true, be you a Christian Scientist or no. (I hate that term by the way, even though I am neither Christian nor a scientist; it seems to imply that as a good religous person, you are required to view any objective data you may find from a Christian [read: SUBJECTIVE] standpoint. It seems to take all the "science" out. But that's a rant for another thread :) )

Those who refer to themselves as "Christian scientists" are generally not truly scientists at all. Those of us who are scientists who happen to be Christian, well, that's another matter.

Beyond that point in development, when a fetus has developed some means of distinguishing itself from a tumor, at THAT point you may have some basis for saying opting for an abbortion is wrong. But then again, by that point, abortions (in the United States) are generally outlawed, so you really have no basis for complaint. You want to outlaw the killing of innocent humans? It's already been done; fetuses that meet the above requirements of living organism are NOT legally aborted in the US. So please, guys, quit the line about the slaughter of innocents, and the New Holocaust and what not.

Exactly!

Objectively, it is easy to show that an embryo (not a fetus mind you - an embryo) does not meet the biological definition of life.


You know, I've taken four years of biochem at my university, I would think that if it were obvious, I would know about it. Or maybe I missed that lecture in class? I've challenge you again and again to show me with anything that explains why an embryo is not alive. And no saying "Objectively, it is easy to show that an embryo (not a fetus mind you - an embryo) does not meet the biological definition of life." is not good enough. Look, I can do that, too.

"Objectively, it is easy to show that an rubber ducky (not a reald ducky, mind you - an rubby ducky) does not meet the biological definition of a toy."


So it's true because I said it?

Here's a reminder of my post




Funny, I didn't say anything about "ability", I said "capacity." A child may not object to something, but can. A person in a coma may not currently be objecting to something, but has the necessary organs to do so.

What's even funnier is this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ability
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capacity
"Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude"
(and you say I argue semantics.)

Anyway, tell my why a person's organs have anything to do with what is morally right or wrong. If a person is in the middle of an open heart surgery, he still has rights. Or is the heart not one of those special organs that designates moral rights?

I can actually see something like a point with this argument; there is some validity to saying every has science on their side if they ask the right person. Knowing this let's (mostly) put science aside, let's make the argument from common sense.

A fetus, without a functioning nervous system, a beating heart, the ability to live on its own, or a means of sensing/reacting to its environment, has no claim to life. The fetus fitting this description (which they all do in early development) is simply a cluster of cells developing at an unchecked rate (at the cost of the "host," I might add). Frankly, a tumor is as much a living being as a fetus at this point in its development. Are procedures to remove tumors wrong?

I'm sure the analogy to some may seem callous, but regardless of whether or not you find it offensive, it is inarguably true, be you a Christian Scientist or no. (I hate that term by the way, even though I am neither Christian nor a scientist; it seems to imply that as a good religous person, you are required to view any objective data you may find from a Christian [read: SUBJECTIVE] standpoint. It seems to take all the "science" out. But that's a rant for another thread :) )

Beyond that point in development, when a fetus has developed some means of distinguishing itself from a tumor, at THAT point you may have some basis for saying opting for an abbortion is wrong. But then again, by that point, abortions (in the United States) are generally outlawed, so you really have no basis for complaint. You want to outlaw the killing of innocent humans? It's already been done; fetuses that meet the above requirements of living organism are NOT legally aborted in the US. So please, guys, quit the line about the slaughter of innocents, and the New Holocaust and what not. You so big on Rights to Life? Protest the systematic wholesale murder committed on behalf of the government (read: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT). Haha once again, a rant for a different thread.


There are plenty of single celled and multi celled organisms that are considered "alive". What you mean is that a fetus can't be considered "human". Tell me, if not human, what is it? And how does this magical nonhuman suddenly change into a human? As far as I know, magically shifting one's species is unknown.

And I don't want to leave out NScommando's argument, which still hasn't been addressed.


"The object of abortion is a fetus, not a child or a baby."
Answer: So what's a fetus, huh? "Fetus" is simply a term denoting an unborn child from eight weeks after conception until birth. Just like we use terms like "toddler" or "teenager" to refer to humans at different stages of development after birth, so also we use words like "fetus" and "embryo" to refer to humans at different states of preborn development. In short, a fetus is a child, simply at a preborn state of development. By the way, "fetus" comes from the Latin word foetus, meaning "little one."


So a fetus isn't a human, just less developed? Tell me why.

I can actually see something like a point with this argument; there is some validity to saying every has science on their side if they ask the right person. Knowing this let's (mostly) put science aside, let's make the argument from common sense.

A fetus, without a functioning nervous system, a beating heart, the ability to live on its own, or a means of sensing/reacting to its environment, has no claim to life. The fetus fitting this description (which they all do in early development) is simply a cluster of cells developing at an unchecked rate (at the cost of the "host," I might add). Frankly, a tumor is as much a living being as a fetus at this point in its development. Are procedures to remove tumors wrong?

I'm sure the analogy to some may seem callous, but regardless of whether or not you find it offensive, it is inarguably true, be you a Christian Scientist or no. (I hate that term by the way, even though I am neither Christian nor a scientist; it seems to imply that as a good religous person, you are required to view any objective data you may find from a Christian [read: SUBJECTIVE] standpoint. It seems to take all the "science" out. But that's a rant for another thread :) )

Beyond that point in development, when a fetus has developed some means of distinguishing itself from a tumor, at THAT point you may have some basis for saying opting for an abbortion is wrong. But then again, by that point, abortions (in the United States) are generally outlawed, so you really have no basis for complaint. You want to outlaw the killing of innocent humans? It's already been done; fetuses that meet the above requirements of living organism are NOT legally aborted in the US. So please, guys, quit the line about the slaughter of innocents, and the New Holocaust and what not. You so big on Rights to Life? Protest the systematic wholesale murder committed on behalf of the government (read: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT). Haha once again, a rant for a different thread.
all though i am a pro-choice liberal i can still point out bull shit when i smell it. a tumor has no potential to life and thus is fundamentaly different from a fetus, embryo, zygote etc.

You know, I've taken four years of biochem at my university, I would think that if it were obvious, I would know about it. Or maybe I missed that lecture in class? I've challenge you again and again to show me with anything that explains why an embryo is not alive. And no saying "Objectively, it is easy to show that an embryo (not a fetus mind you - an embryo) does not meet the biological definition of life." is not good enough. Look, I can do that, too.

Apparently, you don't learn embryonic development in biochem. I have explained it several times. An embryo does not have the capability as an entity to sense and respond to stimuli - one of the basic descriptors of life. Human beings do this through a nervous system - something that an embryo does not have.

"Objectively, it is easy to show that an rubber ducky (not a reald ducky, mind you - an rubby ducky) does not meet the biological definition of a toy."

there is no biological definition of "toy", so your analogy is bogus.

What's even funnier is this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ability
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capacity
"Synonyms: ability, capacity, faculty, talent, skill, competence, aptitude"
(and you say I argue semantics.)

Synonyms =! the exact same.

Anyway, tell my why a person's organs have anything to do with what is morally right or wrong. If a person is in the middle of an open heart surgery, he still has rights. Or is the heart not one of those special organs that designates moral rights?

A human being has developed the capabilities needed to be termed life. As such, they are life until they die.

all though i am a pro-choice liberal i can still point out bull shit when i smell it. a tumor has no potential to life and thus is fundamentaly different from a fetus, embryo, zygote etc.

Potential is not the same as actual.

Like I said before, some of us subjectively place value on that potential - but it is subjective.

There are plenty of single celled and multi celled organisms that are considered "alive". What you mean is that a fetus can't be considered "human". Tell me, if not human, what is it? And how does this magical nonhuman suddenly change into a human? As far as I know, magically shifting one's species is unknown.

And I don't want to leave out NScommando's argument, which still hasn't been addressed.



So a fetus isn't a human, just less developed? Tell me why.
is a sperm alive? is it a holocaust every time you masturbate?

There are plenty of single celled and multi celled organisms that are considered "alive".

Yes, because they meet the basic requirements and do so as a single entity:

1. Sense and respond to stimuli.
2. Take in and utilize nutrients (metabolism)
3. Growth and development (catbolism)
4. Excrete wastes

An embryo, after its first division, does only one of the above as an entity (3). Its nutrients are derived purely cell by cell from diffusion - with many cells in the necrotic core never receiving any nutrients at all. Once the bloodstream is developed (during the first trimester), it can be said to meet 2 and 4, but still not 1, as it has no mechanism for doing so. Towards the end of the first trimester, when the rudimentary and reflexive nervous system is formed, it meets #1 - and is can thus be properly called "life".

Commando3']Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. The Jews were not considered people and were killed in horrible ways. Now fetuses are not considered people and are murdered in equally horrid ways. Both were killed by "Doctors." Dr. Mengel killed Jews. Abortion doctors like George Tiller kill babies. I am going to say what many other pro-lifers avoid saying: ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL. The world and USA said "never again" to the holocaust, yet has embraced abortion with open arms, therefore starting the evil genocide program all over again. With that being said, I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

-
^view pictures of fetal development, pictures of what aborted babies look like, find out what the abortionists don't want you to see

http://www.whatthenursesaw.com/
^the ugly but true testimony from a former pro-abortion nurse who participated in abortions

-
^this is what it looks like.....is it really a choice?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/13/62648
^Baby body parts for sale
I'm not making this up. Here's a real article describing what happens to the "parts" of aborted babies.....people are making a fortune with the limbs and organs of little children.....

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30586
^DYNAMITE: MUST READ

This very well may convert you to a pro-life stance. What happened is a SWAT team raided a house and found a horribly disfigured baby that they thought was the result of a satanic ritual. No. Instead these were the remains of a tortured, mutilated baby that a pro-lifer had found in an abortion clinic and taken them to show the world the genocide of abortion.

http://www.gargaro.com/choicetolife.html
^Sundry women reveal why they have converted to a pro-Life position. Pro-Woman means to be Pro-Life!

Now an abortionist might say something like - "Quit showing those disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. You're just trying to entice emotions."

Here are answers borrowed from cathinsight.com

Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.
Answer 2: You didn't have a problem with anti-war Protesters showing photos of napalmed babies back during the time of the Vietnam war. The war ended much earlier because of those pictures. They showed that what was going on was wrong. If it wasn't wrong to show those pictures then, why should it be wrong now to show the even grislier reality of what is legal here in this country?
Answer 3: Funny you should bring up emotionalism. Because it's pro-abortion supporters like you who are actually arguing on emotional and therefore fallacious grounds. You are the ones who argue from pity, as in, "But look, she can't afford to have a baby right now" or, "But this poor woman was raped!" These are emotional arguments because they ignore reason (which tells us that being raped or not having time or money for a baby are not sufficient reasons to kill the child) and favor pure emotionalism and pity instead.
Answer 4: Stop killing children and we'll stop showing those pictures.


You did a good job of stating your argument clearly. But I still disagree. I myself never NEVER support abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose. That woman must live with he choice, and frankly, I'm glad I don't have to.

I myself never NEVER support abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose.
...................what?????? which one is it!?!

Dempublicents1:

1) you're right, I mangled my jargon there. good call. As I said, I can't claim to be a scientist. If this actually hurt the point I was trying to make in any way, my apologies are extended to you, oh Humble Readers.

2) Once again, you are technically right on the issue of me going into science right after. My emphasis, however, was more an appeal to reason (at least I had hoped it would come across that way) than an actual scientific discourse; a sort of "if it doesn't look like a duck or quack like a duck, it's not a duck" line of reason ("duck" of course being a living organism). I hoped it would be the sort of argument that didn't require four years of biochemistry :)

3) Having been corrected on the difference between an embryo and a fetus. it is the EMBRYO that I state as being no different than the tumor and the abortion of the EMBRYO that is legal.

4) I don't regard Christian scientists as actual scientists, that's why the term bothers me so much. As I said, "It seems to take all the "science" out."

5) At least we agree on the point I was making, which is what I believe counts.

Apparently, you don't learn embryonic development in biochem. I have explained it several times. An embryo does not have the capability as an entity to sense and respond to stimuli - one of the basic descriptors of life. Human beings do this through a nervous system - something that an embryo does not have.

Another "basic descriptor of life" is that one must be able to reproduce. Humans can't do this until puberty, so does that mean they aren't alive until that point? Sometimes people drop into such a severe coma they can't respond to stimuli, does that mean they are no longer alive? No.

So where is this confusion coming from?? Perhaps it's the fact that these basic descriptors of life are applied to species, not individuals.

Not to mention that this categorizing of life is just a general guidline set up by scientists, and was never meant to apply to abortion nor has it undergone rigorous testing. I remember in middle school learning about the five (I think it was five) signs of life. I haven't heard about it since. I have never seen any pro-choice arguments use it and I can't find it on the internet for the life of me. You'd think something as important as you think it is would show up somewhere. But no, it doesn't. And why? Because it doesn't apply.

Once again, I challenge you to show me a good non-biased authority which lets me know that that embryos aren't alive.
It would be even better if the site included the four or five descriptors of life.

Edit: Ah, I see you listed them out for me. Cool.


there is no biological definition of "toy", so your analogy is bogus.

My point is that in my saying something, that doesn't make it right. It was supposed to be a bogus example.


Synonyms =! the exact same.

Wow, tell me how the difference between ability and capacity have any bearing on our conversation.

Another "basic descriptor of life" is that one must be able to reproduce. Humans can't do this until puberty, so does that mean they aren't alive until that point?

The reproduction descriptor is generally only applied to species - as such, I did not include it.

Sometimes people drop into such a severe coma they can't respond to stimuli, does that mean they are no longer alive? No.

Their bodies are able to respond to stimuli reflexively.

So where is this confusion coming from?? Perhaps it's the fact that these basic descriptors of life are applied to species, not individuals.

They are the best scientific definition of "life" that we have, and definitly beat out the subjective "My religion says it starts here!", "My religions says it starts here!" "I don't have a religion but I say it starts here!" arguments that ensue otherwise.

Once again, I challenge you to show me a good non-biased source which lets me know that that embryos aren't alive.

I have shown you one. You obviously disagree with it, which is fine - but you disagree for largely subjective reasons - simply proving my point.

My point is that in my saying something, that doesn't make it right. It was supposed to be a bogus example.

And yet you want to be able to say something purely subjective and have it apply to all people. Way to go!

Wow, tell me how the difference between ability and capacity have any bearing on our conversation.

You were misrepresenting my argument - I pointed out the difference. If you didn't get it from the last post, I don't think you will.

Commando3']Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. The Jews were not considered people and were killed in horrible ways. Now fetuses are not considered people and are murdered in equally horrid ways. Both were killed by "Doctors." Dr. Mengel killed Jews. Abortion doctors like George Tiller kill babies. I am going to say what many other pro-lifers avoid saying: ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL. The world and USA said "never again" to the holocaust, yet has embraced abortion with open arms, therefore starting the evil genocide program all over again. With that being said, I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

-
^view pictures of fetal development, pictures of what aborted babies look like, find out what the abortionists don't want you to see

http://www.whatthenursesaw.com/
^the ugly but true testimony from a former pro-abortion nurse who participated in abortions

-
^this is what it looks like.....is it really a choice?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/3/13/62648
^Baby body parts for sale
I'm not making this up. Here's a real article describing what happens to the "parts" of aborted babies.....people are making a fortune with the limbs and organs of little children.....

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30586
^DYNAMITE: MUST READ

This very well may convert you to a pro-life stance. What happened is a SWAT team raided a house and found a horribly disfigured baby that they thought was the result of a satanic ritual. No. Instead these were the remains of a tortured, mutilated baby that a pro-lifer had found in an abortion clinic and taken them to show the world the genocide of abortion.

http://www.gargaro.com/choicetolife.html
^Sundry women reveal why they have converted to a pro-Life position. Pro-Woman means to be Pro-Life!

Now an abortionist might say something like - "Quit showing those disgusting pictures of aborted fetuses. You're just trying to entice emotions."

Here are answers borrowed from cathinsight.com

Answer 1: Photographs aren't emotional. They just depict reality as it is. If this reality creates an emotional reaction in you, perhaps it should tell you something. So if you don't like what you see in those photos, it's because the reality of abortion is disgusting and wrong. That's not the pictures' fault, just like it's not a mirror's fault if it displays something you don't like when you look in it.
Answer 2: You didn't have a problem with anti-war Protesters showing photos of napalmed babies back during the time of the Vietnam war. The war ended much earlier because of those pictures. They showed that what was going on was wrong. If it wasn't wrong to show those pictures then, why should it be wrong now to show the even grislier reality of what is legal here in this country?
Answer 3: Funny you should bring up emotionalism. Because it's pro-abortion supporters like you who are actually arguing on emotional and therefore fallacious grounds. You are the ones who argue from pity, as in, "But look, she can't afford to have a baby right now" or, "But this poor woman was raped!" These are emotional arguments because they ignore reason (which tells us that being raped or not having time or money for a baby are not sufficient reasons to kill the child) and favor pure emotionalism and pity instead.
Answer 4: Stop killing children and we'll stop showing those pictures.

First of all, thank you for stepping out on a limb as a pro-lifer in a NS world that is mostly liberal. I myself am liberal, and try not to shout down conservatives, but some of my...er... colleagues (as well as many conservatives) are so weak in their beliefs, or so unclear in the ways of logic, that they simply yell at each other, degenerating a thread into a flame fest.
Next, I'm sorry, but I found some logical flaws in your argument.
1. If pictures just show life how it is, and aren't emotional, then would you be in favor of kiddy porn being distributed? I didn't think so. It is possible (and preferable) to make an argument without resorting to such tactics. Don't get me wrong, I think that people who want abortions should know exactly what they're doing so that they make the right choice for themselves (but none of that increases-risk-of-breast-cancer crap that some states force clinics to shove down peoples' throats). I just don't think that people who believe women should be able to make their own, informed choices should be required to stare at them.
2. "Ends justify the means" much? fire-bombing every major city on the planet would correct the overpopulation of the earth, but it would still be... er... rather mean.
3&4. Tu Quoque Ad Hominem. Basically, crying "hypocrite". Tu quoque, from the Latin "you also" (yeah, well you too!!!) and ad hominem, also Latin, referring to an argument aimed at a person rather than on the argument itself. Fallacy, and logically meaningless.

Other fallacies include loaded epithets (calling abortion genocide, calling fetuses babies, "tortured, mutilated baby") as well as false analogy (the mirror? the Holocaust?). I probably made a few myself, but they were put there to show that it was easy to come up with other similar analogies that you would consider silly.
I haven't had time to read this thread, and I hope it hasn't already degenerated into a flame war. If it has, then everyone please grow up. If it hasn't, I would like to personally congratulate all of you on dealing with such an important issue in a civilized manner.
PN out.

all though i am a pro-choice liberal i can still point out bull shit when i smell it. a tumor has no potential to life and thus is fundamentaly different from a fetus, embryo, zygote etc.

Potential, not actual. An embryo (treading lightly on the terminology) is not actually a living, human being . Sperm is potentially alive. As you said, is it a holocaust every time you masturbate? To push the argument of "Potential life vs. Actual life" to even absurder lengths, is it murder by negligence if a woman does not, *ahem*, fertilize her eggs? :)

Potential, not actual. An embryo (treading lightly on the terminology) is not actually a living, human being . Sperm is potentially alive. As you said, is it a holocaust every time you masturbate? To push the argument of "Potential life vs. Actual life" to even absurder lengths, is it murder by negligence if a woman does not, *ahem*, fertilize her eggs? :)
if you notice in a different post i make the exact same argument:) but i dont think that an embryo is exactly the same as a tumor even though i am pro-choice

Commando3']http://www.whatthenursesaw.com/
^the ugly but true testimony from a former pro-abortion nurse who participated in abortions
You know that partial birth abortions are only permitted when the health of the woman is jeopardized, right?

I'm sure you also know that in 50% of dilation and extraction procedures, the fetus is already dead, but didn't miscarry.

The reproduction descriptor is generally only applied to species - as such, I did not include it.

Source please.


Their bodies are able to respond to stimuli reflexively.

Are they in every situation? I'd need a source to confirm this.


They are the best scientific definition of "life" that we have, and definitly beat out the subjective "My religion says it starts here!", "My religions says it starts here!" "I don't have a religion but I say it starts here!" arguments that ensue otherwise.


These five "definitions" are never used anywhere. They don't apply- if they did, pro-choicers would use them to death. If that's the best we have, they aren't good enough.
For your second point, morality can exist outside of religion.

I find it interesting that before you were so rock solid sure that science was on your side and now you say "it's the best we have". Funny how things change when it suits your argument. You also created a nice straw man fallacy by bringing up"my religion starts here" argument which I didn't even make.


I have shown you one. You obviously disagree with it, which is fine - but you disagree for largely subjective reasons - simply proving my point.


I'm sorry, I missed it, could you post it again?



And yet you want to be able to say something purely subjective and have it apply to all people. Way to go!


When does saying something without any support ever automatically make something right? Yes, what I said does apply to all situations where someone makes a disputable claim without backing it up with anything.


You were misrepresenting my argument - I pointed out the difference. If you didn't get it from the last post, I don't think you will.


Please explain to me why you've bothered pointing out the difference. You haven't even tried. I was under the impression that you felt the difference between ability and capacity had some relevence to our discussion. I thought that because I had no idea why you would bring it up if it didn't.

Here's what I think happened. You nitpicked something that had no bearing on the argument. When I called you out on it, you were too embarassed to say "ok, it doesn't matter" and now you are trying to back out of it carefully.

You still haven't addressed commando's point. Here it is again:


"The object of abortion is a fetus, not a child or a baby."
Answer: So what's a fetus, huh? "Fetus" is simply a term denoting an unborn child from eight weeks after conception until birth. Just like we use terms like "toddler" or "teenager" to refer to humans at different stages of development after birth, so also we use words like "fetus" and "embryo" to refer to humans at different states of preborn development. In short, a fetus is a child, simply at a preborn state of development. By the way, "fetus" comes from the Latin word foetus, meaning "little one."


This seems a lot more reasonable to me than a "best we have" argument that doesn't even apply to abortion.

Let's apply your "the little lump of cells is a baby" logic to other things, such as sperm. Hitler would have a hard time keeping up with MY holocaust.

Let's apply your "the little lump of cells is a baby" logic to other things, such as sperm. Hitler would have a hard time keeping up with MY holocaust.

http://saints.css.edu/bio/schroeder/meiosis.html

She pushs her opinion that "a fetus is not alive" onto the fetus by destroying it (this would be the ultimate case of forcing one's beliefs on someone else). Yet, pro-choice arguers don't want pro-lifers to push their beliefs onto them.
Circular logic.
A fetus is a person.
People should not have ideas forced upon them.
Therefore, a fetus should not have ideas forced upon them, like "a fetus is not alive".

You assume the humanity of the fetus in your argument to say that denying that "fact" is wrong. Logically null and void.

Oh, just one more "semantic" thing. There is no argument over whether or not a fetus is alive, or even an embryo, as some have rightly corrected. The issue is whether or not that life "counts" as a person, a unit of humanity. There are billions of cells in every body that are alive, and yet can be removed with no qualms. This gets into the difference between "life" and "A life". "Life" includes sperm and egg cells, skin cells, nerves, neurons, etc. "A LIFE" refers to the entire organism, being the "human being", or "monkey", or even a bacterium. Single-celled organisms are still "a life", though not "A human life". Australia is a country and a Continent. There is some overlap. But the distinction remains.
Would you be against the shooting of a full-grown, healthy, good-natured and friendly human being? Hopefully, yes. What about a monkey? That's different. Some don't care, some are against it. Ironically, "animal rights activists" are considered "dirty hippies" by many pro-lifers. Ok, so killing an innocent monkey is terrible. What about a mouse? Ah, now more people don't care. Mousetraps abound. What about a bug? A fly? What about antibiotics? At some point, every person is willing to allow the destruction of life, whether for no reason or for the sake of something they consider to be "more important". This all comes down to what people think is "more important". Most will agree that a human being is "more important" morally than, say, a rat. Most would also say that a human being is more important than a sperm cell, or an egg cell, or the two right after meeting. After that point, the "importance" of the result grows. Different people put the line at different places. Hell, in fertilizing an egg millions of sperm die on the trip over. Most people will agree that a single cell with human DNA in it is not "a human". It is "human", just not "a human". So please, please, do not claim that any embryo is a person. You would not recognize it as a person, it is incapable of thinking or feeling anything, it has no limbs, no organs, no nerves, no sign of sentience whatsoever. I am not in favor of using abortions instead of condoms, in a fancy-free manner, because it is something that has the capacity to become life. I personally, personally, mind you, believe that late-term abortion is wrong. Is it murder? I don't know. That's just my personal opinion. But honestly, can anyone claim to be the ultimate authority?

Killing is wrong. Adding any stipulations (such as "killing is ok as long as it prevents kids from having rough childhoods") to that is moral relativism.
Killing what is wrong? Ever used toothpaste? soap? Or, God forbid, mouthwash? You kill millions of living things every time you do that, but I (and I'm guessing you) find no problem with that. You don't mean simply that killing is wrong. I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth, or committing the falacy of straw argument, but it seems like you're saying that killing people is wrong, and that fetuses are people. You have one important point to prove there before your simple moral imperative has any meaning.

Circular logic.
A fetus is a person.
People should not have ideas forced upon them.
Therefore, a fetus should not have ideas forced upon them, like "a fetus is not alive".

A fetus is not a person
Therefore, it's ok to have ideas forced upon them because fetus is not alive.

Both arguments are dependant on the state of the fetus (as most arguments boil down to. You're right, neither can prove anything about the state of the fetus.



Oh, just one more "semantic" thing. There is no argument over whether or not a fetus is alive, or even an embryo, as some have rightly corrected.


Dempublicents1 would disagree with you (I think- he can correct me if I'm wrong). We've just had a long argument about whether or not an embryo is alive.


The issue is whether or not that life "counts" as a person, a unit of humanity. There are billions of cells in every body that are alive, and yet can be removed with no qualms. This gets into the difference between "life" and "A life". "Life" includes sperm and egg cells, skin cells, nerves, neurons, etc. "A LIFE" refers to the entire organism, being the "human being", or "monkey", or even a bacterium.

Trillions actually (heh, I jump on Dempublicents1 one for nitpicking, but I do the same- sorry!)



Single-celled organisms are still "a life", though not "A human life". Australia is a country and a Continent. There is some overlap. But the distinction remains.
Would you be against the shooting of a full-grown, healthy, good-natured and friendly human being? Hopefully, yes. What about a monkey? That's different. Some don't care, some are against it. Ironically, "animal rights activists" are considered "dirty hippies" by many pro-lifers. Ok, so killing an innocent monkey is terrible. What about a mouse? Ah, now more people don't care. Mousetraps abound. What about a bug? A fly? What about antibiotics? At some point, every person is willing to allow the destruction of life, whether for no reason or for the sake of something they consider to be "more important". This all comes down to what people think is "more important". Most will agree that a human being is "more important" morally than, say, a rat. Most would also say that a human being is more important than a sperm cell, or an egg cell, or the two right after meeting. After that point, the "importance" of the result grows. Different people put the line at different places. Hell, in fertilizing an egg millions of sperm die on the trip over. Most people will agree that a single cell with human DNA in it is not "a human". It is "human", just not "a human". So please, please, do not claim that any embryo is a person. You would not recognize it as a person, it is incapable of thinking or feeling anything, it has no limbs, no organs, no nerves, no sign of sentience whatsoever. I am not in favor of using abortions instead of condoms, in a fancy-free manner, because it is something that has the capacity to become life. I personally, personally, mind you, believe that late-term abortion is wrong. Is it murder? I don't know. That's just my personal opinion. But honestly, can anyone claim to be the ultimate authority?
Being human can be the only qualifier. Let me explain.
A human baby isn't anywhere near as smart or independent as say, your average dog, or even even a rodent. But he will become so much more- he will grow up into an adult assuming he's taken care of and no force interferes with the process. The same can be said for the embryo (unless it is destroyed).

The law protects babies and mentally handicapped people who operate below the level of an animal deemed socially acceptable to kill. Thus, I don't think any exception should be made for embryos/fetuses. For this reason, the term "human rights" is so popular and you never hear about rights for "humans who are more intelligent that a rat".

Killing what is wrong? Ever used toothpaste? soap? Or, God forbid, mouthwash? You kill millions of living things every time you do that, but I (and I'm guessing you) find no problem with that. You don't mean simply that killing is wrong. I apologize if I am putting words in your mouth, or committing the falacy of straw argument, but it seems like you're saying that killing people is wrong, and that fetuses are people. You have one important point to prove there before your simple moral imperative has any meaning.

Sorry, I meant humans. I think embryos and fetuses are alive and human and deserve the right to life. For an explanation as to why I believe this, check out everything I've written in this thread.

:rolleyes:
I'm glad to see that we have mature attitude.
And I'm sorry to see that you don't have a sense of humour (yes, "u" ).

:rolleyes:

And I'm sorry to see that you don't have a sense of humour (yes, "u" ).
Actually, most of my friends consider me to be a very funny guy. However, I didn't find the statement funny, nor do I think it was even intended to be a joke.

Anywho, I'm done for the evening, I have an 8-10 page paper due tomorrow and I should have started long, long ago.
So I concede the "last word" to someone else (admittingly, it pains me to do so). Of course, there wont be a last word in the nationwide abortion debate in the foreseeable future.

Fair enough. The statement wasn't an attempt at a joke, more like a "just kidding" type of thing.

I suppose you’d like us all go back to the unwed mothers houses (cant remember what they were called) and the back street abortions that killed thousands of women each year.

no to mention likening it to the holocaust it probably.... hmmm what’s the word

yes an abominations.

Im going to give you and example now.
Suppose you wake up one morning and find that a famous violinist's circulatory system has been plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from her blood as well as from your own. She needs to remain plugged into you for nine months. If you unplug her, she will die because there is no other person who has the right blood type. Here is a clear situation in which the violinist's right to life comes into conflict with your right to control what happens to your own body. Is it morally permissible for you to unplug the violinist simply because she had no right to be there in the first place , its not nice thing to do, but it is morally justifiable.

Your a fascist idiot really.

Oh, you are just TOO easy. Ok, lets look at it this way. First off, aside from rape, women can just keep their legs closed, they can insist on a condom, the guys could be a lil smarter, there are COUNTLESS ways to prevent impregnation. Second, it was HER choice to have sex(again, rape aside) and her choice to not use proper protection. And even if protection fails, she STILL chose to have sex. Erego, abortion is NOT an alternative to having the child.

Now, for street abortions. If you wanna murder a child like that you deserve to die. Period. You'd want a woman to die if she took a three year old and scrambled him/her up so why not an unborn? Which is more valuable? They're both human children.

I agree, abortions are an abomination, next question.

First, I didn't allow that violinist to be connected to me so this question has no grounds here. As with pregnant women, they let the guy do what he had to do to impregnate her(again, rape aside). I've no sympathy. My GF and I are really careful to not get her pregnant. We KNOW there is a chance and we are prepared for the consequences if it should happen. There is the difference there. A woman KNOWS when she has sex she has a chance to get pregnant. End of story. I knew that since before I can remember and I know all these murderers do, too.

Now, as for the lady who was raped. I'm very sorry that you were raped and that you becacme pregnant. Do the right thing and place the child up for adoption if you do not want him/her. Yes, it is inconvinient, but there are much worse things. If the same rapist cut off her leg instead, I'm sure that would have been better, right?

Lastly, name calling is such an imateur act. Grow up a bit and you'll see abortion is wrong. Yes, I said grow up then you'll see.

Oh, you are just TOO easy. Ok, lets look at it this way. First off, aside from rape, women can just keep their legs closed, they can insist on a condom, the guys could be a lil smarter, there are COUNTLESS ways to prevent impregnation. Second, it was HER choice to have sex(again, rape aside) and her choice to not use proper protection. And even if protection fails, she STILL chose to have sex. Erego, abortion is NOT an alternative to having the child.

Now, for street abortions. If you wanna murder a child like that you deserve to die. Period. You'd want a woman to die if she took a three year old and scrambled him/her up so why not an unborn? Which is more valuable? They're both human children.

I agree, abortions are an abomination, next question.

First, I didn't allow that violinist to be connected to me so this question has no grounds here. As with pregnant women, they let the guy do what he had to do to impregnate her(again, rape aside). I've no sympathy. My GF and I are really careful to not get her pregnant. We KNOW there is a chance and we are prepared for the consequences if it should happen. There is the difference there. A woman KNOWS when she has sex she has a chance to get pregnant. End of story. I knew that since before I can remember and I know all these murderers do, too.

Now, as for the lady who was raped. I'm very sorry that you were raped and that you becacme pregnant. Do the right thing and place the child up for adoption if you do not want him/her. Yes, it is inconvinient, but there are much worse things. If the same rapist cut off her leg instead, I'm sure that would have been better, right?

Lastly, name calling is such an imateur act. Grow up a bit and you'll see abortion is wrong. Yes, I said grow up then you'll see.

Lol love how you are trying to sound mature when your last statement is essentialy "oh grow up" LOL

*snip*

Beyond being repulsive, these "points" are erroneous on multiple grounds.

Contraception can fail. And their are many reasons why women have abortion other than mere birth control.

More than half of the women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime. Apparently you support your own little Holocaust -- as you believe these women all deserve to die.

Women are not cattle. They are not slaves. They are not baby machines. They are the only undeniably human, living person in the equation. They have rights to self-ownership, control over their own bodies, etc.

Fertilized eggs, zygotes, and embryos are not persons with rights. Fetuses are not persons with rights until late in the pregnancy -- when abortion is already illegal except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother (or under a few other extreme circumstances in some states).

Your Puritan view about sex are hypocritical and wrong. We refuse to view pregnancy as a punishment.

Source please.

I have to source something that you yourself have actually said?

Are they in every situation? I'd need a source to confirm this.

If they have lost the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, then they are brain dead. It is fairly self explanatory.

These five "definitions" are never used anywhere. They don't apply- if they did, pro-choicers would use them to death. If that's the best we have, they aren't good enough.

Well, I guess we should just do away with all of science then, since all of it is simply "the best we currently have."

For your second point, morality can exist outside of religion.

Which would be why I have constantly referred to religion and subjective morality.

I find it interesting that before you were so rock solid sure that science was on your side and now you say "it's the best we have". Funny how things change when it suits your argument. You also created a nice straw man fallacy by bringing up"my religion starts here" argument which I didn't even make.

Everything in science is "the best we have." If you don't like it, you should probably find a new field of study.

Meanwhile, the "my religion" or "my personal morals" are all that those of us who believe that an embryo *is* life have.

When does saying something without any support ever automatically make something right? Yes, what I said does apply to all situations where someone makes a disputable claim without backing it up with anything.

And yet you want your subjective morality to be applied to other people simply because you say so.

Please explain to me why you've bothered pointing out the difference. You haven't even tried. I was under the impression that you felt the difference between ability and capacity had some relevence to our discussion. I thought that because I had no idea why you would bring it up if it didn't.

As I pointed out before, it does. A human being has the capacity to object to something - they have a brain and the functions necessary. An embryo doesn't even have the nervous system necessary to sense and respond to physical stimuli, much less "object" to anything.

You still haven't addressed commando's point. Here it is again:

This seems a lot more reasonable to me than a "best we have" argument that doesn't even apply to abortion.

Ok, so the "anything with DNA is life" thing that anyone who had truly ever studied molecular biology would know is false makes more sense to you? Fine.

Meanwhile, if you would like an embryo to be truly defiined as human life, you must be willing to prosecute mothers who have miscarriages that are not due to gross chromosomal errors for manslaughter. Without a chromosomal error, a miscarriage is most likely due to something avoidable about the woman's lifestyle. If you are not willing to prosecute her for this, you are not holding up to your supposed ideals.

You must also lobby to shut down all IVF clinics and leave many couples childless.

And, if every thing with its own DNA is a human being, you must explain why Hela cells are not considered a human being.

I think whether or not abortion is wrong is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. I personally, at this point, would never have an abortion, though a year ago I was singing a different tune. However, I still absolutely support a woman's right to choose. For that, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Most pro-lifers seem to be unable to make that distinction.

A fetus is not a person
Therefore, it's ok to have ideas forced upon them because fetus is not alive.

Both arguments are dependant on the state of the fetus (as most arguments boil down to. You're right, neither can prove anything about the state of the fetus.

But only one forces that viewpoint on a known living human being.

Dempublicents1 would disagree with you (I think- he can correct me if I'm wrong). We've just had a long argument about whether or not an embryo is alive.

*She*. And the cells that make up an embryo are certainly alive. It is not, however, a separate "life" in and of itself.

Being human can be the only qualifier. Let me explain.
A human baby isn't anywhere near as smart or independent as say, your average dog, or even even a rodent. But he will become so much more- he will grow up into an adult assuming he's taken care of and no force interferes with the process. The same can be said for the embryo (unless it is destroyed).

So you admit that your entire argument is based on a subjective placement of value upon the *potential* to be something, rather than the actual situation?

I think whether or not abortion is wrong is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. I personally, at this point, would never have an abortion, though a year ago I was singing a different tune. However, I still absolutely support a woman's right to choose. For that, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Most pro-lifers seem to be unable to make that distinction.

Yeah, they get a real kick out of those of us who are both pro-choice and pro-life. Or, to use a better term, pro-choice and anti-abortion.

I think whether or not abortion is wrong is completely irrelevant to the larger issue. I personally, at this point, would never have an abortion, though a year ago I was singing a different tune. However, I still absolutely support a woman's right to choose. For that, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Most pro-lifers seem to be unable to make that distinction.
Wow, Thank you for being reasonable about your views. I mean you don't see people who would have an abortion forcing anti-abortionists to have abortions; so why should it work the other way around?

And LOL at the original post...

Commando3']-snip-

I think I'm gonna throw up...

[QUOTE=Boofheads]You know, I've taken four years of biochem at my university, I would think that if it were obvious, I would know about it. Or maybe I missed that lecture in class? [QUOTE]

*sigh*
Four years of biochem you say?
That's cool. I also have a degree in biochem (BSc(hons)). However, I can pretty much guarentee that what courses I took and what courses you took are totally different. Let's see what I can remember:
First Year:
Biology (general)
Chemistry (general)
Psychology

Second Year:
Anatomy
Physiology
Life Sciences
Biochemistry

Third/Fourth year (hey, it got a little more complex around that point):
Development
Genetic diseases
Molecular Oncology (my lecturer was Prof. Sir. David Lane-cool)
Structure and Function of DNA
Communicable Diseases
Gene Regulation and Expression
Immunology

Now, you will notice that I do indeed have a course in development here. However, with it being biochmistry and not, say, developmental embryology or physiology, there was no mention of say, when an embryo satisfies the definition of life (and from what I remember frmo 1st Year Biology, there were around 8 descriptors which must be fulfilled). Don't get me wrong, it was a tremendously interesting course. But it was more about, for example what molecular signals trigger where a leg goes, or when the 'tube' rolls up to form the beginings of the spinal chord. There is this nifty chemical which, if you put it on a bead and implant that bead into (for example) a chicken embryo, an extra leg will grow. It's quite cool.

But, besides all of that, it is not enough for you to simply say, ooh, I did 4 years of biochem so I should know. We don't know where you did it. We certainly don't know what you studied. It is entirely possible to do 8 years of biochem and still know nothing about embryological development. So don't wave that as if it means you got the answers. Cos it doesn't.

Blessings
Lucrece

The way I see it.
Main argument for abortion toters. Womans right to choose, its her body.

By the same coin I'm all for legalizing suicide. If a woman wants to toss herself discreetly off a cliff thats her deal. I don't care.

On the other hand, the baby is not the woman, it is a seperate human being thus the parents can't decide to do away with what it not theirs, IE the babies life.

Thus abortion=wrong.

The way I see it.
Main argument for abortion toters. Womans right to choose, its her body.

By the same coin I'm all for legalizing suicide. If a woman wants to toss herself discreetly off a cliff thats her deal. I don't care.

On the other hand, the baby is not the woman, it is a seperate human being thus the parents can't decide to do away with what it not theirs, IE the babies life.

Thus abortion=wrong.
Wow, way to oversimplify...
Firstly: Pro choice people are not "abortion toters" who run around performing free abortions willy nilly. In fact, most of us acknowledge that abortions are unpleasant and distressing. However, having weighed up situations, we feel that they may be the road of least harm in a particular situation, for biological, social or psychological reasons. Having a termination is NEVER a decision a woman comes to lightly.

Secondly: An EMBRYO or FOETUS is not a baby. A baby, or rather a neonate, is post-delivery. Pre-natally the foetus is completely dependent on the mother for survival. To put it bluntly, it is a parasite. Moreover, before 24 weeks or so the foetus is not neurally developed and as such, is not capable of free will or feeling.

Wow, way to oversimplify...
Firstly: Pro choice people are not "abortion toters" who run around performing free abortions willy nilly. In fact, most of us acknowledge that abortions are unpleasant and distressing. However, having weighed up situations, we feel that they may be the road of least harm in a particular situation, for biological, social or psychological reasons. Having a termination is NEVER a decision a woman comes to lightly.

Exactly.

Secondly: An EMBRYO or FOETUS is not a baby. A baby, or rather a neonate, is post-delivery. Pre-natally the foetus is completely dependent on the mother for survival. To put it bluntly, it is a parasite. Moreover, before 24 weeks or so the foetus is not neurally developed and as such, is not capable of free will or feeling.

Once again... Exactly.

The way I see it.
Main argument for abortion toters. Womans right to choose, its her body.

By the same coin I'm all for legalizing suicide. If a woman wants to toss herself discreetly off a cliff thats her deal. I don't care.

On the other hand, the baby is not the woman, it is a seperate human being thus the parents can't decide to do away with what it not theirs, IE the babies life.

Thus abortion=wrong.

The mother has a right to control over her own body. If a fetus can survive on its own, fine. But it has no superceding claim to the mother's body. If it was a "separate" being, we would have no issue to begin with.

Moreover, fertizilized eggs, embryoes, zygotes, and early-term fetuses are not persons. They have less characteristics of personhood than chimpanzees, dolphins, and pigs. They do not have rights. And they definitely are not "separate."

From the same site

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/capital.htm

apprenlty the death penanlty is ok, becuase thats 'just' killing

is not hypocracy lovely?

Lets ignore that the government has the right to order execution of those who break the law.

Also, lets ignore the fact that fetuses, zygotes and the like will eventually become babies.

The mother has a right to control over her own body. If a fetus can survive on its own, fine. But it has no superceding claim to the mother's body. If it was a "separate" being, we would have no issue to begin with.

Moreover, fertizilized eggs, embryoes, zygotes, and early-term fetuses are not persons. They have less characteristics of personhood than chimpanzees, dolphins, and pigs. They do not have rights. And they definitely are not "separate."
A baby is as seperate a being from the mother as a leech is thats attached to your leg. The baby is a seperate entity growing in her.

Also note that when a ovum is fertilized its alive. Dead things don't grow.

Point still stands, you don't want your baby, give it up for adoption. When you make a sh*tty choice you pay the consequences.
In the case of a rape(which is very very rare) deliver it and put it for adoption. Newborns go like hotcakes.

Abortion is a *convienence*. Right now there is no medical reason why an abortion is necessary that can't be circumvented in a fashion that does not kill the growing child.

Convienence<Human life.

Speaking as one man, I think the decision to terminate pregnancy is between the pregnant woman and her conscience (which Tolstoy opined, and I agree, is the voice of God). If she believes she has no alternative, having weighed the choice, then it's her burden to bear. But she, AND ONLY SHE has the right, ultimately, to make that decision. This issue is much, MUCH simpler than it's portrayal.

IN NO WAY do I endorse or condone abortion as birth control! VERY FEW on the pro-choice side do. However, I do not see where anyone's opinion besides that of the pregnant woman and those she CHOOSES to consult matters at all. Were it me, I wouldn't choose to have an abortion, but that does NOT give me the right to dictate to anyone else what they should do with their own lives.

I am sick to the teeth of the whole wad of these holier-than-thou jackasses constantly assuming that what's good for them and/or their church is good (and should therefore be LAW) for the nation. If you dislike abortions, then for the love of God, DON'T HAVE ONE. Follow the 11th Commandment: "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself" and live your OWN lives, please. To paraphrase your own favorite book, you're bitching about the mote in another's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

It amazes me how "states rights" works for conservatives until it involves something that they think is somehow "immoral." Simple question -- WHO ASKED YOU? Feel free to enlighten me all you like should I ASK for your two cents. Preach in your churches, pray with your friends, but leave the rest of us alone.

THINK -- it's patriotic!

A baby is as seperate a being from the mother as a leech is thats attached to your leg. The baby is a seperate entity growing in her. It's a FOETUS, yet again. And it's only separate when the placenta detahces. Sorry.

Also note that when a ovum is fertilized its alive. Dead things don't grow.
Actually, we are unsure as to whether viruses and other microorganisms are alive.

Point still stands, you don't want your baby, give it up for adoption. When you make a sh*tty choice you pay the consequences.
In the case of a rape(which is very very rare) deliver it and put it for adoption. Newborns go like hotcakes.
Let me guess, you're a guy right? I'd like to see you go through labour because of a rape and then give the child up for adoption. There are far more complex psychosocial issues at play here.

Abortion is a *convienence*. Right now there is no medical reason why an abortion is necessary that can't be circumvented in a fashion that does not kill the growing child. How about when the mother's life is endanger? How about in cases of anencephaly or other profound developmental problems?

Convienence<Human life. Nice catchphrase, pity it misses the point. Abortion is NOT about convenience. It's a last line decision.

Speaking as one man, I think the decision to terminate pregnancy is between the pregnant woman and her conscience (which Tolstoy opined, and I agree, is the voice of God). If she believes she has no alternative, having weighed the choice, then it's her burden to bear. But she, AND ONLY SHE has the right, ultimately, to make that decision. This issue is much, MUCH simpler than it's portrayal.

IN NO WAY do I endorse or condone abortion as birth control! VERY FEW on the pro-choice side do. However, I do not see where anyone's opinion besides that of the pregnant woman and those she CHOOSES to consult matters at all. Were it me, I wouldn't choose to have an abortion, but that does NOT give me the right to dictate to anyone else what they should do with their own lives.

I am sick to the teeth of the whole wad of these holier-than-thou jackasses constantly assuming that what's good for them and/or their church is good (and should therefore be LAW) for the nation. If you dislike abortions, then for the love of God, DON'T HAVE ONE. Follow the 11th Commandment: "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself" and live your OWN lives, please. To paraphrase your own favorite book, you're bitching about the mote in another's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

It amazes me how "states rights" works for conservatives until it involves something that they think is somehow "immoral." Simple question -- WHO ASKED YOU? Feel free to enlighten me all you like should I ASK for your two cents. Preach in your churches, pray with your friends, but leave the rest of us alone.

THINK -- it's patriotic!

Don't be ridiculous.
Murder was deemed a sin by the ten commandments. It also happens to be against the law. Thus the murder of unborn children is illegal. Completley and absolutely secular and legalistic.

But instead you attempt to disparge others without actually bringing up points by pidgeon holeing them as "Holier than thou" Christians.

Our law system was based on the Judeo-christian moral code, so does that mean we should scrap it all because its religious and religion is automatically bad? You wouldn't mind if I broke into your house, stole your stuff, killed you and your family, because thats all against *religious* law and they should keep their religion to themselves.

Don't be ridiculous.
Murder was deemed a sin by the ten commandments. It also happens to be against the law. Thus the murder of unborn children is illegal. Completley and absolutely secular and legalistic.

But instead you attempt to disparge others without actually bringing up points by pidgeon holeing them as "Holier than thou" Christians.

Our law system was based on the Judeo-christian moral code, so does that mean we should scrap it all because its religious and religion is automatically bad? You wouldn't mind if I broke into your house, stole your stuff, killed you and your family, because thats all against *religious* law and they should keep their religion to themselves.
Guess what, the bible makes NO mention of abortion specifically. The only thing it states is that a foetus becomes a human being when it takes it's first breath, which is why Jews are not automatically opposed to abortion.

Whether you interpret abortion as murder is up to you.

And I think the law should be based on ethics, not religion. So sorry.

It's a FOETUS, yet again. And it's only separate when the placenta detahces. Sorry.

Not true as premie babies can still live. Its seperate when its fertilized and begins developing its own mixed genetic code.


Actually, we are unsure as to whether viruses and other microorganisms are alive.

Actually were only wondering if viruses are alive, viruses themselves breed by injecting their DNA into cells which are reassembled. They don't grow, they are constructed


Let me guess, you're a guy right? I'd like to see you go through labour because of a rape and then give the child up for adoption. There are far more complex psychosocial issues at play here.

I'd rather go through 12 hours of excruciating pain than to kill someone because its inconvienent for me to have it.


How about when the mother's life is endanger? How about in cases of anencephaly or other profound developmental problems?

Those can all be solved by other means other than abortion.


Nice catchphrase, pity it misses the point. Abortion is NOT about convenience. It's a last line decision.
It *is* about convienence. Developemental problems are rape born children are so rare today they account for the tiniest fraction of the abortion pie.
The majority of abortions go on because women who are pregnant do not want to give birth for a myriad of reasons.

Guess what, the bible makes NO mention of abortion specifically. The only thing it states is that a foetus becomes a human being when it takes it's first breath, which is why Jews are not automatically opposed to abortion.

Whether you interpret abortion as murder is up to you.

And I think the law should be based on ethics, not religion. So sorry.
Where do you think we got ethics from? The air? Nope, it was originally based on religious tenets.

The bible makes no mention of abortion because it didn't exist, just like it doesn't make of stem cell research or invitro.

I don't believe in religion, I think its a superstition people need to get by in life that I personally don't require. But I don't agree with abortion because in my mind when a cell begins dividing in preperation to create a fully formed human being it is alive.

('ve said a bit on another forum, and I'm quoting myself, with some small revisions. Please don't slaughter me for being a bit discontinous. Please note that I didn't read most of the ten pages that were posted before this. It's late.)

1. I enjoy living, and wish to continue to do so.
2. I can only assume others feel the same way.
3. I would rather not have been aborted.

Now, this seems like a rather good case for pro-lifers, right? Wrong.

The trail of logic does not end there.

Were I, myself, aborted, I wouldn't care. So one only cares about such things after having been a living, thinking being.

I don't consider myself to have been a thinking being until the age of one-three.

I don't like the thought of be being aborted. Not for the abortion itself, but for my not being here. After all, who cares about a little glop of cells, right? It's the human it can become. It's potential.

So let's count the way that I wouldn't be here.

I also wouldn't be here if I were killed as an infant.
I also wouldn't be here if my birth went wrong.
I also wouldn't be here if my father got a visectomy before my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if contraception was used on the night of my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if my father/mother never met.

Or innumerable small factors that would've changed which sperm got through or which egg was released.

If any one of these factors were changed, the net result is the same, for me. I.E., I don't exist. I don't care which of these factors would've changed, it's all the same to me.

My potential for life existed before my conception, and I make no distinction between my patents not having sex, using contraception, or aborting me. A fetus certainly doesn't.

Using the logic that abortion destroys the potential human, well, so does not having unprotected sex. As does not having sex with everyone you can. As do many, many other things. And no distinction can be made, from the perspective of the aborted fetus. It does not have a mind. It cannot think, feel, or any other of the action we think of when we think of humans.

So the logic that abortion destroys a potential human is flawed, because so much else does as well, one of those is not having sex.

Therefore, aborting a fetus is on the same level of removing potential human life that all of the prevriosly mentioned things are, from the prospective foetus.

What makes humans and the "lower animals" different? What makes us special? While most answers will vary wildly, nobody can dispute that the primary difference is our intelligence. The fetus doesn't even have the intelligence of a dog. (I'll not get into debates of the intelligence of dogs.) It has the potential intelligence of anyone, but in it's current stage, it has nothing. It has no intelligence, emotion, or care as to what happens to it.

So the anti-choice arguement is based on potential. And, while the fetus is a potential sentient, intelligent human being, it also isn't one now, and thus, has no rights. It is nothing but a bundle of potential.

I've come to a solid (for myself) conclusion to the abortion debates that will sway virtually nobody, but is the last step in the arguement for me.

I do not consider human "life" at all valuable. Nor do I consider any other form of "life" valuable. It's the conciousness that I value. The mind. The emotion.

Most people would say they don't agree with me, but they do in their actions. It's a guiding principal for virtually every person on the planet.

Why value humans higher then animals? Because we can think on a level that they can't.

Why do we have no qualms about clearing away mold, about trimming a plant, when most would abhore doing the same things to a loved pet? Becuase the mold/plant have no mind, no level of intelligence, cannot feel anything. (I won't get into a debate about weather or not plants can "feel" or molds can "think") A dog has some observable level of intelligence, can feel affection for us, and, in turn, we it.

You may say that this leads to arguements that killing off the mentally handicapped is a good thing. I'd not deny it, but someone with down syndrome still has a mind. The only mental handicap that's allowable to kill somoene for is complete vegitation- i.e. braindeath.

As such, while a fetus is still human- Even though I'd only call it potential, you cannot argue that it has a mind any more then you can argue a plant has a mind. While it may very well be human- Until it has some level of conciousness, it's just as much property as is some kids science-fair mold project.

IMO, there is nothing more importiant then the mind, and without that, you have nothing.

('ve said a bit on another forum, and I'm quoting myself, with some small revisions. Please don't slaughter me for being a bit discontinous. Please note that I didn't read most of the ten pages that were posted before this. It's late.)

1. I enjoy living, and wish to continue to do so.
2. I can only assume others feel the same way.
3. I would rather not have been aborted.

Now, this seems like a rather good case for pro-lifers, right? Wrong.

The trail of logic does not end there.

Were I, myself, aborted, I wouldn't care. So one only cares about such things after having been a living, thinking being.


Thats really an assumption on your part. I don't trust lives with assumptions that can't be proven and would rather err on the side of caution.


I don't consider myself to have been a thinking being until the age of one-three.

I don't like the thought of be being aborted. Not for the abortion itself, but for my not being here. After all, who cares about a little glop of cells, right? It's the human it can become. It's potential.

So let's count the way that I wouldn't be here.

I also wouldn't be here if I were killed as an infant.
I also wouldn't be here if my birth went wrong.
I also wouldn't be here if my father got a visectomy before my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if contraception was used on the night of my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if my father/mother never met.

Or innumerable small factors that would've changed which sperm got through or which egg was released.

If any one of these factors were changed, the net result is the same, for me. I.E., I don't exist. I don't care which of these factors would've changed, it's all the same to me.

My potential for life existed before my conception, and I make no distinction between my patents not having sex, using contraception, or aborting me. A fetus certainly doesn't.

You miss the fundamental difference between gametes and zygotes. Gametes have not come together yet. Zygotes have. Sperm and egg will not develop on their own thus are not human life. Zygotes will develop. Thus are human life. Anything that prevents the fertilization of an ovum does not kill human life because there is no human life yet. Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.


Using the logic that abortion destroys the potential human, well, so does not having unprotected sex. As does not having sex with everyone you can. As do many, many other things. And no distinction can be made, from the perspective of the aborted fetus. It does not have a mind. It cannot think, feel, or any other of the action we think of when we think of humans.

So the logic that abortion destroys a potential human is flawed, because so much else does as well, one of those is not having sex.

Therefore, aborting a fetus is on the same level of removing potential human life that all of the prevriosly mentioned things are, from the prospective foetus.

What makes humans and the "lower animals" different? What makes us special? While most answers will vary wildly, nobody can dispute that the primary difference is our intelligence. The fetus doesn't even have the intelligence of a dog. (I'll not get into debates of the intelligence of dogs.) It has the potential intelligence of anyone, but in it's current stage, it has nothing. It has no intelligence, emotion, or care as to what happens to it.

So the anti-choice arguement is based on potential. And, while the fetus is a potential sentient, intelligent human being, it also isn't one now, and thus, has no rights. It is nothing but a bundle of potential.

I've come to a solid (for myself) conclusion to the abortion debates that will sway virtually nobody, but is the last step in the arguement for me.

I do not consider human "life" at all valuable. Nor do I consider any other form of "life" valuable. It's the conciousness that I value. The mind. The emotion.

Most people would say they don't agree with me, but they do in their actions. It's a guiding principal for virtually every person on the planet.

Why value humans higher then animals? Because we can think on a level that they can't.

Why do we have no qualms about clearing away mold, about trimming a plant, when most would abhore doing the same things to a loved pet? Becuase the mold/plant have no mind, no level of intelligence, cannot feel anything. (I won't get into a debate about weather or not plants can "feel" or molds can "think") A dog has some observable level of intelligence, can feel affection for us, and, in turn, we it.

You may say that this leads to arguements that killing off the mentally handicapped is a good thing. I'd not deny it, but someone with down syndrome still has a mind. The only mental handicap that's allowable to kill somoene for is complete vegitation- i.e. braindeath.

As such, while a fetus is still human- Even though I'd only call it potential, you cannot argue that it has a mind any more then you can argue a plant has a mind. While it may very well be human- Until it has some level of conciousness, it's just as much property as is some kids science-fair mold project.

IMO, there is nothing more importiant then the mind, and without that, you have nothing.

You can't argue it doens't have a level of conciousness because you are not it. Its that simple. As for your earlier argument of the end results being the same, thats like saying it would be ok for me to kill you because in the end, your going to be just as dead as every other organism on Earth will be.

Don't be ridiculous.
Murder was deemed a sin by the ten commandments. It also happens to be against the law. Thus the murder of unborn children is illegal. Completley and absolutely secular and legalistic.

If the Ten Commandments are so precious to you, why don't you capitalize them? Aside from that admittedly niggling point, are you really so naive as to believe there was no taboo on murder anywhere prior to Moses? It isn't an unborn child until it can survive outside the womb. Do I have repeat myself by saying that I don't condone abortion? Did you read my entire post, or just the parts that appealed to your own personal sense of outrage?

But instead you attempt to disparge others without actually bringing up points by pidgeon holeing them as "Holier than thou" Christians.

I didn't "attempt" to disparage them, child, I did disparage them. And I'll continue to do exactly that just as long as they keep trying to make sure we all think like they do. Until "holier-than-thou" no longer applies, that's what you'll be, 'cause if the sandal fits....

Our law system was based on the Judeo-christian moral code, so does that mean we should scrap it all because its religious and religion is automatically bad? You wouldn't mind if I broke into your house, stole your stuff, killed you and your family, because thats all against *religious* law and they should keep their religion to themselves.

Wow. Really naive here, but hey, we're all young once. Okay Junior, first off, the Judeo-Christian model is not something that just up and appeared out of nowhere, no matter what your fairy-tale book tells you. Second of all, the founding father's weren't Christians, they were Deists (hence "endowed by THEIR Creator" as opposed to "THE Creator"). As far as your insipid burglary argument goes, property defense has been in legal codes since before Hammurabi, so there goes THAT argument.

In addition, our "law system" (cute name) was crafted to be adaptable -- to change with the needs and legislative desires of the populous. As such multiple things that are against Judeo-Christian "code" are firmly entrenched in US and local statutes. NO WORK is to be done on the Sabbath -- one of the Commandments, yes? Well, look around and condemn all ye gardeners and quarterbacks to the pits of hell (personally, that's why I think football players kneel in the end zone after a touchdown -- not thanking Jesus for the ability, but rather praying for forgiveness for not keeping the Sabbath holy).

You want a theocracy, you go out and make one of your own, Sunny Jim.

Abortion is a right for the State to manage the population

Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.
Sorry dearie, that's an assumpion too.



You can't argue it doens't have a level of conciousness because you are not it. Its that simple. Um.. No it's not. It doesn't have a brain at the stage when MOST of the abortions are carried out. Of course it's not bloody conscious. By your logic I can't tell whether you have a level of consciousness, since I am not you... ;)

If the Ten Commandments are so precious to you, why don't you capitalize them? Aside from that admittedly niggling point, are you really so naive as to believe there was no taboo on murder anywhere prior to Moses? It isn't an unborn child until it can survive outside the womb. Do I have repeat myself by saying that I don't condone abortion? Did you read my entire post, or just the parts that appealed to your own personal sense of outrage?

Pfft, typical, I don't care about the ten commandments, they're religious, but I hold the laws spawned from them dearly because without them there would be chaos.


I didn't "attempt" to disparage them, child, I did disparage them. And I'll continue to do exactly that just as long as they keep trying to make sure we all think like they do. Until "holier-than-thou" no longer applies, that's what you'll be, 'cause if the sandal fits....

Naturally, you can't actually refute me so you go to trying to attack me personally by referring to me as "child".

Its not holier than thou to hold beliefs and to judge people by them. Its holier than thou to go vigilante and kill abortion doctors. But naturally you what I would consider a *very* naive notion that noone should ever judge anyone, which is ridiculous and impossible to live by. Your doing the same thing, the same attitude you consider "holier than thou" to others.



Wow. Really naive here, but hey, we're all young once. Okay Junior, first off, the Judeo-Christian model is not something that just up and appeared out of nowhere, no matter what your fairy-tale book tells you. Second of all, the founding father's weren't Christians, they were Deists (hence "endowed by THEIR Creator" as opposed to "THE Creator"). As far as your insipid burglary argument goes, property defense has been in legal codes since before Hammurabi, so there goes THAT argument.

Once again, attacking me instead of the statement because you obviously can't. I repeat again, i'm not christian, I don't believe in the bible, I don't believe in God, I believe in laws and in order and in legalism. I don't care where they were spawned from, I care that they are enforced with consistentence.



In addition, our "law system" (cute name) was crafted to be adaptable -- to change with the needs and legislative desires of the populous. As such multiple things that are against Judeo-Christian "code" are firmly entrenched in US and local statutes. NO WORK is to be done on the Sabbath -- one of the Commandments, yes? Well, look around and condemn all ye gardeners and quarterbacks to the pits of hell (personally, that's why I think football players kneel in the end zone after a touchdown -- not thanking Jesus for the ability, but rather praying for forgiveness for not keeping the Sabbath holy).

You want a theocracy, you go out and make one of your own, Sunny Jim.
Typical response focusing more on attacking the writer than debating the actual response. Why don't you stay on topic.

The law system is created to be adaptable, yet murder is still agains the law. When murder stops being against the law then I won't care. It is. Get used to it.

Pfft, typical, I don't care about the ten commandments, they're religious, but I hold the laws spawned from them dearly because without them there would be chaos.



Um, non Judaeo-Christian countries have laws too. :rolleyes: And you could make better laws without resorting to religion anyway. As I've said before, it's called ETHICS. Secular ethics.

Pfft, typical, I don't care about the ten commandments, they're religious, but I hold the laws spawned from them dearly because without them there would be chaos.


Naturally, you can't actually refute me so you go to trying to attack me personally by referring to me as "child".

Its not holier than thou to hold beliefs and to judge people by them. Its holier than thou to go vigilante and kill abortion doctors. But naturally you what I would consider a *very* naive notion that noone should ever judge anyone, which is ridiculous and impossible to live by. Your doing the same thing, the same attitude you consider "holier than thou" to others.



Once again, attacking me instead of the statement because you obviously can't. I repeat again, i'm not christian, I don't believe in the bible, I don't believe in God, I believe in laws and in order and in legalism. I don't care where they were spawned from, I care that they are enforced with consistentence.



Typical response focusing more on attacking the writer than debating the actual response. Why don't you stay on topic.

The law system is created to be adaptable, yet murder is still agains the law. When murder stops being against the law then I won't care. It is. Get used to it.


Sorry dearie, that's an assumpion too.

I didn't deny that it wasn't. I'm simply saying thats my opinion and I'll campaign with it as I like.


Um.. No it's not. It doesn't have a brain at the stage when MOST of the abortions are carried out. Of course it's not bloody conscious. By your logic I can't tell whether you have a level of consciousness, since I am not you... ;)
Lets say your hit by a car and knocked unconcious. Now your in a coma and the doctors are fairly sure you will come out in 9 months. Is it right for me to judge that while your in a coma your not concious thus I should be allowed to tell them to kill you?
Its the same thing.
Conciousness is not a prerequisite for human life, a seperate unique genetic code and dividing cells are.

Okay.

The actual process of a pregnancy isn't complete until the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall.

Guess what, kids -- this doesn't happen every time. In fact, it doesn't happen a majority of the time. Chemical conditions must be correct on the uterine lining for attachment to occur. If attachment does NOT occur, the zygote (A GROWING POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING *gasp*), will indeed get flushed out of the uterus during those lovely few days you ladies have every month.

So what you're saying with all this zygote nonsense is that any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is essentially a SERIAL KILLER.

While we're on the zygote subject, what's your take on all of these infertile couples playing God? Seems to me that GOD dictated that these people should be childless or adopt. But no! Instead they go to fertility clinics and wind up having octuplets and several frozen zygotes left over. So much for the "miracle" of childbirth. And then these people get the sympathy of all the locals who GIVE AWAY things like diaper service and college tuition to this couple who have basically decided that GOD WAS WRONG.

And why is it that usually only perfectly healthy white babies get adopted? What about all the drug-addled, underprivileged and sorely unloved babies, usually of color, get shunted to the state foster care system? Let's have all of you pro-lifers get out there and adopt some of these brown children! But no. That might be something Christ would do.

Okay.

The actual process of a pregnancy isn't complete until the fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall.

Guess what, kids -- this doesn't happen every time. In fact, it doesn't happen a majority of the time. Chemical conditions must be correct on the uterine lining for attachment to occur. If attachment does NOT occur, the zygote (A GROWING POTENTIAL HUMAN BEING *gasp*), will indeed get flushed out of the uterus during those lovely few days you ladies have every month.

Cell division has not yet begun thus it is note alive by my standards. (Cell division and unique genetic code=alive)


[So what you're saying with all this zygote nonsense is that any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is essentially a SERIAL KILLER.

Except the cells aren't dividing thus its not alive yet.


While we're on the zygote subject, what's your take on all of these infertile couples playing God? Seems to me that GOD dictated that these people should be childless or adopt. But no! Instead they go to fertility clinics and wind up having octuplets and several frozen zygotes left over. So much for the "miracle" of childbirth. And then these people get the sympathy of all the locals who GIVE AWAY things like diaper service and college tuition to this couple who have basically decided that GOD WAS WRONG.

I don't care if infertile couples adopt, hanai, or use a surrogate mother/father. All that matters is they don't kill it once its growing.


And why is it that usually only perfectly healthy white babies get adopted? What about all the drug-addled, underprivileged and sorely unloved babies, usually of color, get shunted to the state foster care system? Let's have all of you pro-lifers get out there and adopt some of these brown children! But no. That might be something Christ would do.
I know several people who have adopted philipino, black, and asiatic children.
In fact you don't even have proof for your point.

Thats really an assumption on your part. I don't trust lives with assumptions that can't be proven and would rather err on the side of caution.

Where's the assumption? I already declared the assumption that I assume people like to live, but I don't think that's the one you're talking about.

You miss the fundamental difference between gametes and zygotes. Gametes have not come together yet. Zygotes have. Sperm and egg will not develop on their own thus are not human life. Zygotes will develop. Thus are human life. Anything that prevents the fertilization of an ovum does not kill human life because there is no human life yet. Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.

Firstly, why is there a magical barrier from the moment of conception onward?
Secondly, I don't really care about life in the technical sense, which it seems you do. Life is irrelevant. The mind/thought is relevant and importiant, which an embryo does not have.

You can't argue it doens't have a level of conciousness because you are not it. Its that simple. As for your earlier argument of the end results being the same, thats like saying it would be ok for me to kill you because in the end, your going to be just as dead as every other organism on Earth will be.

I'ma take this opportunity to say that you shouldn't be eating plant matter because you don't know plants are not sentient, because you are not them. They've got as much of a nervous system as an early fetus. How about you stop washing, because you're killing countelss bacteria?

Look, I was a fetus once. Know what I remember? Nothing whatsoever. Wanna know why? Because I didn't have a mind.

And no, I don't think it's be fine and dandy to kill me, because I already have a mind, sentience, all that good stuff. Do whatever the hell you want to my corpse.

Last point- You seem to ignore the bulk of my post, and make sweeping generalizations about the entire thing based on some 1/5 of what I wrote. Thanks for making it easy.

Typical response focusing more on attacking the writer than debating the actual response. Why don't you stay on topic.

I will if you will, Sally.

The law system is created to be adaptable, yet murder is still agains the law. When murder stops being against the law then I won't care. It is. Get used to it.

Uh, news flash there, Gracie, it isn't murder. Any more than salad is murder. Look at what it's okay to kill:

We kill bugs and rats because they're pests.
We kill cows and chickens because we're hungry.
We kill lions and bears because it's fun!
We kill pheasants and ducks because it's fun! AND, we're hungry.
And PEOPLE! We kill people! because they're pests AND it's fun!

Show me a little consistency in this whole killing argument. Until there's logic, you'll still be fulla sh*t. Get used to it.

I know several people who have adopted philipino, black, and asiatic children.
In fact you don't even have proof for your point.

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/interracial-adoption-statistics.html

The most recent estimate of transracial adoption was performed in 1987 by the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). The findings revealed that only 8% of all adoptions include parents and children of different races.
1% of white women adopt black children
5% of white women adopt children of other races
2% of women of other races adopt white children (estimates include foreign-born). (Stolley, 1993)

Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.


Looks like someone just contradicted themselves!

Didn't you just aver to me that an unattached ZYGOTE isn't growing and is therefore not alive? If life begins at conception, as you seem to think it does, my uterine flush argument still stands, and you are once again fulla sh*t.

Nice try, Beatrice.

Nice try, Beatrice.

I think someone's been watching "Scrubs", not that that's a bad thing.

Sorry, carry on.

Where's the assumption? I already declared the assumption that I assume people like to live, but I don't think that's the one you're talking about.


has no intelligence, emotion, or care as to what happens to it.



Firstly, why is there a magical barrier from the moment of conception onward?
Secondly, I don't really care about life in the technical sense, which it seems you do. Life is irrelevant. The mind/thought is relevant and importiant, which an embryo does not have.

Because after "conception" the cells begin dividing and a unique genetic code is formed that will grow into a human being. A sperm alone will never spawn a child. Same with an egg.

Mind and thought are not the only signs of life, where do you go when you sleep? Are you concious? What about people who are comatose of knocked out? Are they all dead thus we should just go out and bury them? Of course not. They have a unique genetic code and they have dividing cells.


I'ma take this opportunity to say that you shouldn't be eating plant matter because you don't know plants are not sentient, because you are not them. They've got as much of a nervous system as an early fetus. How about you stop washing, because you're killing countelss bacteria?

:) I expected this. The law doesn't defend plants nor bacteria. So its too bad for them. The law does defend humans. You can all stop trying to pidgeonholing me into a religious person, cause im not. I read the law and I interpret it. (Law major)


Look, I was a fetus once. Know what I remember? Nothing whatsoever. Wanna know why? Because I didn't have a mind.

You were also a 1 year old once, do you remember anything there? I guess we can safely kill all 1 year olds too. And you were asleep in various parts in your life, do you remember that? I guess all sleeping folks are fair game.


And no, I don't think it's be fine and dandy to kill me, because I already have a mind, sentience, all that good stuff. Do whatever the hell you want to my corpse.

You may draw the line of life at "sentience" but I draw it at cell division+unique genetic code. Can you really call a newborn baby fresh out fo the womb sentient? Is it aware of itself? What about when you were 1? Do you remember any of that? Would it be fine if I went around killing newborns and 1 year olds because they aren't to the level of "sentience"?


Last point- You seem to ignore the bulk of my post, and make sweeping generalizations about the entire thing based on some 1/5 of what I wrote. Thanks for making it easy.
I ignored your post *how*?
I agree with your first assertion that life desires to keep living. I don't debate that.
I disagree with the idea that sentience conciousness is the only measure of life because of reasons outlined.
I killed your point about your parents never meeting, vasectomy, ect because that all doesn't happen after a zygote is formed and dividing.
You came again with the same point as the vasectomy with unprotected sex. Also killed by the same point.

You then said that human life has no inherent value but human conciousness does. I countered with the fact people go through stages of conciousness every day in their life.

You then went on to say say that you didn't believe any life has inherent value, I don't disagree with you, I already said I care what the law states which happens to be that killing humans is against the law.

I addressed every single one of your points.

Looks like someone just contradicted themselves!

Didn't you just aver to me that an unattached ZYGOTE isn't growing and is therefore not alive? If life begins at conception, as you seem to think it does, my uterine flush argument still stands, and you are once again fulla sh*t.

Nice try, Beatrice.
Because I gave you more credit than to expect I had to spell out the entire pregnancy process for you. My mistake.

I said it already. Life begins with a unique genetic code and cell division.

Once again you resort to flaming because your incapable of debating on points.

Commando3']Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. The Jews were not considered people and were killed in horrible ways. Now fetuses are not considered people

Difference:
- The Jews considered themselves human.
- A fetus in the early stage where abortion is allowed does not consider itself human. It in fact does not consider itself anything, since it is not capable of considering. Nor can it feel anything, have hopes and dreams for the future and so on. As far as the fetus itself is concerned there is no difference between being inside its mothers body, never having been conceived or being aborted (unless you assume souls exist). Your opinion in this is not relevant, unless you claim you are the foetus (ahem) or the mother whose body is occupied by it.

and are murdered in equally horrid ways.
Difference:
-the Jews felt pain when they died. They lost something by being killed: their ability to have experiences.
- a fetus does not feel anything when it dies. Nor does it lose the ability to have experiences, since it does not have that ability and one cannot lose what one does not have.

Now, the essential question is not "is a foetus alive" or "is a foetus human", but "is a foetus harmed or does it suffer when it is aborted".
The suffering part has already been answered: no. Something which cannot feel cannot suffer.
Then: can it be harmed ? To say that one harms a foetus by aborting it you have to compare what it has with what it loses by the action. All a foetus has is a chance to develop enough to have experiences. However, if it had never been conceived it would not have had those experiences either.
Nor is it certain that these experiences will be positive - in fact, being an unwanted child, it is likely that it will start out negative.

Unless you can show that existance without experiences is intrinsically better than non-existance or that biological life has an intrinsic value without actually looking at the quality of that life or the persons involved a foetus is therefor not harmed by abortion. If the mother does not want the child but is forced to carry it she *is* harmed (unless you can show abortion has very negative effects on her, and that these negative effects outweigh her wishes).

To reduce the amount of harm in this world it seems one must therefor allow abortion.

Wasn't aimed at me, but I'll reply to it because it's relevant.

Lets say your hit by a car and knocked unconcious. Now your in a coma and the doctors are fairly sure you will come out in 9 months. Is it right for me to judge that while your in a coma your not concious thus I should be allowed to tell them to kill you?
Its the same thing.
Conciousness is not a prerequisite for human life, a seperate unique genetic code and dividing cells are.

By my own logic I may or may not be dead. I actually have no idea what goes on in the mind of a person in a coma, or if they have one at all. However, do you know what goes on in the mind of a fetus without a nervous system? That's a trick question, because it has no mind. Unless you'd accept that a mushroom is intelligent.

So I have no idea. I'd like to err on the side of caution, if indeed I was to wake up with all my mental facalities. If my mind was irreprably damaged, after a certain point, I'd rather have just died. Or rather, I wouldn't be able to think enough to care to live, and I'm nothing but a drain on society that doesn't even enjoy it.

Difference:
- The Jews considered themselves human.
- A fetus in the early stage where abortion is allowed does not consider itself human. It in fact does not consider itself anything, since it is not capable of considering. Nor can it feel anything, have hopes and dreams for the future and so on. As far as the fetus itself is concerned there is no difference between being inside its mothers body, never having been conceived or being aborted (unless you assume souls exist). Your opinion in this is not relevant, unless you claim you are the foetus (ahem) or the mother whose body is occupied by it.


Difference:
-the Jews felt pain when they died. They lost something by being killed: their ability to have experiences.
- a fetus does not feel anything when it dies. Neither does not lose the ability to have experiences, since it does not have that ability and one cannot lose what one does not have.

Now, the essential question is not "is a foetus alive" or "is a foetus human", but "is a foetus harmed or does it suffer when it is aborted".
The suffering part has already been answered: no. Something which cannot feel cannot suffer.
Then: can it be harmed ? To say that one harms a foetus by aborting it you have to compare what it has with what it loses by the action. All a foetus has is a chance to develop enough to have experiences. However, if it had never been conceived it would not have had those experiences either.
Nor is it certain that these experiences will be positive - in fact, being an unwanted child, it is likely that it will start out negative.

Unless you can show that existance without experiences is intrinsically better than non-existance or that biological life has an intrinsic value without actually looking at the quality of that life or the persons involved a foetus is therefor not harmed by abortion. If the mother does not want the child but is forced to carry it she *is* harmed (unless you can show abortion has very negative effects on her, and that these negative effects outweigh her wishes).

To reduce the amount of harm in this world it seems one must therefor allow abortion.
The debate still hinges on whether the fetus is a living human. It has a unique full set of human DNA and its cells are dividing, both point to life for me.

Thus considerable harm is done to the fetus, concious or not, during abortion.

The debate still hinges on whether the fetus is a living human.

No - it does not. It hinges on the question if taking away a chance to have experiences is the same as doing harm. This argument can just as well be applied to animals, plants etc. - the human factor is irrelevant.

Quippoth, going on life+law, you win. If you define being human as nothing more then being a member of the genus/species homo sapians, you're right. However, as I'm rather sure this isn't strictly about law and dictionary definitions, but about ethics and/or morality.

Maybe I'll post later on this, but it's one AM, and I've school in the morning. I may or may not post something more or less coherent later tomorrow/some other time, as quite frankly, I'm rather intimidated by the 500,000 pages this thread will have by the time I'm back from school/gym/haircut tomorrow.

I might be able to rebutt with some strong line of coherent logic, but my brain, ATM, is putting out not much more then paper-clip chains.

Good form, BTW.

I said it already. Life begins with a unique genetic code and cell division.

Once again you resort to flaming because your incapable of debating on points.

Okay, Janice, let's review.


You miss the fundamental difference between gametes and zygotes. Gametes have not come together yet. Zygotes have. Sperm and egg will not develop on their own thus are not human life. Zygotes will develop. Thus are human life. Anything that prevents the fertilization of an ovum does not kill human life because there is no human life yet. Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.

You said that to someone else right after saying this to me:

Cell division has not yet begun thus it is note alive by my standards. (Cell division and unique genetic code=alive)...

...Except the cells aren't dividing thus its not alive yet.

So which is it? You have no idea whether a zygote that fails to attach to the uterine wall has begun division or not. Some do, some don't. And even if that weren't true, you still reversed yourself by saying that "zygotes WILL develop" and "any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life..." and THEN telling me that cell division is necessary for it to be alive. WHICH IS IT? Once it starts dividing, it isn't a zygote anymore, Sharon, it's on it's way to embryo (there are technical names for the stages, many of them ending in the suffix '-blast' that I've long since forgotten since I took A&P and stuff when I was going to be a doctor some 15 years ago).

So yeah, I'm flaming you, 'cause your argument is fulla sh*t.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you're smart enough to parse out your own unique stance on this topic and I bear you no ill will. But this entire topic is really only brought up and debated more than once or twice a year by those who enjoy...well, this: :headbang: .

So I'll drop out, because I've already gone over my limit for pointless ranting this year. Thanks to all sides for their pointed observations and by golly, every one of you should stand by your convictions...just be aware that as right as you feel, that's how right your opponent feels. While it's by no means impossible to sway someone on issues like this, the worth of the effort should be appraised.

Peace!

His Benevolence, Magister Jubal Harshaw of Intangelon

Intangelon:
Thanks to all sides for their pointed observations and by golly, every one of you should stand by your convictions...just be aware that as right as you feel, that's how right your opponent feels.

Very well said.

One problem with all this discussion is that it seems to go from one extreme to the next. The fact is, few pro-choicers really want people to get abortions just because they didn't have responsible sex. Nor, I believe, do pro-lifers want to force women to become pregnant.

This being said, I think that the arguments proposed at the start of the thread in particular are very emotional but not very reasoned, though it does quote experiences which I will say for the sake of argument are true. Even so, I noticed that nearly all the women's stories, for instance were those of women who had gotten pregnant as the result of a chosen relationship, and had felt initially unready for the responsibility and then changed their minds. Naturally they as a result became pro-choice. I did notice with a bit of irritation that none of the stories was by a woman who was raped, or who had serious medical complications, or whose baby as a result was seriously malformed. This is not to say that such women have not gone through with the pregnancy anyway in some cases, but the fact is that all the stories had nice happy endings.

I hate to say this, but the Bible is a poor choice of a book to casually use to back up the phrase 'all life is sacred'. It is a statement that has to be qualified. First of all, this doesn't mean that life cannot be terminated at the same time. Consider for instance the number of acts we would consider perfectly innocuous which would require the death penalty: doing any work on the Sabbath day, for instance. There is the example of a Levite who lets his wife out to be gang-raped to death rather than disturb the guests who are visiting him. Note that in that particular story she is raped all night and crawls to die at the doorstep, where he discovers her body in the morning. Of course this is an extreme example, but what I'm trying to say is that just because the Bible says something doesn't make it so. It requires a contextual understanding of the scriptures in question. For those who are Christians, a cautionary word: we are not supposed to judge others, nor are we supposed to vaunt our own wisdom.

It's worthy of note that the battle lines as it were are not as sharply defined as some would think. Feminists, for instance, disagree about abortion; some think of it as freedom from the burdens of traditional womanhood, others see it as murder. (simplification btw but just to make the point) Christians do not always agree on the issue either.

Does an embryo within the first three months have sentient life? Does it have a soul? That is the real question, because that is the basis for argument of many of the pro-life people. It is a person at this stage, it is unquestionable, and it cannot be argued against.

On the other hand, the pro-choice point of view seems to be that the pregnant woman is more of a person than the embryo, which is merely a fetus and could easily be interchanged with a group of cells from, say, a dog or a walrus.

Having stated all this, I'll state what my point of view is. First of all, the state should have nothing to do with abortions except insofar as making sure medical practices are regulated, of course. I think that one of the major problems comes from this: that pro-life people realize that tax dollars go to fund something they regard as profoundly immoral. Furthermore, I think that rather than just banning it it ought to be discouraged. There are those who would take the harsh step of for instance insisting that rape victims or the underaged or those with dangerous medical problems have children anyway, and I don't like that; I think that there are some areas where those not in that position should back off.

I have a hard time with the grey area represented by the idea of a time limit on when the embryo becomes a person, because in my opinion the moment it begins to process of growth in the womb it is a potential person. So to me this is not really a serious argument at all. To me the real question is as to what our responsibility towards this potential person is.

That all being said, I admit that I really don't know; it's something I think about sometimes and haven't entirely resolved. I'm generally pro-life but I understand how many pro-choice people feel. I do recommend that people interested in this subject read this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

Well said.

Just to add my own point any one who thinks abortion is a means of contraception, is frankly dim witted at best.

Well said.
Just to add my own point any one who thinks abortion is a means of contraception, is frankly dim witted at best.

Not necessarily. Can you tell me what for the foetus itself the difference is between never even having been conceived, and being killed before it gains the ability to have experiences ? A chance to develop ? Well... if it had not been conceived it would not have had that chance either. The odds just got somewhat better when it was.

And then the question still remains: is having a life always better than not having a life ? Can one at the end of ones life look back and say: the balance is negative or is the mere fact of being alive always, or at least in the majority of cases, positive ? We cannot be certain. Maybe when aborting you prevent the next Jesus from walking our planet. Or maybe you just stopped Hitler. There is no certain way to tell if life would be something good for the potential person that the foetus represents and the ones he comes into contact with. You might be able to anticipate suffering (genetic deformities or ailments), but not happyness.

But it is possible to determine if you harm the mother by not letting her abort. You can ask her. Do you prevent certain harm, or potential harm ?
Of course, the fact that the mother knows is also what makes abortion different from contraception.

Commando3']
"Abortion is advocated only by persons who themselves have been born."
--President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)



:D

Ronald "no shit" Reagan - fucking idiot extraordinaire.

Cell division has not yet begun thus it is note alive by my standards. (Cell division and unique genetic code=alive)


Except the cells aren't dividing thus its not alive yet.

Actually, the embryo is at the blastocyst stage when it implants, i.e. it HAS started dividing. (it's at around the 16 cell stage) You keep contradiciting yourself... Get the science straight before wading in...

How about this: why don't we all just respect each other's right to live life as we choose? I won't force you to get an abortion if you won't block me from getting one if my health care professional and I deem it necessary.

Not true as premie babies can still live. Its seperate when its fertilized and begins developing its own mixed genetic code.

This may be hard to understand, but premies still are detached from the placenta.

From the same site

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/capital.htm

apprenlty the death penanlty is ok, becuase thats 'just' killing

is not hypocracy lovely?

The death penalty is not hypocracy. Its the same as saying that defending yourself is the same as just randomly walking up and slugging some poor bystander. When you defend yourself, the person you are attacking has earned what you give them(if you win, that is). Same with the death penalty. The murderer or whatever, EARNED what he/she's getting. Yea, there are a few mistakes, but it's not actually as bad as everybody makes it out to be. And just in case you're wondering, yea, I'd be pretty peaved at being put to death as an innocent, but I take the same stand as Socrates.

OH yea, that is a good idea, though. Abortion IS murder of a child and that is a death penalty offence.

The death penalty is not hypocracy. Its the same as saying that defending yourself is the same as just randomly walking up and slugging some poor bystander. When you defend yourself, the person you are attacking has earned what you give them(if you win, that is). Same with the death penalty. The murderer or whatever, EARNED what he/she's getting. Yea, there are a few mistakes, but it's not actually as bad as everybody makes it out to be. And just in case you're wondering, yea, I'd be pretty peaved at being put to death as an innocent, but I take the same stand as Socrates.

OH yea, that is a good idea, though. Abortion IS murder of a child and that is a death penalty offence.
Correction Abortion is not murder ... it is legal therefore by deffinition can not be murder in the united states at this time

Commando3']Before I begin I know there will be people taking offence at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened.
Hahaha!! "...once you are enlightened."

Lol love how you are trying to sound mature when your last statement is essentialy "oh grow up" LOL

Just a hint of sarcasm on both our parts, no?

Just a hint of sarcasm on both our parts, no?
That sir or ma`am was not sarcasm it was a rant about the maturity of the other poster

While I'm likely one of the strongest pro-life members of the board, and I can see alot of your comparissons, but unborn children aren't burned alive or placed in gas chambers until dead. They're not worked until they can no longer move and then burried alive. It's quite different.

ok comparing abortion to the holocaust is utterly disgusting, you're an extremely sick person just for that.

As for all those pictures of aborted babies .... So foetuses look kind of like small humans, well done genius, I'd never of guessed that.

Beyond being repulsive, these "points" are erroneous on multiple grounds.

Contraception can fail. And their are many reasons why women have abortion other than mere birth control.

More than half of the women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime. Apparently you support your own little Holocaust -- as you believe these women all deserve to die.

Women are not cattle. They are not slaves. They are not baby machines. They are the only undeniably human, living person in the equation. They have rights to self-ownership, control over their own bodies, etc.

Fertilized eggs, zygotes, and embryos are not persons with rights. Fetuses are not persons with rights until late in the pregnancy -- when abortion is already illegal except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother (or under a few other extreme circumstances in some states).

Your Puritan view about sex are hypocritical and wrong. We refuse to view pregnancy as a punishment.

I do believe you should actually READ a post before you critique it. I said, multiple times, that contraception fails. And I also went on to say, if you don't want to take the chance, do do the deed.

And yes, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye. If it were mad illegal and if it were made the taboo that it SHOULD be, then not even a fraction of those abortions would happen. Murder, is murder, no matter how old or young the victim and should be handled as prescribed by law. Murder of a child is a capitol offence.

I never said women were cattle or baby machines. Putting words in my mouth does not make you any more correct or credible so don't try it. If I thought that way my current GF would not be with me. I told you, we are careful and we are ready to RESPOSIBLY deal with the problem of a pregnancy we're not ready for. By this I mean, we are ready to raise a child who would come about from our love making. She knows she has ownership over her body and she choses to take the risks involved with our physical relationship.

Oh sure, a poor poor baby because it is called some funny scientific name loses all rights to life because it is so CONVINIENT to refer to it other than by what it is, a HUMAN BEING! That is and always will be the weakest argument I have ever heard. When does a child become a child then? Can you tell me when that child becomes concious of it's existance? Can you pinpoint that exact moment? What is your definition of a child? One that has actually passed through the vagina? Or would that be too soon, too. Perhaps, since it is an infant we should still be able to abort it. What about a toddler? That isn't the same word as a child or a person, is it? So that makes it right. The zygote, ebryo, etc ... all become the same thing sooner or later. Just like a larva becomes a pupa becomes a butterfly(skipped a stage or two, I know). They, like a child, are one and the same thing, they just look different in their different stages of life.

I do not have puritan views, I just believe that life is life and if you concieve it, you should own up to it. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a fact of life and everybody with a lick of common sence knows how it comes about. You're arguments are still really weak.

Oh, and PREEBLES, btw, an infant is totally dependant on it's mother or caretaker for its survival. Why not abort that lil parasite, too? Right? That was your definition, wholely dependant on it's mother for its survival.

As for all those pictures of aborted babies .... So foetuses look kind of like small humans, well done genius, I'd never of guessed that.

Foetuses that get aborted for non-medical reasons do not look like tiny humans -they look like goo. A foetus that actually looks like a tiny human being will in most countries be considered far too developed to be aborted, unless the mothers life is at stake or it is seen to be seriously deformed (as in: will suffer pain 24/7 after being born for the rest of its life).

For some reason this is seldom mentioned on sites that show the last type of aborted babies. Possibly because if they would show what an early aborted foetus really looks like less people would think of them as humans.

Oh, and PREEBLES, btw, an infant is totally dependant on it's mother or caretaker for its survival. Why not abort that lil parasite, too? Right? That was your definition, wholely dependant on it's mother for its survival.

An infant is not living off of the bodily systems of the mother, so it is not totally dependent.

Foetuses that get aborted for non-medical reasons do not look like tiny humans -they look like goo. A foetus that actually looks like a tiny human being will in most countries be considered far too developed to be aborted, unless the mothers life is at stake or it is seen to be seriously deformed (as in: will suffer pain 24/7 after being born for the rest of its life).

For some reason this is seldom mentioned on sites that show the last type of aborted babies. Possibly because if they would show what an early aborted foetus really looks like less people would think of them as humans.

Yes, but then it woulnt be effective propaganda would it?

How about this: why don't we all just respect each other's right to live life as we choose? I won't force you to get an abortion if you won't block me from getting one if my health care professional and I deem it necessary.
But then we'd all have to stop bickering, and that would be no fun!
:p

And yes, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye. If it were mad illegal and if it were made the taboo that it SHOULD be, then not even a fraction of those abortions would happen. Murder, is murder, no matter how old or young the victim and should be handled as prescribed by law. Murder of a child is a capitol offence.

Are you willing to follow your idea to its logical end? Are you willing to prosecute women for 2nd degree murder or manslaughter if they spontaneously abort and it was not due to obvious genetic malformations? If not, it is *you* who do not see an embryo as a full human, but still wish to be a hypocrite and blame others.

I never said women were cattle or baby machines. Putting words in my mouth does not make you any more correct or credible so don't try it.

The end result of legally declaring embryos full human beings *is* making women nothing more than baby machines. If we do so, every woman must lie in bed being still for several months if she is ever sexually active, as she doesn't want to accidently harm a possible embryo that may or may not be there.

Oh sure, a poor poor baby because it is called some funny scientific name loses all rights to life because it is so CONVINIENT to refer to it other than by what it is, a HUMAN BEING!

Define human being. And do it in a way that includes embryos, but not sperm or skin cells.

I do not have puritan views, I just believe that life is life and if you concieve it, you should own up to it. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a fact of life and everybody with a lick of common sence knows how it comes about. You're arguments are still really weak.

Define life - and do it in a way that includes an embryo, but not sperm or skin cells.

Yes, but then it woulnt be effective propaganda would it?

Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates distort the truth and use emotional rather than rational arguments to promote their point of view ?

Why.. what a novel concept.

Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates distort the truth and use emotional rather than rational arguments to promote their point of view ?

Why.. what a novel concept.

Well....

i woulnt say they werent.

Im yet to see an anit abortion poster that dosent have a near full term abortion, or a still born child on it.

That was your definition, wholely dependant on it's mother for its survival.Well, actually, no. Probably dependent on an adult (or at least older) human being since its unable to fend for itself, but not necessarily its mother as it was when she was pregnant with it.
Pregnancy is not a punishmentI happen to think that it is, actually; children disgust me. But I do not see why I should be prevented from having a normal, loving relationship just because that is so. Even the Christians against abortion can look their Bibles and see that sex is not just about procreation, but about 'worshipping each other with bodies' (words to that effect are in the Christian marriage vows, which I believe come from the Bible).

I do believe you should actually READ a post before you critique it. I said, multiple times, that contraception fails. And I also went on to say, if you don't want to take the chance, do do the deed.

I read your post more than once. That does not mean I have to agree with it or cannot point out its obvious flaws.

And yes, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye. If it were mad illegal and if it were made the taboo that it SHOULD be, then not even a fraction of those abortions would happen. Murder, is murder, no matter how old or young the victim and should be handled as prescribed by law. Murder of a child is a capitol offence.

Abortion is, by definition, not murder -- so this is rather silly.

That you would murder more than half the female population of the United States borders on genocidal madness. It is certainly not the moral high ground.

I never said women were cattle or baby machines. Putting words in my mouth does not make you any more correct or credible so don't try it. If I thought that way my current GF would not be with me. I told you, we are careful and we are ready to RESPOSIBLY deal with the problem of a pregnancy we're not ready for. By this I mean, we are ready to raise a child who would come about from our love making. She knows she has ownership over her body and she choses to take the risks involved with our physical relationship.

What I said is a logical extension of your views.

I am very happy that your current GF has strong feelings about self-ownership. She is free to exercise her rights as she chooses. Of course, it is one thing to state what one would do in a hypothetical and another to actually live through the experience.

Regardless, why do you assume that the rest of womenkind are less capable moral agents than your GF? Why do you have a superior right over their bodies? That is what is treating women as cattle or slaves rather than persons.

Oh sure, a poor poor baby because it is called some funny scientific name loses all rights to life because it is so CONVINIENT to refer to it other than by what it is, a HUMAN BEING! That is and always will be the weakest argument I have ever heard. When does a child become a child then? Can you tell me when that child becomes concious of it's existance? Can you pinpoint that exact moment? What is your definition of a child? One that has actually passed through the vagina? Or would that be too soon, too. Perhaps, since it is an infant we should still be able to abort it. What about a toddler? That isn't the same word as a child or a person, is it? So that makes it right. The zygote, ebryo, etc ... all become the same thing sooner or later. Just like a larva becomes a pupa becomes a butterfly(skipped a stage or two, I know). They, like a child, are one and the same thing, they just look different in their different stages of life.

A larva is not, however, a butterfly. An acorn is not a tree.

We make logical distinctions between things all the time.

Whether or not we can pinpoint the exact moment a fetus becomes conscious is irrelevant, as we can clearly determine when it is cannot be conscious -- before it even has a brain -- and our laws currently err on the side of protecting a fetus before consciousness is possible.

Rather than repeat the mantra that life begins at conception, can you give any principled explanation for why a zygote or embryo is entitled to rights that we do not afford to beings that are closer to functioning adult humans -- like chimpanzees?

I do not have puritan views, I just believe that life is life and if you concieve it, you should own up to it. Pregnancy is not a punishment, it is a fact of life and everybody with a lick of common sence knows how it comes about. You're arguments are still really weak.

I highly doubt you actually believe "life is life" and it all should be protected. Do you eat meat? Do you eat plants? Do you masturbate or shed skin?

Another point I wanted to bring up.

Abortion has always been a matter of morality. Whether we like it or not, morality is something we impose upon nature for, ideally, the betterment of our society. For instance, well into the 19th century the US and some Western European nations permitted abortion until what was called 'the quickening' which is when the woman can FEEL the life inside her. After that it was believed that the child was basically human.

However, in pure terms of 'life', we are kind of seeing all this through a glass darkly. In nature, abortion normally means simply that a pregnancy is terminated. Animals do this when circumstances are so stressful as to forbid the safety necessary to bear their young. Humans actually do likewise when a miscarriage takes place. Life is actually very harsh. Moreover, many human socieities have deliberately practiced abortion or even infanticide on malformed or retarded infants.

I'm not saying that we should regard this as a moral choice, but it is food for thought. Let us be really really honest here: I think that you are inevitably trying to impose the views you hold dear in the debate on abortion, whether you are an orthodox jew (advocating limited abortion) a hindu (advocating NO abortion) or a libertarian (advocating unlimited abortion).

Im going to give you and example now.
Suppose you wake up one morning and find that a famous violinist's circulatory system has been plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from her blood as well as from your own. She needs to remain plugged into you for nine months. If you unplug her, she will die because there is no other person who has the right blood type. Here is a clear situation in which the violinist's right to life comes into conflict with your right to control what happens to your own body. Is it morally permissible for you to unplug the violinist simply because she had no right to be there in the first place , its not nice thing to do, but it is morally justifiable.

Your a fascist idiot really.

Flaws in that analogy

1) the violinist chose to be their, the child didnt

2) You did nothing to cause the vilonist to be their, a pregnant woman would through sex (note, I am not saying the woman is wrong for doing that, just that this is a flaw in the analogy)

Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates distort the truth and use emotional rather than rational arguments to promote their point of view ?

Why.. what a novel concept.

I could easily say pro-choice advocates are the same

Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates distort the truth and use emotional rather than rational arguments to promote their point of view ?

Why.. what a novel concept.

I could easily say pro-choice advocates are the same

I could easily say pro-choice advocates are the same

Really? Have you ever seen a pro-choice poster waving around a picture that anyone who has actually looked into it would know could not possibly have come from an elective abortion?

Well....

i woulnt say they werent.

Im yet to see an anit abortion poster that dosent have a near full term abortion, or a still born child on it.
the funny thing is, there is a limited pool of pictures they all draw from for their posters. you can find pretty much all of them online, and most of them have been "debunked"...lots of them were faked using artificial material, and others were actually stillborn babies that somebody tries to pass off as "late term abortion victims." there are also a great many that date from decades past, and are pictures of what happened during ILLEGAL abortions performed by non-license butchers in back alleys.

i have actually see the aftermath of an abortion, the result of a still birth, several live births, several fetal cadavers (from fetuses that were naturally aborted by the female body for a variety of reasons), and numerous forms of in untero imaging of living fetuses. i have to say that the vast majority of pictures the anti-choice folk throw around are pretty clearly fakes in one way or another, and i find that tactic very amusing...they're so very moral, so concerned with the poor little babies, and they're willing to lie, cheat, and defraud whoever it takes to pass their opinions off as reality.

Really? Have you ever seen a pro-choice poster waving around a picture that anyone who has actually looked into it would know could not possibly have come from an elective abortion?
i once went to a pro-choice rally with a poster that had pictures of the aftermath of illegal abortions, and another with photos from a surgery performed on a woman who's fetus died in utero and stayed inside her to rot because she wasn't allowed to have the corpse "aborted." a large percentage of "late term abortions" are performed on such fetal corpses, but for some reason the anti-choice folk prefer to ignore that little tidbit.

Speaking as one man, I think the decision to terminate pregnancy is between the pregnant woman and her conscience (which Tolstoy opined, and I agree, is the voice of God). If she believes she has no alternative, having weighed the choice, then it's her burden to bear. But she, AND ONLY SHE has the right, ultimately, to make that decision. This issue is much, MUCH simpler than it's portrayal.

IN NO WAY do I endorse or condone abortion as birth control! VERY FEW on the pro-choice side do. However, I do not see where anyone's opinion besides that of the pregnant woman and those she CHOOSES to consult matters at all. Were it me, I wouldn't choose to have an abortion, but that does NOT give me the right to dictate to anyone else what they should do with their own lives.

I am sick to the teeth of the whole wad of these holier-than-thou jackasses constantly assuming that what's good for them and/or their church is good (and should therefore be LAW) for the nation. If you dislike abortions, then for the love of God, DON'T HAVE ONE. Follow the 11th Commandment: "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself" and live your OWN lives, please. To paraphrase your own favorite book, you're bitching about the mote in another's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

It amazes me how "states rights" works for conservatives until it involves something that they think is somehow "immoral." Simple question -- WHO ASKED YOU? Feel free to enlighten me all you like should I ASK for your two cents. Preach in your churches, pray with your friends, but leave the rest of us alone.

THINK -- it's patriotic!
Am i mistaken or did you just plagerize George Carlin? not that theres anything wrong with using his arguments, i actually agree with him, just site it

"I wouldnt want to be aborted and neither would you"
"But neither of us would want to be masturbated onto a towel by our fathers, should masturbation be outlawed?"

The death penalty is not hypocracy. Its the same as saying that defending yourself is the same as just randomly walking up and slugging some poor bystander. When you defend yourself, the person you are attacking has earned what you give them(if you win, that is). Same with the death penalty. The murderer or whatever, EARNED what he/she's getting. Yea, there are a few mistakes, but it's not actually as bad as everybody makes it out to be. And just in case you're wondering, yea, I'd be pretty peaved at being put to death as an innocent, but I take the same stand as Socrates.

OH yea, that is a good idea, though. Abortion IS murder of a child and that is a death penalty offence.
ok, lets just ignor the fact that when someone is given the death penalty its not a choice between letting them go or killing them. when your defending your life from someone who is assaulting you, your life is in danger. whos life is in danger when someone is in prison (sure prisoners kill each other but why not advocate isolation instead of killing)

Oh, and PREEBLES, btw, an infant is totally dependant on it's mother or caretaker for its survival. Why not abort that lil parasite, too? Right? That was your definition, wholely dependant on it's mother for its survival.
lets all ignore the fact that adoption exists. notice that only the pregnant woman can feed and take care of the zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. if any man could carry a baby the same way any man could feed an already born infant i would like to see it!

An infant is not living off of the bodily systems of the mother, so it is not totally dependent.
Bingo.

Well....

i woulnt say they werent.

Im yet to see an anit abortion poster that dosent have a near full term abortion, or a still born child on it.
Or, occasionally, a doll with ketchup on it. Seriously.

It's sick but accurate. If you incubate an egg a baby bird will grow inside it. By [NS]Commando3's logic, aren't you killing a poor defenceless baby bird when you have a nice poached egg?
Eggs from the grocery store are not fertilized. They do not have to capacity to grow a baby chicken.

I am pro-choice because I think that a woman's body is her sole domain and under no-one else's jurisdiction. I also believe that in the economic climate of many countries, keeping a child is not feasible, and the thousands of children in state care in Australia alone is testament to the fact that adoption is not a real avenue for these children. That said, however, I think that the woman must be fully educated about the abortion procedure, the risks to her body, the ethical dilemma of killing the child, and the long-lasting psychological trauma that abortions can have for the mother. With people in the West having such easy access to medical procedures of all kinds, we become desensitised to the dangers of medical intervention. Having had a childhood of severe medical procedures, and knowing how I feel about my own body, I can't believe that any woman in her right mind would have an abortion, but if she is educated about the ramifications of the procedure, and still chooses it, then she mustn't be demonised for it. And she shouldn't be forced into some dirty alley with a rusty coathanger to do it herself. Pro-life should respect her life too.

What my argument boils down to is this: Children are expensive. Women choose abortions because support for young single mothers is inadequate. I know mothers who have gone without food for days to feed their children, and this is Australia. If women had greater assistance in improving their education, flexible childcare, and flexible working hours, perhaps more women would keep their babies. Unfortunately this really isn't an option for many girls, especially in rural Australia.

Abortion is an ethical issue with an economic solution. I hope to God that the disgusting abstinence-only sex education programs in the US today don't lead to an abortion-rush in the next 12-18 months.

Commando3']Before I begin

Snipped for sanity and brevity.

First of all dude, World Net Daily, Newsmax and the like are RIGHTWING PROPAGANDA WEBSITES!!!!!! How many fucking times do we have to go through this? If you want to show tables, graphs, surveys, etc. pull them from non biased, centrist, RESPECTABLE news sites.

Second, even as a leftwinger, I have my reservations about late term abortion. I'm truly no fan of it, and it just might be murder. Luckily, it's illegal. The argument should end there.

Third, would you really deny an abortion to a woman who's life was in danger because of irreversible pregnancy complications, or a rape victim, or an incest victim? I certainly wouldn't, but then again, I'm not heartless like that.

Finally, what about a little compasion and digging into the ol pocket for some much needed funds for the children who are already here? The rightwing's not so big on that eh? Cutting welfare programs for pregnant and new mothers, cutting funding for afterschool programs, cutting funding for GED programs in juvenile halls...etc....the list goes on...

Or could it just be that this whole anti abortion crusade you nutters are on has nothing at all to do with the lives of children and everything to do with you buying your own ticket to Jebusland by being louder than all the other loudmouths. Scream until god can hear you, eh?

A fetus is not a person
Therefore, it's ok to have ideas forced upon them because fetus is not alive.

Both arguments are dependant on the state of the fetus (as most arguments boil down to. You're right, neither can prove anything about the state of the fetus.
Not sure if you caught it or not, but the stuff I put below was my abrieviated outline of his circular argument. And yes, everyone agrees that it comes down to whether or not an early pregnancy is a human life. If it is, then it's murder. Abortion for medical reasons would still be OK, as it's a weird form of self-defense, but rape would not be an excuse in this case. If it is not a person, then there should be no qualms.




Dempublicents1 would disagree with you (I think- he can correct me if I'm wrong). We've just had a long argument about whether or not an embryo is alive.

"alive" I think was being used as a shorthand. Of course it's alive, it consists of human cells. Nobody doubts this, the only thing we are argueing about is whether or not it is a human life.


Trillions actually (heh, I jump on Dempublicents1 one for nitpicking, but I do the same- sorry!)

My intent was to convey the concept of "many", but if you're going to nitpick, it all depends on the size of the body :)

Being human can be the only qualifier. Let me explain.
A human baby isn't anywhere near as smart or independent as say, your average dog, or even even a rodent. But he will become so much more- he will grow up into an adult assuming he's taken care of and no force interferes with the process. The same can be said for the embryo (unless it is destroyed).

A human being that is brain-dead (not comatose, mind you, or vegetative) is declared "dead", as a human being, even though their cells could be kept alive indefinitely by machines. They no longer have the rights and priveleges of a human being, except where Last Will and Testament laws are on the books. An unborn child in the first term does not have a brain. Thus, as a human being, a fetus is not alive until it has brain function. The cells are alive, it may eventually develop into life (is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter???) but it is not, in fact, a human life. I hope this satisfies you.

The law protects babies and mentally handicapped people who operate below the level of an animal deemed socially acceptable to kill. Thus, I don't think any exception should be made for embryos/fetuses. For this reason, the term "human rights" is so popular and you never hear about rights for "humans who are more intelligent that a rat".
We're not talking about "slow", here. We're talking brain nonexistent or nonfunctioning. Adult humans in this condition are dead, by modern medical definitions.

You'd want a woman to die if she took a three year old and scrambled him/her up so why not an unborn? Which is more valuable? They're both human children.

Ok, two points on this.
1. No. I would want her locked up very far away from any children ever for the rest of her life without parole. For a "pro-lifer", you certainly speak lightly of the death penalty. "Babies are innocent, people are not"? Many on death row are innocent. Hundreds have been taken off death row because of new evidence, not only casting a reasonable doubt, but proving that it was not, in fact, them. Others were found to be innocent after being killed. There is no such thing with life in prison. Isn't losing years of your life bad enough?
2. If you've been listening, everyone on this thread would agree with you if they agreed that a fetus is a human child. So you have to prove that point. Or just say that your opinion is just that. You can't assume something to be true that's like that.

I am pro-choice because I think that a woman's body is her sole domain and under no-one else's jurisdiction.
Although i am pro choice i hate it when people use this argument. pro-choice people know that the pro-lifers are invariabley going to respond that the fetus is a human life and a seperate body. for the love of god pro-choicers, for the sake of not making the rest of us look bad you have to go beyond the womans body argument and talk about the ramifications of illegalizing abortion and the question of where specifically life begins.

This argument is going nowhere flat, due to fundamental differences in opinion and acceptance of scientific fact, as well as the highly moral nature of the issue, so I will not leap in and rehash points already made well. I would like, however, to point out the sort of people who so kindly provide so much anti-abortion information:

It is necessary first of all to make the crucial distinction between a demonstration that Karol Wojtyla (“John Paul II”) is not the Pope and a demonstration why he is not the Pope. As can be clearly seen, it is much more important to understand that he is not the Pope than to know why not. If the “that” can be known apart from the “why,” we may even say that, ultimately, the “why” is of no great concern.


"It is more important to agree with us than understand why what we say is right."

"We are right, regardless of what any information separate from what we say, because it doesn't matter why we are right."

This is why the arguements don't go anywhere: Abortion is wrong, because we say so. Don't look at any evidence -- IT IS EVIL PERIOD!@!!!!111!. The fact that it is evil, as we have established by saying so, proves that it is evil so we do not need to explain our reasoning, or have any.

long thread short: an embryo is not a human being because it doesn't posess a brain. Just as those who are brain dead are not alive, embryos are not alive. Therefore, abortion of an embryo is not murder.

Hey, this is my first post, so go easy on me. Also, I have not read the entire thread so I may be repeating some stuff that's already been said. The argument over whether abortion is right or not will forever be a fruitless because it all depends on when consider human life to begin. If you consider life to begin at conception, then a zygote should have all the protections of any other human, most vitally the right to life. If, however, you consider life to begin after birth, then the mother is only person whose rights should be considered throughout gestation.

The idea that life begins at conception is a dangerous one since a good third of pregnancies end in natural abortion. If one was the carry the idea that abortion is murder to it's natural conclusion, it would stand to reason that a woman that experienced a natural abortion would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter or at least criminal neglect of a child. Through no fault of her own, a child under the mother's care met its demise.

Also, the idea that abortions are frivilous decisions made by people who care nothing of the child are just plain fallacious. I've known many young women who struggled with the idea of an abortion. Some had an abortion and some did not, but each woman had a serious emotion predicament. Indeed, abortions are no joke. An abortion is a serious surgical procedure and should be treated as such. Complications sometimes occur and women are often left inferitle after two or three abortions. Given this, why would women subject themselves to the emotional and physical trauma of an abortion unless they had legitimate reasons. I would make a similar argument about the existence of innate homosexuality. Why would people choose to undergo the shame, questioning, and sometimes violence that goes along with public knowledge of one's homosexuality unless they actually felt that way?

On the other side, no forces anyone to conceive (other than rape, which is obviously excluded from our discussion). Pregnancy is not a direct consequence of womanhood and there are plenty of contraceptive options for both men and women that are emotionally, physically, and economically less taxing than abortion. To some degree, Roe v. Wade, has created what economists and insurance adjusters call moral hazard. Just as a person with life insurance is more likely to take risks than a person without life insurance, an American couple is now more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors that lead to conception knowing that the safety net of safe abortion exists. The numbers play this out.

In conclusion, no one in this forum is going to have their mind changed by anyone else on this forum. I just hope my post can open each side of this argument to the frustrations of the other side. Pro-lifers, leave the issue alone, if our (America's) uber-Christian government can't overturn Roe v. Wade, it's never going to happen. There are other, actually illegal forms of murder going out there (*hint: gun control). Pro-choice folk, quite beating the "right to choose" horse. Everyone (again excluding rape victims) has the right to choose before they conceive, the right to choose to use protection. I promise it won't kill you, in fact it prevents the transfer of most STDs. But in the end, no one can control what goes on in your own bedroom but you; I'd be interested to know how many wives of senators that preach family values have had abortions. So do what you do, and until the law says otherwise, that includes having an abortion.

Commando3'] However, it is an easy comparison to see once you are enlightened. I begin my crusade to enlighten the misinformed pro-"choice" residents of nationstates. Please read this with an open mind.



Maybe one of these days you'll be enlightened and open minded enough to realize the arrogance of the above statements.

Although i am pro choice i hate it when people use this argument. pro-choice people know that the pro-lifers are invariabley going to respond that the fetus is a human life and a seperate body. for the love of god pro-choicers, for the sake of not making the rest of us look bad you have to go beyond the womans body argument and talk about the ramifications of illegalizing abortion and the question of where specifically life begins.
in a word: NO. when life begins is an idiotic thing to argue, because it's called the human life CYCLE for a reason...there is no point at which dead material suddenly becomes living. any scientist or doctor can tell you that a fetus is living material. a sperm and egg are living cells. it's all living. you might be able to divert an otherwise productive discussion onto whether or not a fetus has human personhood, but that would be a totally irrelevant tangent.

in my opinion, even if a fetus is 100% human person, a woman still has the right to end her connection to the fetus at any time and for any reason. no human person may be forced to donate their body or their tissues to another human person, because we recognize the sovereignty of the individual when it comes to ownership of their own body. it doesn't matter if fetuses are living human persons or not. the ONLY issue for me is whether or not an individual has the right to refuse to allow their body to be employed for sustenance of another life (human or not). i say that the individual has the right to refuse, anti-choice people insist that the state or the Christian God or the moralizing nosy neighbors have the right to overrule any decision the individual might make. the anti-choice people believe that a fetus should be awarded rights which no born human person has, and then be stripped of those rights at the moment of birth, and i say that's crap. that's the issue for me, and i will thank you not to tell me what i may and may not argue.

*snip*
2. If you've been listening, everyone on this thread would agree with you if they agreed that a fetus is a human child. So you have to prove that point. Or just say that your opinion is just that. You can't assume something to be true that's like that.

Although i am pro choice i hate it when people use this argument. pro-choice people know that the pro-lifers are invariabley going to respond that the fetus is a human life and a seperate body. for the love of god pro-choicers, for the sake of not making the rest of us look bad you have to go beyond the womans body argument and talk about the ramifications of illegalizing abortion and the question of where specifically life begins.

It is simply not true that the issue of abortion should or does turn on when personhood begins. (Note: it is not even vaguely relevant when "life" begins or when "human life" begins -- the appropriate term is personhood. We do not afford rights to many things that count as "life" or "human life.")

Even if you assume a fetus is a person, that does not end the discussion. It does not necessarily have a superior claim to a woman's body. Nor is it necessarily up to the State to adjudicate the competing claims.

That we know that sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryoes, and early fetuses have no serious claim to personhood makes the equation simple. Nigh absolute rights to self-ownership and bodily integrity versus mere potentiality = women's right to choice.

As a fetus approaches a the possibility of personhood, our legal system -- in an over-abundance of caution --afforded late-term fetuses protections. Late-term abortions are restricted in the US to when they are necessary for the life or health of the mother (or, in some states, to other extreme circumstances such as extreme fetal abnormality or rape of a minor).

Those of us that have thought seriously about the question point first to a women's automony because that is the primary issue. The woman is the only undeniably human, living, person in the equation. She has rights and moral agency. That pro-lifers wish to ignore women altogether as if they were mere baby machines is not only morally repugnant but also an example of how poorly they have thought about the ethics of the situation.

Remove the plank from your own eye.

long thread short: an embryo is not a human being because it doesn't posess a brain. Just as those who are brain dead are not alive, fetus' are not alive. Therefore, abortion of an embryo is not murder.
Fetuses are alive, but that doesn't mean that if so a woman choses she should not be able to abort the fetus. Just thought i'd correct a common misconception

Are you suggesting that pro-life advocates distort the truth and use emotional rather than rational arguments to promote their point of view ?

Why.. what a novel concept.

The same can be said of the Pro-choice lobby

Fetuses are alive, but that doesn't mean that if so a woman choses she should not be able to abort the fetus. Just thought i'd correct a common misconception

Ok this is going to be interesting

If its alive then why shouldnt it be allowed to continue to live?

the anti-choice people believe that a fetus should be awarded rights which no born human person has, and then be stripped of those rights at the moment of birth, and i say that's crap. that's the issue for me, and i will thank you not to tell me what i may and may not argue.

The right to live is "Crap" is it? Then you wont mind having your parents killed right now will you. Because they didnt have a right to live obvioulsy...

The right to live is "Crap" is it? Then you wont mind having your parents killed right now will you. Because they didnt have a right to live obvioulsy...

You, my good sir or madam, are either ignorant or intentionally imflammatory. There is a distinct difference between a few cells of living tissue and a person whom is already alive, as well as there is a difference between a productive member of the human race and a parasitic organism that solely relies on leeching nutrients from a human to continue to live.

Ok this is going to be interesting

If its alive then why shouldnt it be allowed to continue to live?

Because the fetus does not know it is alive, it should be subordinated to the decisions and well-being of its mother.

It is not that a fetus does not "deserve" to live, but rather that the mother deserves to make decisions that affect said fetus before it is able to do those things for itself. To me saying that a fetus has an inherent right to force its mother to take care of it is like saying that children have a right to force their parents to feed them whatever they want. The parent knows better, the mother knows better, so the choice belongs in their hands.

The same can be said of the Pro-choice lobby

Alright prove your statement.

Ok this is going to be interesting

If its alive then why shouldnt it be allowed to continue to live?

My skin cells are alive. Why should I allow them to die and keratinize?

Fetuses are alive, but that doesn't mean that if so a woman choses she should not be able to abort the fetus. Just thought i'd correct a common misconception
meant embryo

The right to live is "Crap" is it?
um, actually, that's very obviously not what i said at all. but feel free to make up straw men, since you clearly don't have any interest in addressing the issue at hand. what i actually said was that it is crap to give fetuses a "right to life" that is unequalled by any right we give to born humans, particularly if the fetus suddenly loses that "right" the moment it is born.

Then you wont mind having your parents killed right now will you. Because they didnt have a right to live obvioulsy...
as you well know, Neo, my stance is that a human person has the right to decline donation of their tissues and organs. a human female has the right to decline to host a pregnancy, just as any and all of my family members have the right to decline to donate organs to me if i ask for them. if my mother had not wanted to continue the pregnancy that gave rise to me i would support that choice on her part, and i would rather never have existed than know that she was not free to choose. however, the right to end the life of a born human who is not attached to and dependent upon your body is a completely different issue, and any attempt to equate the two only serves to highlight your own ignorance...which is fine by me, of course, but you might not want to go that route :).

Fetuses are alive, but that doesn't mean that if so a woman choses she should not be able to abort the fetus. Just thought i'd correct a common misconception
meant embryo

You, my good sir or madam, are either ignorant or intentionally imflammatory. There is a distinct difference between a few cells of living tissue and a person whom is already alive, as well as there is a difference between a productive member of the human race and a parasitic organism that solely relies on leeching nutrients from a human to continue to live.
its perfectly legal to not be productive in america

um, actually, that's very obviously not what i said at all. but feel free to make up straw men, since you clearly don't have any interest in addressing the issue at hand. what i actually said was that it is crap to give fetuses a "right to life" that is unequalled by any right we give to born humans, particularly if the fetus suddenly loses that "right" the moment it is born.

as you well know, Neo, my stance is that a human person has the right to decline donation of their tissues and organs. a human female has the right to decline to host a pregnancy, just as any and all of my family members have the right to decline to donate organs to me if i ask for them. if my mother had not wanted to continue the pregnancy that gave rise to me i would support that choice on her part, and i would rather never have existed than know that she was not free to choose. however, the right to end the life of a born human who is not attached to and dependent upon your body is a completely different issue, and any attempt to equate the two only serves to highlight your own ignorance...which is fine by me, of course, but you might not want to go that route :).
what about the argument that she gave up that right when she slept with your father?

what about the argument that she gave up that right when she slept with your father?
i don't believe consenting to sex is the same as consenting to be pregnant. i don't believe that sexual activity robs a person of their right to decide what happens to their own body. it's sort of like how if somebody breaks their leg while skiiing i don't try to tell them they gave up their right to a cast when they chose to get up on those skis...do you?

but then, i also believe that the choice to bring a new consciousness into the world is one that should be considered more seriously than "oops, the condom broke, guess we're having a baby!"

what about the argument that she gave up that right when she slept with your father?

What of it?

It has no moral validity. 'Nuff said.

i don't believe consenting to sex is the same as consenting to be pregnant. i don't believe that sexual activity robs a person of their right to decide what happens to their own body.

It must be accepted that sex leads to pregnency and there is no such thing as safe sex.

It must be accepted that sex leads to pregnency

It can. So?


and there is no such thing as safe sex.

Why not?

Commando3']If some mother decides to murder her child then suffers from it it's not my problem.
Well it's not really your problem if it's legal either, is it?

It must be accepted that sex leads to pregnency and there is no such thing as safe sex.
yes, pregnancy may result from sex. however, a baby does not have to result from a pregnancy. also, to claim there is no such thing as safe sex is irresponsible and dangerous in this day and age...there most certainly is safe sex, even though no sex is 100% safe. it's like how you always take a risk when you get in a car, and no driver or vehicle is 100% safe, but that doesn't mean we should claim "there's no such thing as safe driving." i am horrified and disgusted by all the people claiming "there is no such thing as safe sex," because i think it is like telling kids there's no such thing as safe driving so you shouldn't bother wearing a seatbelt.

Thats really an assumption on your part. I don't trust lives with assumptions that can't be proven and would rather err on the side of caution.
The side of caution for whom, exactly? Sometimes the mother's life is in danger, and, as you said before, it isn't good to assume things (like that a zygote is a Human).


You miss the fundamental difference between gametes and zygotes. Gametes have not come together yet. Zygotes have. Sperm and egg will not develop on their own thus are not human life. Zygotes will develop. Thus are human life. Anything that prevents the fertilization of an ovum does not kill human life because there is no human life yet. Any action that kills a zygote (a fertilized egg) is killing human life and there has been fertilization.
A zygote cannot develop without blood-carried nutrients from the mother, delivered through the placenta. It cannot grow and develop on its own. It is totally reliant on materials from the mother's body. As is a sperm. It requires all those things, plus an egg.
I hold by my previous statement that a fetus has become a human life when it would not be declared "dead" in its current state. "Dead", of course, is "no longer alive". This would be a different sort of dead, being "not yet alive". We call a person dead, and thus no longer having the rights of a living human, when they lose certain traits, such as brain, heart, and lung function. If a fetus has not yet gained those traits, it is not yet alive as a human, and thus does not have the rights of a living human being.



You can't argue it doens't have a level of conciousness because you are not it. Its that simple. As for your earlier argument of the end results being the same, thats like saying it would be ok for me to kill you because in the end, your going to be just as dead as every other organism on Earth will be.
Here is the point in the argument where I turn your analogy against you.
With murder, you cause something that will happen eventually (death) before it would normally occur, thus "cutting the life short". You agree this is a bad thing.
With abortion, as opposed to, say, birth control or abstinance, you cause something that would occur in either case (removing the potential for a new human) after it would normally happen.
I don't claim to believe that having an abortion is better than not getting pregnant in the first place, but that's where your argument leads.

Lets say your hit by a car and knocked unconcious. Now your in a coma and the doctors are fairly sure you will come out in 9 months. Is it right for me to judge that while your in a coma your not concious thus I should be allowed to tell them to kill you?
Its the same thing.
Conciousness is not a prerequisite for human life, a seperate unique genetic code and dividing cells are.

1. Fallacy of equivocation. In lay terms, the good ol' bait 'n' switch. You took the original meaning of "unconscious", meaning, if I may paraphrase, "incapable of thought, having no brain function" and replaced it with "blacked-out". People in a coma still have brain function.
2. By your logic, if you keep blood from a healthy person running through the veins of a dead guy, he's not dead, because guess what? The cells would still divide and he still has his own genetic code. So, by the way, does a sperm. It's not the complete human genome, but it's a complete sperm genome.

Cell division has not yet begun thus it is note alive by my standards. (Cell division and unique genetic code=alive)


Except the cells aren't dividing thus its not alive yet.
Wait a tick, you might have a point! Oh, wait, no, sorry. Cell division begins immediately. By the time it attaches it's a small clump of cells. Really tough luck.


I don't care if infertile couples adopt, hanai, or use a surrogate mother/father. All that matters is they don't kill it once its growing.

What about cancer? It has a unique genetic code, and by God do they divide. Would it be unethical to remove a tumor "once it's growing"?

I know several people who have adopted philipino, black, and asiatic children.
In fact you don't even have proof for your point.
You know, personally, multiple people who have adopted multiples races of children? Then you are very rare, considering most people only know a couple of people who have adopted. You must be, like, magical or something.

has no intelligence, emotion, or care as to what happens to it.



Because after "conception" the cells begin dividing and a unique genetic code is formed that will grow into a human being. A sperm alone will never spawn a child. Same with an egg.

Mind and thought are not the only signs of life, where do you go when you sleep? Are you concious? What about people who are comatose of knocked out? Are they all dead thus we should just go out and bury them? Of course not. They have a unique genetic code and they have dividing cells.


:) I expected this. The law doesn't defend plants nor bacteria. So its too bad for them. The law does defend humans. You can all stop trying to pidgeonholing me into a religious person, cause im not. I read the law and I interpret it. (Law major)


You were also a 1 year old once, do you remember anything there? I guess we can safely kill all 1 year olds too. And you were asleep in various parts in your life, do you remember that? I guess all sleeping folks are fair game.


You may draw the line of life at "sentience" but I draw it at cell division+unique genetic code. Can you really call a newborn baby fresh out fo the womb sentient? Is it aware of itself? What about when you were 1? Do you remember any of that? Would it be fine if I went around killing newborns and 1 year olds because they aren't to the level of "sentience"?


I ignored your post *how*?
I agree with your first assertion that life desires to keep living. I don't debate that.
I disagree with the idea that sentience conciousness is the only measure of life because of reasons outlined.
I killed your point about your parents never meeting, vasectomy, ect because that all doesn't happen after a zygote is formed and dividing.
You came again with the same point as the vasectomy with unprotected sex. Also killed by the same point.

You then said that human life has no inherent value but human conciousness does. I countered with the fact people go through stages of conciousness every day in their life.

You then went on to say say that you didn't believe any life has inherent value, I don't disagree with you, I already said I care what the law states which happens to be that killing humans is against the law.

I addressed every single one of your points.


Because I gave you more credit than to expect I had to spell out the entire pregnancy process for you. My mistake.

I said it already. Life begins with a unique genetic code and cell division.

Once again you resort to flaming because your incapable of debating on points.

Once again, you are not "brain dead" when you are asleep or comatose or knocked out. You just switch his/her meaning of "unconscious".
And no, unique genetic code an cell division cannot possibly define a human life (even assuming that the DNA is human). A potential to become a human, perhaps. But two cells stuck together? You would call that a human being? You would call the destruction of those two cells, stuck together, floating (not attached) through the fallopian tubes murder?

Wait a tick, you might have a point! Oh, wait, no, sorry. Cell division begins immediately. By the time it attaches it's a small clump of cells. Really tough luck.

yeah...the cells have actually divided quite a bit by the time the "baby" implants in the uterus.

from my textbook:

Embryo Development- At about 36 hours after fertilization, the fertilized egg divides to form two cells, at 60 hours, the two cells divide to form four cells. At three days, the four cells divide to form eight. This ball of cells is called a blastocyst. By about 5 days after fert. it consists of some 120 cells. 6 days after fert. the ball reaches the uturus and penetrates the endometrial tissues-called implantation. It becomes surrounded by ruptured blood vessels and the nutrient-filled blood escaping from them.

also, if cellular division is the criterion for "life" then a tumor is more alive than the average cell in the human body, while the majority of the human nervous system is not alive at all.

and ALSO, if human "life" begins when the cells begin to divide, then about half of the "humans" on planet Earth die before they become large enough to be seen with the naked eye...between a third and one half of conceptions do not result in a successful pregnancy, even when you EXCLUDE abortive procedures. the female body weeds out about half of the embryos that are fertilized, for a variety of reasons, so all those little "people" are being "murdered" by their "mothers"! WHAT A HOLOCAUST!!

It must be accepted that sex leads to pregnency and there is no such thing as safe sex.
castration

<snip>
And yes, I firmly believe in an eye for an eye. If it were mad illegal and if it were made the taboo that it SHOULD be, then not even a fraction of those abortions would happen. Murder, is murder, no matter how old or young the victim and should be handled as prescribed by law. Murder of a child is a capitol offence. <snip>

We're not talking about age here. We're talking about whether or not the fetus is alive as a human being. Would you be against burying a dead person (died of old age), because everyone should have the same rights, even if they're really old? If a fetus or embryo in the stages of development where abortion is legal were to magically appear outside of the mother, they would be declared dead. Not because the blood flow from the umbilical cord stopped, or the baby drowned or suffocated or anything that was caused because of the removal. In its state, in the womb, it is not "alive", in the sense that is the opposite of "dead". It has no brain function, because it has no brain, that's not a big assumption to make. Humans without brains are dead. That's a general rule I've found works pretty well. If a fetus in the first trimester has the same rights as a fully grown human being, so should someone who only died a few minutes ago. Their cells are still dividing. Hell, your hair and nails keep growing for quite a while (a month or so? I really don't know) after you die. So pick a definition and stick to it. Please. And also please resist the urge to flame. I say this to BOTH sides.

Oh, and PREEBLES, btw, an infant is totally dependant on it's mother or caretaker for its survival. Why not abort that lil parasite, too? Right? That was your definition, wholely dependant on it's mother for its survival.
You'd also die if you were removed from all of society. No job, no stores, no supplies. Oh, and no fertile soil, either, don't want to give you a loophole.

The right to live is "Crap" is it? Then you wont mind having your parents killed right now will you. Because they didnt have a right to live obvioulsy...

Seriously, this thread was turning up. Please read the entirety of others' posts... sorry, that's not enough, pay attention to others' posts before you flame them and post disturbing images such as this.
The argument was that, in pro-life heaven, unborn fetuses would have a right that no born person has: the right to take the tissues of another human being without their consent. Right to live? What about the people on welfare? What about the poor people around the world? Do they not have a right to live? It looks to me (and I may be wrong) that some people here are only interested in the lives of things that are cute, or may in the future become cute. Or, they're really, really racist and only care about lives in their own respective countries. To put the rights of a clump of cells over the rights of grown woman I find incomprehensible. What priorities!

It must be accepted that sex leads to pregnency and there is no such thing as safe sex.

I would argue to any hardcore Christians out there that, according to the Bible, abstinence isn't 100% either ;-)

please explain to me
when a women consents to have sex, she knows she can get pregneant, contraceptives or not. she is thus creating a life and attaching that life to herself (your logic that its a living human). this bits important SHE CREATED THE LIFE AND ATTACHED IT TO HERSELF WHEN SHE HAD SEX. how is she not responsible?
again im pro-choice but please explain the logic.

Mengel was hardly a doctor. I also simply adore your link between Jews and fetuses, it is positively stupid.

Abortion should be legalized and government regulated. I am pro-Abortion for one simple reason, the safety of women.

Consider the following:
Abortion is made illegal, all abortion clinics that use humane and safe methods are closed. The woman still wants an abortion, what is going to stop her from going to the Underground? Whenever you make something illegal there will be an illecit market. In this case, untrained 'surgeons' with filthy tools performing inhumane abortions and risking the life of the woman.

I said humane and safe methods for a reason, abortion methods are safe and humane. A standard abortion is performed while it is pre-fetus, ie. a zygote, a small ball of cells. These cells have the same potential and life as the bacteria you kill when you wash your hands. There is no central nervous system, it is a bunch of cells. The zygote is destroyed by placing a saline solution into the womb. This kills the zygote and poses minimal risk to the woman.

The methods commonly shown by the right wing media are unorthodox abortions, carried out by those 'abortion doctors' who don't have the proper tools and knowledge, these are what we should be trying to prevent, by legalizing and regulating abortion clinics.

As for the zygote having potential to be human and become something good, it also has the potential to become the next Hitler, or the next Stalin. It also has the potential to die in the womb, or be afflicted by a mortal disease in enfancy. One cannot be sure, so its potential should be regarded as non-existant, there are positives and negatives that balance it out to it being zero. The potential of its life is not an argument. The mother's life is fact, the zygotes is speculation; in a rational wor'd, there is no such thing as "well what if".

Abortion should be legalized and government regulated.
I HAVE SOME GOOD NEWS FOR YOU.....

it also has the potential to become the next Hitler, or the next Stalin.
so do you, should i abort you?

please explain to me
when a women consents to have sex, she knows she can get pregneant, contraceptives or not. she is thus creating a life and attaching that life to herself (your logic that its a living human). this bits important SHE CREATED THE LIFE AND ATTACHED IT TO HERSELF WHEN SHE HAD SEX. how is she not responsible?
again im pro-choice but please explain the logic.
first of all, the female didn't create the life...it takes two to tango. second, yes, any female who has sex probably does so knowing that she may get pregnant. so? just because she gets pregnant doesn't mean she has to stay pregnant. choosing to have an abortion is one way she can take responsibility for her situation. you may not LIKE that choice, but that doesn't mean she isn't taking responsibility. in my opinion, choosing to abort an unplanned pregnancy is the most responsible thing a woman could possibly do, and carrying to term with the intent to give the baby up for adoption is the most irresponsible thing...see how it's all subjective?

so do you, should i abort you?
i think the point was that potentiality is not a valid standard for determining actuality. claiming we shouldn't abort a fetus because it might be the next Einstein is as stupid as claiming we should abort it because it might be the next Hitler...we don't know, and we shouldn't care.