NationStates Jolt Archive

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?
While I agree and disagree at various points how is carying it to term for adoption the MOST irresponsible thing?

I can think of plenty of things that are more irresponsible then that :p

Abortion may be wrong and immoral—and I don't agree with its use except when one will threaten the life of the mother or in cases of rape—but people have the choice whether or not they want to get rid of some cells that might grow into a baby. As certain people have pointed out, abortion does not kill a conscious being like you and me. It kills something that as yet has no consciousness. True, an abortion that takes place after the first two or so months will be murdering a baby, but such abortions are illegal anyway. I don't see what all the fuss is about. Would you insist on keeping rotten eggs in your refridgerator if they had the "potential" to make a great scrambled egg? I think not.

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.

What if she was raped? What if the condom snapped?
Are you willing to sacrifice 18 years of your life right now?
When abortion happens the "child" has not even developed a brain,
without a brain you are not a human being but a lumb of meat.

You don't call eggs; chickens, now do you?

i'm shocked! how can you compare a genocide with abortion? feotuses are not a people. This is a difficult debate and it's hard to be totally FOR the abortion but please don't say such foolish remarks. :headbang:

While I agree and disagree at various points how is carying it to term for adoption the MOST irresponsible thing?

I can think of plenty of things that are more irresponsible then that :p
well, aside from choosing to carry the fetus but deliberately poisoning it by using drugs etc...i was assuming we were looking at the three standard "rational" choices, those being abortion, carrying to term and keeping the baby, and carrying to term and putting the baby up for adoption. sorry for not being clear enough :).

even though no sex is 100% safe.

Sweety, aren't you forgetting oral and anal sex, mutual mastrubation, sex between two men or two women, or with the guy's nuts cut off or the woman's jigglies removed? ;)

Sweety, aren't you forgetting oral and anal sex, mutual mastrubation, sex between two men or two women, or with the guy's nuts cut off or the woman's jigglies removed? ;)
Well - dunno about the latter parts ( :eek: ), but in my experience penetrative sex is much more intimate and loving (not that the other oral etc is bad, of course). I still don't want to spawn brats, but I do want that intimacy, and don't really give a damn if it's selfish, or insensitive towards some ball of cells ;)

Sweety, aren't you forgetting oral and anal sex, mutual mastrubation, sex between two men or two women, or with the guy's nuts cut off or the woman's jigglies removed? ;)
all of which can still communicate STDs. granted, the risks are lower in many cases, but none of them hit the perfect 100% mark. hell, two virgins smooching can probably pass some kind of pathogen once in a trillion years :P.

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?

I would think having sex is the concent enough. Its not like the fetus chooses to exist either.


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!

Of course they care about peoples right to live, but this particular group cant defend themselves (The unborn) and so thats why people launch to their defence more


To put the rights of a clump of cells over the rights of grown woman I find incomprehensible. What priorities?

Well its rearly a question of whose rights are being infringed on more. The featus, its right to live, the women, her right to a unhastled and childless life for the moment.

Its not like the fetus chooses to exist either.

Indeed, considering that it has no brain and thus can't choose anything at all. And you mean embryo if you are talking about most elective abortions.

Of course they care about peoples right to live, but this particular group cant defend themselves (The unborn) and so thats why people launch to their defence more

Well its rearly a question of whose rights are being infringed on more. The featus, its right to live, the women, her right to a unhastled and childless life for the moment.

Here is the problem: that is all based on your religious idea that an embryo is a human being. Other people disagree. Since it is all based in subjectivism instead of evidence, there is no way to legislate it without the govt. saying "This religion is the right one!"

Be content in your knowledge that an embryo is a human being. Convince anyone you can of your viewpoint - but don't force it upon them any more than you would attempt to force someone into your church every Sunday.

Here is the problem: that is all based on your religious idea that an embryo is a human being. Other people disagree. Since it is all based in subjectivism instead of evidence, there is no way to legislate it without the govt. saying "This religion is the right one!"

Be content in your knowledge that an embryo is a human being. Convince anyone you can of your viewpoint - but don't force it upon them any more than you would attempt to force someone into your church every Sunday.

Its not a religious idea specfificly to me. There is a philosophical logic too which is not specific to religion. Think about this, we know that as humans, we have a quality which puts us above animals. I wont say its a soul because its not certian that it is but we can be sure there is one. The problem is we dont know how to scientificly analyise it, nor do we know how to quantify it exactly. Therefore we are uncertian as to when we aquire it in the stages of development. There are various opinion's (brain development, heart developmet, conception etc) but frankly we do not know. So because of that, it would seem better not to allow a human life to be killed except where there is a serious medical risk to the mother.

Its not a religious idea specfificly to me. There is a philosophical logic too which is not specific to religion. Think about this, we know that as humans, we have a quality which puts us above animals. I wont say its a soul because its not certian that it is but we can be sure there is one. The problem is we dont know how to scientificly analyise it, nor do we know how to quantify it exactly. Therefore we are uncertian as to when we aquire it in the stages of development. There are various opinion's (brain development, heart developmet, conception etc) but frankly we do not know. So because of that, it would seem better not to allow a human life to be killed except where there is a serious medical risk to the mother.

Philosophy = subjective and thus not applicable.

Meanwhile, there is a huge flaw in your logic here. You say that, at some point in development, we get this "soul" that makes us human (something which apparently cannot be tested for and thus is simply subjective belief anyways), but that we don't know when it gets there.

You then state that we should not allow a human life to be disposed of. Of course, your first point was that we don't know if it is a human life.

Again, this is all subjective and you cannot tell me that your idea of a soul does not come from religion. In truth, we do not know that we have any quality that puts us above humans - that is a purely subjective religious and philosophical belief.

all of which can still communicate STDs. granted, the risks are lower in many cases, but none of them hit the perfect 100% mark. hell, two virgins smooching can probably pass some kind of pathogen once in a trillion years :P.

I know, but the issue was spawning worm-babies. And for that purpose, it's safe. :)

up to a certain point foetuses aren't people, they really are just a clump of cells. Take some away or put more of the same in, and you'd still end up with a viable being at the end. So i guess my stance is that abortion is ok up to a certain point in the development of the foetus.

After that, maybe unwanted babies should be given up for adoption instead, there is certainly more couples wanting to adopt babies than babies available

Commando3']<really long argument listing all the pro-life perspectives>

Check up on some of these facts. For example, fetuses do not have consciousness until the second trimester (3 months into pregnancy). Can a human without consciousness be considered a living being deserving all human rights? Should dead people be afforded the same human rights as non-conscious bunches of cells?

Considering that pre-neural embryos have no consciousness, they are just a lot of cells, which are inside a woman's body. Therefore, up to the second trimester, the fetus is part of the woman's body and she can choose whether she wants to get rid of it or not.

And if you outlaw abortion, only outlaws will have abortions. Picture this: "surgeons" eager to make money will agree to perform abortions for outrageous sums of money. Desperate mothers will agree to it. The procedure would have to be secret, unsafe, and probably would kill the mother or land her in jail, while outlaws would deposit thousands of dollars into their bank accounts. And on top of all that, the unborn children will still get killed. Doesn't exactly solve the problem, does it?

Sorry if I repeated anything. I haven't read this whole post.

Check up on some of these facts. For example, fetuses do not have consciousness until the second trimester (3 months into pregnancy). Can a human without consciousness be considered a living being deserving all human rights? Should dead people be afforded the same human rights as non-conscious bunches of cells?

Considering that pre-neural embryos have no consciousness, they are just a lot of cells, which are inside a woman's body. Therefore, up to the second trimester, the fetus is part of the woman's body and she can choose whether she wants to get rid of it or not.

There is a rather big diffrence between dead people and embryos. Dead people are not developing, not changing, not forming themselves into fully fledged humans. They are humans, but not fully developed


And if you outlaw abortion, only outlaws will have abortions. Picture this: "surgeons" eager to make money will agree to perform abortions for outrageous sums of money. Desperate mothers will agree to it. The procedure would have to be secret, unsafe, and probably would kill the mother or land her in jail, while outlaws would deposit thousands of dollars into their bank accounts. And on top of all that, the unborn children will still get killed. Doesn't exactly solve the problem, does it?

By that logic we should leagalise all illegal drugs and allow everyone to carry knives and let everyone have samples of smallpox on demand. The reason being that if you outlaw X then only outlaws will have/do X.

What if she was raped? What if the condom snapped?
Are you willing to sacrifice 18 years of your life right now?
When abortion happens the "child" has not even developed a brain,
without a brain you are not a human being but a lumb of meat.

You don't call eggs; chickens, now do you?
did you even bother to read the entire post or is that just your one answer fits all argument for abortion. if you notice, im PRO-CHOICE. hes making the point that its alright to terminate a fetus whether or not its considered alive by any standards because a woman shouldnt have to unwillingly donate her flesh, effort, time, food etc.
1. what if the condom snapped? well thats the risk you take when you agree to have sex, like i said earlier contraception or not thats her choice to have sex
2. am i willing to sacrifice 18 years of my life? maybe i shouldnt have had sex and even risked getting pregneant?
3. if you notice i made the exact same lack of brain argument earlier
4. talking about her getting raped is pointless. im talking about the specific situation of his mother being allowed to choose to abort him after having consented to sex. (i only do this because he used his mother as an example)

2 to tango argument is pointless, i have no idea why that would be brought up. we all know it takes 2 people to make a baby (cloning.....?). my point is that by having sex your mom knows shes creating a baby and if she didnt want to create a human life and attach it to herself, she didnt have to have sex with your dad. The flaw in your argument, as i see it, that your mom should be allowed to abort the fetus any time she wants whether or not the fetus is a living human being. if she wants to avoid giving up her time, flesh, effort, food, etc. why doesnt she just not have sex?

we have a quality which puts us above animals.The problem is we dont know how to scientificly analyise it, nor do we know how to quantify it exactly. Therefore we are uncertian as to when we aquire it in the stages of development. There are various opinion's (brain development, heart developmet, conception etc) but frankly we do not know.
think hard about which organ you think with..... oh wait its the one your thinking with... the brain! an embryo (not a fetus) is a brainless ball of cells. it is physically impossible for it to have the consciousness (thank you dictionary.com) that you and i possess. it therefore does not have a quality which puts us above animals. think about it, what organ in your body puts you above the animals if not the brain? its not the heart or the leg or even the spinal chord. its undeniably (to me anyway) the brain. so unless your religion tells you that the embryo is alive (in which case your argument is subjective and has no legal value) then its not murder. if you dont have a brain your "brain dead" (no consciousness, thoughts, feelings, etc. at all or ever again) and are considered by no one (i hope) to be "alive." in the same logic, an embryo is not "alive"

Sweety, aren't you forgetting oral and anal sex, mutual mastrubation, sex between two men or two women, or with the guy's nuts cut off or the woman's jigglies removed? ;)
lets try to digress a little more, shall we?

did you even bother to read the entire post or is that just your one answer fits all argument for abortion. if you notice, im PRO-CHOICE. hes making the point that its alright to terminate a fetus whether or not its considered alive by any standards because a woman shouldnt have to unwillingly donate her flesh, effort, time, food etc.
1. what if the condom snapped? well thats the risk you take when you agree to have sex, like i said earlier contraception or not thats her choice to have sex
2. am i willing to sacrifice 18 years of my life? maybe i shouldnt have had sex and even risked getting pregneant?
3. if you notice i made the exact same lack of brain argument earlier
4. talking about her getting raped is pointless. im talking about the specific situation of his mother being allowed to choose to abort him after having consented to sex. (i only do this because he used his mother as an example)

2 to tango argument is pointless, i have no idea why that would be brought up. we all know it takes 2 people to make a baby (cloning.....?). my point is that by having sex your mom knows shes creating a baby and if she didnt want to create a human life and attach it to herself, she didnt have to have sex with your dad. The flaw in your argument, as i see it, that your mom should be allowed to abort the fetus any time she wants whether or not the fetus is a living human being. if she wants to avoid giving up her time, flesh, effort, food, etc. why doesnt she just not have sex?

So, your entire moral argument is that every time a woman has sex she is thereby agreeing to give birth to a child -- regardless of what precautions she chooses?

Why? Why does that follow?

Why should women be deprived of sex -- a human good -- unless they agree in advance to be a walking womb?

If a man invites a woman into his home and she has a seizure and cannot be moved without endangering her, is he morally obligated to feed and care for her for nine months until she recovers?

If such a hypothetical is even remotely possible, do all of us make such an agreement any time we invite someone to our residence?

(Feel free to identify loopholes, etc. in the hypothetical. I can make it nine pages long and airtight if necessary. Avoiding the question doesn't answer it.)

So, your entire moral argument is that every time a woman has sex she is thereby agreeing to give birth to a child -- regardless of what precautions she chooses?

Why? Why does that follow?

Why should women be deprived of sex -- a human good -- unless they agree in advance to be a walking womb?


Its quite simple. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Now that doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyable and that it cant be had for the single purpose of pleasure though, but there is no 100% effective contriception (abstinace is not contreception). So when having sex any women must be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant. Sex is not a "Human good" as you describe it, which everyone has a right to do without consequences.

Its quite simple. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Now that doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyable and that it cant be had for the single purpose of pleasure though, but there is no 100% effective contriception (abstinace is not contreception). So when having sex any women must be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant. Sex is not a "Human good" as you describe it, which everyone has a right to do without consequences.

Neither true nor generally accepted. Simply saying these things do not make them so.

Sex both in nature and in human society serves many ends beyond procreation.

Sex is a human good. Why shouldn't every adult have a right to do it without consequences?

Nice try at avoiding the hypothetical.

Neither true nor generally accepted. Simply saying these things do not make them so.

Erm, yes they are. Sex in its working pure form does two things. Provide pleasure for two people and is the process by which humans procreate.


Sex both in nature and in human society serves many ends beyond procreation.

Rearly, such as?


Sex is a human good. Why shouldn't every adult have a right to do it without consequences?

Nice try at avoiding the hypothetical.

Kindly define this "human good" idea of yours. I'm not saying humans dont have the right to have sex without consequences. They can do that when there is a 100% effective contriception. However contreception is not 100% effective and so a women is still morally bound that when she has sex, she must accept the possibility of a child. Of course that does not apply in the situation of rape, in that situation the child should be given up for adoption and not just killed.

Its not a religious idea specfificly to me. There is a philosophical logic too which is not specific to religion. Think about this, we know that as humans, we have a quality which puts us above animals. I wont say its a soul because its not certian that it is but we can be sure there is one. The problem is we dont know how to scientificly analyise it, nor do we know how to quantify it exactly. Therefore we are uncertian as to when we aquire it in the stages of development. There are various opinion's (brain development, heart developmet, conception etc) but frankly we do not know. So because of that, it would seem better not to allow a human life to be killed except where there is a serious medical risk to the mother.

We assume that there is something that puts us above animals. Hell, any group, if allowed to develop as a group long enough, will decide that they are superior to all of the other groups. It is my personal opinion that we have superior intelligence to animals, but it is impossible to prove, because theoretically they could be working on some level of intelligence that we can't comprehend.

However contreception is not 100% effective and so a women is still morally bound that when she has sex, she must accept the possibility of a child. Of course that does not apply in the situation of rape, in that situation the child should be given up for adoption and not just killed.But morality is a relative concept. I do not feel morally bound to give birth just because I happen to be expressing love to another human being (and, yes, I know; sex for many people is not necessarily about love. For me, it is, but not for others. Therefore giving weight to the theory about moral relativism). You may feel that sex, resulting in pregnancy, is a morally binding thing, but not everyone has to think that.

As for cases of rape leading to adoption, I think it would be terrible for a woman to go through nine potentially horrible months, go through potentially several hours of agony, only to have a screaming thing, when (a) she did not even consent to the process giving rise to the said thing, and (b) she probably did not want the said thing in the first place.

Furthermore, think of the child - say, twenty years later it's found out it's adopted, and wishes to find its birth mother. That's a painful enough process as it is (I watched a friend torture herself attempting to find her birth mother, only to be further upset when she actually did meet her), but imagine when the child asks why it was given up for adoption, and the mother tells it, "you were a rape baby". Christ, I know I'd rather not have been born (especially given my lack of conciousness at the time in question) than find that out. Of course, I mean no harm to people in the situation, but I can only imagine it must be a terrible thing.

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?

... i know your not being this trivial.. there is a difference between NEED and WANT!!!..t hese women WANT abortions but dont NEED THEM... look at the statistics surrounding abortions.. people who are pro-choice always bring up the case rape, health of mother etc... these cases are the extreme minority accoutnig for less then 5% of all abortions annually... Statistics show over 95% of abortions are abortions of convience .. nothing more! In essence all of these abortions are NEEDLESS, because it wasn' ta necessity to have them! Allowing such wide scale abortion to continue under the guise that we are protecting those women who are raped, victims of incest, or their health is in danger is a misrepresentation of reality and is comparible to allowing murder for those people who need to defend themselves from assilents.

Kindly define this "human good" idea of yours. I'm not saying humans dont have the right to have sex without consequences. They can do that when there is a 100% effective contriception. However contreception is not 100% effective and so a women is still morally bound that when she has sex, she must accept the possibility of a child. Of course that does not apply in the situation of rape, in that situation the child should be given up for adoption and not just killed.

Meh. I see no reason to justify my statements or answer your questions when you do not justify your statements or answer my questions.

I note that you tried to switch from saying "primary purpose of sex is procreation" to saying "sex in its working pure form does two things. Provide pleasure for two people and is the process by which humans procreate." Nice try.

If one of the primary purposes of sex is pleasure, then sex can be a human good in and of itself.

Nonetheless, sex serves a variety of functions in both nature and human society. Sex helps pair bonding and group bonding. Sex is used to decrease tension and prevent fights. If sex were primarily for procreation, it is ridiculously inefficient in most species -- particularly humans.

You have yet to explain how or why "a women is still morally bound that when she has sex" she must agree to carry a child to birth.

Your solution for rape is bizarre as you lose even your single argument why a woman is "morally bound" but still require her to have the child.

(Of course, this all assumes the embryo, zygote, fetus has rights -- which it does not.)

... i know your not being this trivial.. there is a difference between NEED and WANT!!!..t hese women WANT abortions but dont NEED THEM... look at the statistics surrounding abortions.. people who are pro-choice always bring up the case rape, health of mother etc... these cases are the extreme minority accoutnig for less then 5% of all abortions annually... Statistics show over 95% of abortions are abortions of convience .. nothing more! In essence all of these abortions are NEEDLESS, because it wasn' ta necessity to have them! Allowing such wide scale abortion to continue under the guise that we are protecting those women who are raped, victims of incest, or their health is in danger is a misrepresentation of reality and is comparible to allowing murder for those people who need to defend themselves from assilents.

Define "convenience" and "need" if you are going to assume those words have moral weight.

And provide a source if you are going to throw around statistics.

But morality is a relative concept. I do not feel morally bound to give birth just because I happen to be expressing love to another human being (and, yes, I know; sex for many people is not necessarily about love. For me, it is, but not for others. Therefore giving weight to the theory about moral relativism). You may feel that sex, resulting in pregnancy, is a morally binding thing, but not everyone has to think that.

Its not reletive dear, its a fact

There is no 100% effective contriception. (Abstinance is not contriception, nor is sterilisation)

Sex is at its most basic a procreation method. It is indeed also way of expressing love but that doesnt mean it is without consecquences.

Ergo if you have sex you are going to produce another life. You cannot claim that it is reletive to believe that sex will produce another life. A gave concent when she had sex. She knew there was a chance she could get pregnant, that means she must accept responsablity.

This is why sex outside of marriage is such a bad thing. To have sex with somone essentially means you acept the possiblity that you would raise a child with this person. Obviously if you use contreception you are willing to accept a lower possibilty but a posibilty just the same. If you are married then you know that you can trust and rely on that person and that if you had children with them they would not just run off and leave you.


As for cases of rape leading to adoption, I think it would be terrible for a woman to go through nine potentially horrible months, go through potentially several hours of agony, only to have a screaming thing, when (a) she did not even consent to the process giving rise to the said thing, and (b) she probably did not want the said thing in the first place.

Furthermore, think of the child - say, twenty years later it's found out it's adopted, and wishes to find its birth mother. That's a painful enough process as it is (I watched a friend torture herself attempting to find her birth mother, only to be further upset when she actually did meet her), but imagine when the child asks why it was given up for adoption, and the mother tells it, "you were a rape baby". Christ, I know I'd rather not have been born (especially given my lack of conciousness at the time in question) than find that out. Of course, I mean no harm to people in the situation, but I can only imagine it must be a terrible thing.

Would you rather have never lived at all than have that happen to you. Just think long and hard because not having lived at all means a lot of things.

Just a note to remind you pro-life folks that not all Christian churches support your efforts to ban abortions.

Take the United Church of Canada, for instance. While they agree that abortion is distasteful and the incidence of it should be reduced if possible, they support the right of women to choose abortion.

In fact, they have resolved to lobby the Canadian government to ensure that safe abortion facilities exist in every province.

How can a Christian church be pro-choice?

Please read: http://www.united-church.ca/policies/1990/a111.shtm

I note that you tried to switch from saying "primary purpose of sex is procreation" to saying "sex in its working pure form does two things. Provide pleasure for two people and is the process by which humans procreate." Nice try.

If one of the primary purposes of sex is pleasure, then sex can be a human good in and of itself.

I dont deny that sex can serve pleasure as a purpose unto itself, but that does not mean that a woman is not morally bound from the possibility of a child. Sex for pleasure only does not mean that pleasure is the only result.


Nonetheless, sex serves a variety of functions in both nature and human society. Sex helps pair bonding and group bonding. Sex is used to decrease tension and prevent fights. If sex were primarily for procreation, it is ridiculously inefficient in most species -- particularly humans.

I fail to see how sex can prevent fights

I fail to see how sex can prevent tension or assist "group bonding". Are you suggesting that if I slept with all my girl mates that our group of friends would somehow be strengthened?


You have yet to explain how or why "a women is still morally bound that when she has sex" she must agree to carry a child to birth.

Its simple. When a women has sex there is a possibility she will become pregnant. She is aware of that posibility as that is the ultimate result of sex. She can lower this by either using contreception herself or geting her partner to. However by having sex, there is still a posibility of them concieving. She is aware of this. She therefore accpts the risk by having sex. To make an analogy, You are about to buy £100 worth of shares. You know that those shares could go up or down in value. You must accept responablity for either direction as its your decision to buy them or not. The woman is the buyer, sex is the act of buying. The woman has to accept if she concents to sex that there is a possiblity she will be pregnant. Thats what sex does. She is not entitled to kill the fetus as it would be allive and she accpeted the posibility of its existance when she had sex.


(Of course, this all assumes the embryo, zygote, fetus has rights -- which it does not.)

Why not?

Killing a child before it is even capable of thinking is not wrong. You are in effect, not really killing anything. Only flesh dies.

If the arguement is that you are killing something with the POTENTIAL to live, then is killing a zygote wrong? Does the fertilized egg cell have a soul? Personally, I don't think so, or maybe it just zooms right in there right after fertilization.
The arguement against the usage of condoms has a similar source, the fact that you are preventing something from being created. In fact, every bloody second you spend NOT having sex is a preventing a life from being born, but we all can't go around impregnating people all the time. You can't destroy something that doesn't exist.

Define "convenience" and "need" if you are going to assume those words have moral weight.

And provide a source if you are going to throw around statistics.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Here I define need as utmost necessity or a life or death choice...

Convenience ... :Personal comfort or advantage: Something that increases comfort or saves work:

Only the Last choice can arguablly meet the requirement for need.. and if you really try hard maybe you can fit incest and rape in that condition only for the EXTREME mental stress it places on the mother (even then its debateable)

The arguement against the usage of condoms has a similar source, the fact that you are preventing something from being created. In fact, every bloody second you spend NOT having sex is a preventing a life from being born, but we all can't go around impregnating people all the time. You can't destroy something that doesn't exist


Bad logic. When a human life is conceved something already HAS been created. You are then destroying that with an abortion. That concieved human is in the process of developing into a full human. In other words there is something there that is trying to become alive. You stopping it is killing it

Just a note to remind you pro-life folks that not all Christian churches support your efforts to ban abortions.

Take the United Church of Canada, for instance. While they agree that abortion is distasteful and the incidence of it should be reduced if possible, they support the right of women to choose abortion.

In fact, they have resolved to lobby the Canadian government to ensure that safe abortion facilities exist in every province.

How can a Christian church be pro-choice?

Please read: http://www.united-church.ca/policies/1990/a111.shtm

.... THis is foolishness.. and I find it hard they call themselves people of god when the 10 commandments state it so clearly thou shall not kill...and that man is created with a soul ... even before the act of birth .

and this qoute is particularly confusing:
WHEREAS we are called as a people of God to take responsibility for our lives and the world in which we live and this may involve making grave decisions relating even to life itself; and

in one case you can argue by allowing abortion your promoting people to NOT take responsiblity for their lives ... on another one might argue this states we as a people have no right to interfere on "precieved rights of others free choice" but then I wonder if this church allows homicide in general as it is not much different where one person is acting on his/her free will to take a life. This entie article in no way states what the condition of a fetus is (person ? batch of lifeless cells ? ) So how can this suffiencently frame the debate ? or give proper knowledge of what their stance is

Its not reletive dear, its a fact

There is no 100% effective contriception. (Abstinance is not contriception, nor is sterilisation).I said morality was relative, rather than contraception. Do you believe in universal morality, then? Should we in the West live by Middle Eastern morals, or they by ours? Who decides which particular version of morality is correct?

Ergo if you have sex you are going to produce another life. You cannot claim that it is reletive to believe that sex will produce another life. A gave concent when she had sex. She knew there was a chance she could get pregnant, that means she must accept responsablity.I do not give consent to a usurper sponging off me when I have sex. I use two methods of contraception (pill + condoms), indicating that I do not wish to become pregnant. I can't control how my internal reproductive organs actually respond to sex, so if they choose to become pregnant after my best intentions to prevent it, then all I can do is to choose to do something about it from that point. If you consider it to be a life, that is up to you and I have no problem with that. But I do not consider it to be a life in true, human form. Certainly, an embryo or foetus is alive in some shape or form, but it lacks sentience. I know that is a huge big part of the pro-/anti-abortion argument, but that's how it is in my view, and there is little, if any, evidence, to contradict it. It really comes down to a matter of personal viewpoint, rather than evidence (to be fair, on either side, as far as I can tell).

This is why sex outside of marriage is such a bad thing. To have sex with somone essentially means you acept the possiblity that you would raise a child with this person. Obviously if you use contreception you are willing to accept a lower possibilty but a posibilty just the same. If you are married then you know that you can trust and rely on that person and that if you had children with them they would not just run off and leave you.Fair enough, but what about married couples who don't want children? Although we are not married, my partner and I probably will get married eventually. Neither of us want children, nor have we ever done so. The only source that I am aware of that really believes that all couples must have children is the Bible, and I don't believe in it.

Would you rather have never lived at all than have that happen to you. Just think long and hard because not having lived at all means a lot of things.Yes, I genuinely think I would rather not have been born. To know that my poor mother would have been put through such torture in the first place, only to be accentuated by my existence, is one of the most horrid mental blows I can think of.

Its quite simple. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Now that doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyable and that it cant be had for the single purpose of pleasure though, but there is no 100% effective contriception (abstinace is not contreception). So when having sex any women must be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant. Sex is not a "Human good" as you describe it, which everyone has a right to do without consequences.

INCORRECT!!! Abstinance IS contreception as defined

Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

Sexual practices or lack there of for intentional prevention of impregnation jus about defines Abstinance word for word!

I do not give consent to a usurper sponging off me when I have sex. I use two methods of contraception (pill + condoms), indicating that I do not wish to become pregnant. I can't control my actual bodily functions, so if they choose to become pregnant after my best intentions to prevent it, then I can choose to do something about it. If you consider it to be a life, that is up to you and I have no problem with that. But I do not consider it to be a life in true, human form. Certainly, an embryo or foetus is alive in some shape or form, but it lacks sentience. I know that is a huge big part of the pro-/anti-abortion argument, but that's how it is in my view, and there is little, if any, evidence, to contradict it. It really comes down to a matter of personal viewpoint, rather than evidence (to be fair, on either side, as far as I can tell).

Contreception is not 100% effective. It never is. If you dont want a child then either get steriliesd (Which is 100% effective) or dont have sex. You cant say "I used protection thereby eliviating me of responsablity" as protection is not 100% effective.

Your own viewpoint on an issue does not change whether it is or is not alive. Now I am not saying that a fetus is alive with that statement, my point was that morallity is not reletive to the point that not believeing something to be murder makes it not murder. Thats only a step away from "I beleive X race not to be human, ergo killing them is not murder"


Fair enough, but what about married couples who don't want children? Although we are not married, my partner and I probably will get married eventually. Neither of us want children, nor have we ever done so. The only source that I am aware of that really believes that all couples must have children is the Bible, and I don't believe in it.

Then one of the two of you can be surgically sterilised. Which is a 100% effective birth control method.


Yes, I genuinely think I would rather not have been born. To know that my poor mother would have been put through such torture in the first place, only to be accentuated by my existence, is one of the most horrid mental blows I can think of.

Yes but you see, if you hadn't been born you wouldnt have had the forsegight to make that judgement. You wouldnt have any judgement or any knowledge at all for that matter.

I dont deny that sex can serve pleasure as a purpose unto itself, but that does not mean that a woman is not morally bound from the possibility of a child. Sex for pleasure only does not mean that pleasure is the only result.

I fail to see how sex can prevent fights

I fail to see how sex can prevent tension or assist "group bonding". Are you suggesting that if I slept with all my girl mates that our group of friends would somehow be strengthened?

Being deliberately obtuse is unamusing. We were discussing sex in both nature and in human society. Sex serves a variety of functions among animals and among humans.


Its simple. When a women has sex there is a possibility she will become pregnant. She is aware of that posibility as that is the ultimate result of sex. She can lower this by either using contreception herself or geting her partner to. However by having sex, there is still a posibility of them concieving. She is aware of this. She therefore accpts the risk by having sex. To make an analogy, You are about to buy £100 worth of shares. You know that those shares could go up or down in value. You must accept responablity for either direction as its your decision to buy them or not. The woman is the buyer, sex is the act of buying. The woman has to accept if she concents to sex that there is a possiblity she will be pregnant. Thats what sex does. She is not entitled to kill the fetus as it would be allive and she accpeted the posibility of its existance when she had sex.

Terrible analogy. And you continue to avoid answering mine.

Moreover, your argument is essentially circular.
A woman is morally bound to keep a child if she conceives.
Why?
Because she had sex.
Why does that bind her?
Because she could get pregnant.
Why does that bind her?
Because she is morally bound to keep a child if she conceives.

In your analogy, if I buy £100 worth of shares I am not morally bound to anything. I can walk away and never have another thing to do with my £100 or my shares.

Does a man by having sex agree to take care of the woman for nine months while she is pregnant and to take the child afterwards?

If a man invites a woman into his home and she has a seizure and cannot be moved without endangering her, is he morally obligated to feed and care for her for nine months until she recovers?

If such a hypothetical is even remotely possible, do all of us make such an agreement any time we invite someone to our residence?


Why not?

Asked and answered more than once in this thread.

A zygote, embryo, early-term fetus, etc., has fewer characteristics of personhood than other entities to whom we afford little or no rights -- such as chimpanzees and pigs.

What claim does a zygote have to rights? On what basis?

Merely having human DNA is not sufficient.

Merely being alive is not sufficient.

INCORRECT!!! Abstinance IS contreception as defined

Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

Sexual practices or lack there of for intentional prevention of impregnation jus about defines Abstinance word for word!

By that logic my inablity to draw means I have my own artistic style, nonart.

By that logic my refusing to play football means I play it with my own style of not doing it.

Not doing something is not a form of the thing you are not doing.

Contreception is not 100% effective. It never is. If you dont want a child then either get steriliesd (Which is 100% effective) or dont have sex. You cant say "I used protection thereby eliviating me of responsablity" as protection is not 100% effective.

Or, as Puritans don't run the world - you can seek an abortion.

Yes but you see, if you hadn't been born you wouldnt have had the forsegight to make that judgement. You wouldnt have any judgement or any knowledge at all for that matter.

And a fertilized egg, embryo, zygote, and early-term fetus has no foresight, judgment, or knowledge. So there is no problem aborting it. QED. Thanks, NC.

So, your entire moral argument is that every time a woman has sex she is thereby agreeing to give birth to a child -- regardless of what precautions she chooses?

Why? Why does that follow?

Why should women be deprived of sex -- a human good -- unless they agree in advance to be a walking womb?

If a man invites a woman into his home and she has a seizure and cannot be moved without endangering her, is he morally obligated to feed and care for her for nine months until she recovers?

If such a hypothetical is even remotely possible, do all of us make such an agreement any time we invite someone to our residence?

(Feel free to identify loopholes, etc. in the hypothetical. I can make it nine pages long and airtight if necessary. Avoiding the question doesn't answer it.)
wow that hypothetical couldnt be more inapropriate......
if a woman has sex and gets pregneant she is the only one who can feed and take care of that child so long as it is in her womb
if someone has a seizure in your house, you dont have to feed that person..... someone like the state or her family will feed her.
as i said before im pro choice. as long as she has an abortion as long as its still an embryo i have no problem

.... THis is foolishness.. and I find it hard they call themselves people of god when the 10 commandments state it so clearly thou shall not kill...and that man is created with a soul ... even before the act of birth .

The United Church of Canada is actually the second largest church in Canada. By number of members, it is second only to the Catholic church.

They have thought long and hard on a large number of social issues and recognize that there is no black and white. I understand that this may be difficult for you to comprehend.



and this qoute is particularly confusing:WHEREAS we are called as a people of God to take responsibility for our lives and the world in which we live and this may involve making grave decisions relating even to life itself; and


in one case you can argue by allowing abortion your promoting people to NOT take responsiblity for their lives ... on another one might argue this states we as a people have no right to interfere on "precieved rights of others free choice" but then I wonder if this church allows homicide in general as it is not much different where one person is acting on his/her free will to take a life. This entie article in no way states what the condition of a fetus is (person ? batch of lifeless cells ? ) So how can this suffiencently frame the debate ? or give proper knowledge of what their stance is

From the United Church's position they are declaring a responsibility for the entire life of the potential child. Unlike most other churches, they do not just require a woman who is pregnant to carry a fetus to term. Instead, they recognize that it is important that every child that is born be wanted and loved. They recognize that sometimes economic and social circumstances can force a woman to determine that it is indeed better for a child not to be born.

THAT is true responsibility.

They understand that sometimes the only choices you might have are wrong. Yes that's right. It can be as wrong to bring a child into the world as it is to ensure that a fetus never comes to term.

Its quite simple. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Now that doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyable and that it cant be had for the single purpose of pleasure though, but there is no 100% effective contriception (abstinace is not contreception). So when having sex any women must be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant. Sex is not a "Human good" as you describe it, which everyone has a right to do without consequences.
again, castration

wow that hypothetical couldnt be more inapropriate......
if a woman has sex and gets pregneant she is the only one who can feed and take care of that child so long as it is in her womb
if someone has a seizure in your house, you dont have to feed that person..... someone like the state or her family will feed her.
as i said before im pro choice. as long as she has an abortion as long as its still an embryo i have no problem

Thank you for not answering any of the questions posed.

What magic occurs at week 9 to make abortion wrong?

(Let alone why the state, rather than the woman, should decide at that point.)

Moreover, your argument is essentially circular.
A woman is morally bound to keep a child if she conceives.
Why?
Because she had sex.
Why does that bind her?
Because she could get pregnant.
Why does that bind her?
Because she is morally bound to keep a child if she conceives.


I will explain this to you in a way you can understand

TCT=The cat tribe

NC=Neo Cannen

NC:A women is bound to keep a child if she has sex and concieves

TCT:Why?

NC:Because she had sex

TCT:Why does that bind her?

NC:Because sex is essentially the creation of new life.

TCT:But what about sex for pleasure alone

NC:You can't have pleasure only sex because contreception does not eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant. Its not 100% effective. Since sex is essentially the creation of life therefore a women is bound by the act of creating life to create it if sex achieves its end. By having sex she accepted that she was willing to create life.

TCT: But contreception shows that she doesnt want to create life

NC: But contreception is not 100% effective so she should be prepared for the possibility of the creation of life.

To put it bluntly

Sex = Creation of life

Sex creates life, therefore if you have sex you concent to the creation of life, IE becoming pregnant.

*snip*NC:You can't have pleasure only sex because contreception does not eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant. Its not 100% effective. Since sex is essentially the creation of life therefore a women is bound by the act of creating life to create it if sex achieves its end. By having sex she accepted that she was willing to create life.

*snip*

To put it bluntly

Sex = Creation of life

Sex creates life, therefore if you have sex you concent to the creation of life, IE becoming pregnant.

Assuming sex = possible creation of life means consent to sex = consent to the creation of life.

Where does moral obligation to carry child to birth come in? Hmm?

Please try to put it in words I can understand.

And perhaps you'd like to answer some of the several other points I've raised and you've ignored -- in simple words for me, of course.

Assuming sex = possible creation of life means consent to sex = consent to the creation of life.

Where does moral obligation to carry child to birth come in? Hmm?


Because life should not be destroyed. If you accept that sex is essentially the creation of life then you accpet that that life should not be destroyed. And dont trot "Oh but its not alive because of X, Y and Z reason" because this point circumvents that. The point is that sex being the creation of life, you therefore accept the life you create as being a life. A life should be given certian privilages such as not being destroyed.


If a man invites a woman into his home and she has a seizure and cannot be moved without endangering her, is he morally obligated to feed and care for her for nine months until she recovers?

If such a hypothetical is even remotely possible, do all of us make such an agreement any time we invite someone to our residence?

Flaw, you do not cause the seizure. You do not make her weak and unable to leave. However you do create a life through sex and you do create it dependent on you.

The United Church of Canada is actually the second largest church in Canada. By number of members, it is second only to the Catholic church.

They have thought long and hard on a large number of social issues and recognize that there is no black and white. I understand that this may be difficult for you to comprehend.

Given this site as a source of evidence : http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_coun.htm
though I do so hate questioning countries I know little of in these matter... it seems the United Church is second to the Roman Catholic faith by a significant number accounting for only 12% of the population while 45% is Roman Catholic.. though it is in fact the second largest faith... this percentage is hardly something to boast of.. especially in one nation. The Roman Catholic faith has over a billion followers world Wide.. I fail to see the point in excaliming how large the church is. (dosn't make it more or less wrong)


From the United Church's position they are declaring a responsibility for the entire life of the potential child. Unlike most other churches, they do not just require a woman who is pregnant to carry a fetus to term. Instead, they recognize that it is important that every child that is born be wanted and loved. They recognize that sometimes economic and social circumstances can force a woman to determine that it is indeed better for a child not to be born.

THAT is true responsibility.

In addition to this would the United church of canada so advocate the killing of children AFTER they are born ? if the mother were to then realize she would not care for it poperly or suddenly becomes limited by economic means ? If not.. it seems almost hipocritical and this church then is just taking the stance that life only begins after birth which is something the bible contradicts. (of course if this church dosn't use the Christian bible that is another matter all together and my argument is moot)

May I also make the point no other religion fails to recognize this reality that children should be cared for and that economics can limit or effect the life of the child.. however they EXPECT that the mother take this into consdieration BEFORE engaging in sexual acitvities instead of defiling the life god has given AFTER the fact

Because life should not be destroyed. If you accept that sex is essentially the creation of life then you accpet that that life should not be destroyed. And dont trot "Oh but its not alive because of X, Y and Z reason" because this point circumvents that. The point is that sex being the creation of life, you therefore accept the life you create as being a life. A life should be given certian privilages such as not being destroyed.

1. Not even you really believes "life should not be destroyed." Do you eat meat? Plants?

2. sex = possibility of creating life != sex is essentially the creation of life

3. sex is essentially the creation of life != life should not be destroyed

4. sex != creation of life != accept result of sex has rights

5. life != "certain privileges such as not being destroyed"

You started with sex = possibility of life and pulled several switches in language. You still never justified sex = no right over own body or sex = right to life for product of sex.


Flaw, you do not cause the seizure. You do not make her weak and unable to leave. However you do create a life through sex and you do create it dependent on you.

Good point.

You started with sex = possibility of life and pulled several switches in language. You still never justified sex = no right over own body or sex = right to life for product of sex.


He dosn't have to justify this... because you never lose the right over your own body.. but after pregnancy becomes reality its not just your body any longer. Conjoined twins dont have the right to kill their brother/sister that is attached to them do they ? simply because they want to be free to move about with greater ease..

1. Not even you really believes "life should not be destroyed." Do you eat meat? Plants?

Human life. Thats whats above others


2. sex = possibility of creating life != sex is essentially the creation of life

Lets put this in a way you understand shall I

I throw a dice and it lands on a 5. The action of throwing that dice was the creation of that 5 facing upward's in the sense that the action had other consequences but it was that one which prevailed.


3. sex is essentially the creation of life != life should not be destroyed

Of course life should not be destroyed. Do you advocate murder?


4. sex != creation of life != accept result of sex has rights

If you throw a dice, you must be prepared for the consequences of either 1-6. You can load the dice to make it less likely that 1 comes up but it is still possible


5. life != "certain privileges such as not being destroyed"

Advocation of murder again?


You started with sex = possibility of life and pulled several switches in language. You still never justified sex = no right over own body or sex = right to life for product of sex.


The product of sex is a life.

Lives have rights.

Ergo Abortion is wrong as it kills it

Human life. Thats whats above others

Lets put this in a way you understand shall I

I throw a dice and it lands on a 5. The action of throwing that dice was the creation of that 5 facing upward's in the sense that the action had other consequences but it was that one which prevailed.

Of course life should not be destroyed. Do you advocate murder?

If you throw a dice, you must be prepared for the consequences of either 1-6. You can load the dice to make it less likely that 1 comes up but it is still possible

Advocation of murder again?

The product of sex is a life.

Lives have rights.

Ergo Abortion is wrong as it kills it

Insulting me hardly furthers your cause. If you cannot justify your position, so be it.

If you mean "human life," then say so.

Why is human life "above all others"?

Is anything human deserving of a right to life? Why?

Your little dice analogy is flawed.
Roll of 6-sided die = possibility of a 5 != essentially a 5

You failed to justify either:

sex = accept product of sex has rights
or
life = right to life

Come back when you can.

Your little dice analogy is flawed.
Roll of 6-sided die = possibility of a 5 != essentially a 5


No, you missed the point. The point of the analogy was that by throwing a dice you must be prepared for the possibilty of any number 1-6

In the same way by having sex you must be prepared for the posibility of a child.


You failed to justify either:

sex = accept product of sex has rights


Sex is the creation of a life. If you do not believe that life has any rights then you are nothing more than a barbarian. A life has a right to exist. Thats why murder is wrong. If you create a life, you must accept that life's right to exist. Sex is the posibility of the creation of life. If you have sex you must accept that life is a posibile outcome. By accepting that if the life is created you must protect that life. Why? Because you chose to create life and lives have rights


life = right to life


So you think that murder is ok then, and that no one has a right to life. Good, so can I come and kill you, because your failure to see logic is irritating me.

No, you missed the point. The point of the analogy was that by throwing a dice you must be prepared for the possibilty of any number 1-6

In the same way by having sex you must be prepared for the posibility of a child.

Again, you change what you said. You were not saying sex means you have to be prepared for the possibility of a child. You were saying sex is the creation of life and means accepting that you have to protect the life.

The possibility of a child does not equal acceptance of an obligation to protect the life. You keep merely assuming it does.

Sex is the creation of a life. If you do not believe that life has any rights then you are nothing more than a barbarian. A life has a right to exist. Thats why murder is wrong. If you create a life, you must accept that life's right to exist.

Again, if you mean human life, say so. If you mean a person, say so.

Saying "life" doesn't mean a damn thing other than "life."

Not all life has a right to exist. You believe that as well as I.

So, why don't pigs have right to life but embryos do?

Sex is the posibility of the creation of life. If you have sex you must accept that life is a posibile outcome. By accepting that if the life is created you must protect that life. Why? Because you chose to create life and lives have rights

I love this part. Let's break it down and see how logical it is.

1. Sex is the possibility of the creation of life.

2. By having sex you must accept that life is a possible outcome.

(So far, so good.)

3. By accepting that if the life is created you must protect the life.

What?

Accepting that life is a possible outcome = accepting you must protect the life? Why?

4. Because you chose to create life and life has rights.

No link between accepting that life is a possible outcome and accepting that you must protect life there. Where did it go?

As for "life has rights"? What rights? Why?

You are begging the question that the embryo has a right to life.

So you think that murder is ok then, and that no one has a right to life. Good, so can I come and kill you, because your failure to see logic is irritating me.

Your failure to use logic is irritating me.

Some entities have rights, some don't. Some have different rights than others.

You have yet to explain why a human embryo has a right to life -- let alone a right to use its mother's body.

He dosn't have to justify this... because you never lose the right over your own body.. but after pregnancy becomes reality its not just your body any longer. Conjoined twins dont have the right to kill their brother/sister that is attached to them do they ? simply because they want to be free to move about with greater ease..

If the body is the woman's and she never loses any rights over her own body, then she can have the squatter removed.

He dosn't have to justify this... because you never lose the right over your own body.. but after pregnancy becomes reality its not just your body any longer.

totally untrue. pregnancy is very clearly a case of one human embryo/fetus being inside the body of a totally separate other human.


Conjoined twins dont have the right to kill their brother/sister that is attached to them do they ? simply because they want to be free to move about with greater ease..
with conjoined twins you have a couple of problem that don't arrise with pregnancy. because the twins have identical DNA, you cannot tell which cells belong to which twin. also, because their bodies have been joined for their entire existence, there is no way to determine who owns with parts.

in contrast, it is easy to identify which cells belong to a female and which belong to the fetus, because they are never genetically indistinguishable. furthermore, the female body does not at any time develop from the fetus' body. if anything, the fetus' body belongs to the female, since it does develop directly from her tissues and the materials supplied by her body.

finally, i don't think there is any precident with conjoined twins. that is to say, i don't think there's even been a case where one twin wished to be separated from the other without the other's consent. since both twins would (in theory) be equally conscious and equally developed human beings, they would also deserve equal legal status and thus could yield a very sticky legal situation. however, since an embryo is not conscious (indeed, it is legally "brain dead" for most of the pregnancy), it would be ludicrous to suggest the embryo has rights that can supercede the rights of the female. if she desires separation, i see no reason why the embryo or fetus would have any grounds to contest it.

If a woman can be legally compelled to donate her organs and tissue, at the risk of her own life, to support the life of another person then the legal precedent is set to force anyone to give their organs and tissue to any other person, regardless of their wishes.

The "choice" to become pregnant that women supposedly make when they have sex is the same as the choice that healthy people make when they decide to keep their body healthy.

before i forget... im of course assuming that commando is not a jew. i beleive you have to be a real ass to compare anything short of actual genocide, (even if abortion was murder it would not be genocide by any accepted definition) to the holocaust. of course its his right to be an ass according to the first ammendment but never the less.... hes an ass.

Given this site as a source of evidence : http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_coun.htm
though I do so hate questioning countries I know little of in these matter... it seems the United Church is second to the Roman Catholic faith by a significant number accounting for only 12% of the population while 45% is Roman Catholic.. though it is in fact the second largest faith... this percentage is hardly something to boast of.. especially in one nation. The Roman Catholic faith has over a billion followers world Wide.. I fail to see the point in excaliming how large the church is. (dosn't make it more or less wrong)




In addition to this would the United church of canada so advocate the killing of children AFTER they are born ? if the mother were to then realize she would not care for it poperly or suddenly becomes limited by economic means ? If not.. it seems almost hipocritical and this church then is just taking the stance that life only begins after birth which is something the bible contradicts. (of course if this church dosn't use the Christian bible that is another matter all together and my argument is moot)

May I also make the point no other religion fails to recognize this reality that children should be cared for and that economics can limit or effect the life of the child.. however they EXPECT that the mother take this into consdieration BEFORE engaging in sexual acitvities instead of defiling the life god has given AFTER the fact
its not hypocritical, you can't care for someone elses fetus, but you can adopt and take care of someone elses baby.

Conjoined twins dont have the right to kill their brother/sister that is attached to them do they ?..
bingo. although typically if conjoined twins arent able to be seperated that means that if one dies the other dies. lets just say that if one could remove the other by killing it and the one who killed the brother didnt die but this did not work vice versa, wouldnt it still be murder?

bingo. although typically if conjoined twins arent able to be seperated that means that if one dies the other dies. lets just say that if one could remove the other by killing it and the one who killed the brother didnt die but this did not work vice versa, wouldnt it still be murder?

Any particular reason why you repeated this argument without responding to the answers to it already provided?

I'll add there is a difference to someone having a right to use my body and a right to use their own body. With conjoined twins, the line is difficult to establish. Not so with pregnancy.

Its quite simple.
Condescending.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation.
Subjective.
Now that doesn't mean that it cant be enjoyable and that it cant be had for the single purpose of pleasure though,
True.
but there is no 100% effective contriception (abstinace is not contreception).
Wow, two different, incorrect spellings of "contraception".
So when having sex any women must be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant.
"Must"? Every time you take a breath of air, there's a chance you'll become infected with a terrible disease. Would medicines to cure this disease be wrong? Should you just accept that you should be prepared to die? I am not suggesting that pregnancy is a disease (although some of my friends call pregnancy "the baby virus") although in some situations abortion is a medical necessity.
Sex is not a "Human good" as you describe it, which everyone has a right to do without consequences.
So now you're determining, universally, who has the right to do what? Sexually active couples should practice sex that is as safe as they can reasonably make it, and be responsible about it. But that doesn't mean that if birth control fails the baby should be brought to term. Some couples would consider such a happening as the hand of fate, and run with it. Others simply do not have the means to support a child, or are not physically ready for child birth. One of my friends has a condition where cysts grow in her ovaries. Pregnancy would be severely bad news.
Just a question, do you consider taking the morning-after pill murder?

Contreception is not 100% effective. It never is. If you dont want a child then either get steriliesd (Which is 100% effective) or dont have sex. You cant say "I used protection thereby eliviating me of responsablity" as protection is not 100% effective.
By saying "if you don't have a child then get sterilized or don't have sex", you are essentially saying that:
1. You should only have sex when you want a baby... meaning that all birth control is useless.
2. Sex can not be used purely for pleasure.
I disagree on both of these points, but heck, it's your right to believe your version.

Your own viewpoint on an issue does not change whether it is or is not alive. Now I am not saying that a fetus is alive with that statement, my point was that morallity is not reletive to the point that not believeing something to be murder makes it not murder. Thats only a step away from "I beleive X race not to be human, ergo killing them is not murder"

Very slippery today, I see. The logic was not "I don't think it's murder so it isn't". It wasn't even "I don't think people like that are human, so it's not murder", as your oh-so-subtle hint at the Holocaust was implying. The argument is that a zygote or an embryo (and some fetuses, I believe, but don't hold me to this) are not people because they don't have brains. The Nazis killed Jews and homosexuals and everyone else they could get their hands on because they thought they were inferior. They did not deny that these people were alive, they merely thought of them as sub-human. There is a big difference between "killing someone who I consider to be sub-human is OK" and "removing something without a brain or any other internal organs is OK".



Then one of the two of you can be surgically sterilised. Which is a 100% effective birth control method.
Ok then, what if you don't want to have kids yet? While vasectomies(sp?) can now be reversed, sometimes, they are still a rather permanent form of birth control. Are you suggesting that a young married couple, still in college, who can't support a child, should remove their capability to have kids for their entire married lives?


Yes but you see, if you hadn't been born you wouldnt have had the forsegight to make that judgement. You wouldnt have any judgement or any knowledge at all for that matter.
Isn't that kinda the whole point?

Contreception is not 100% effective. It never is. If you dont want a child then either get steriliesd (Which is 100% effective) or dont have sex. You cant say "I used protection thereby eliviating me of responsablity" as protection is not 100% effective.

according to your religion, abstinence from sex isn't protection against pregnancy either.

Because life should not be destroyed. If you accept that sex is essentially the creation of life then you accpet that that life should not be destroyed. And dont trot "Oh but its not alive because of X, Y and Z reason" because this point circumvents that. The point is that sex being the creation of life, you therefore accept the life you create as being a life. A life should be given certian privilages such as not being destroyed.


(bold is mine)
Ah, but grasshopper, it is not to every life that we give that privelege. Only to human life, and, to a certain extent, the lives of endangered animals and pets. Bacteria are alive. Just as alive, as a matter of fact, as a zygote. We destroy bacteria constantly, and are constantly searching for better and faster ways to do this. Or how about cockroaches? Anyone here from NYC? Would you hold the life of a cockroach as sacred?
No. This argument only works for humans, and thus "it's not [a human life] because of X Y Z" is quite relevant.

He dosn't have to justify this... because you never lose the right over your own body.. but after pregnancy becomes reality its not just your body any longer. Conjoined twins dont have the right to kill their brother/sister that is attached to them do they ? simply because they want to be free to move about with greater ease..
I don't know... maybe because their twin is a living human being? Scroll up, please.

So you think that murder is ok then, and that no one has a right to life. Good, so can I come and kill you, because your failure to see logic is irritating me.
Can we please keep this civil? Death threats, even partially sarcastic ones, do not further your cause neither do they heighten the quality of this thread.
Just as an aside: TCT's failure to see logic? Your logic is an oval. Not even a perfect circle.

(bold is mine)
Ah, but grasshopper, it is not to every life that we give that privelege. Only to human life, and, to a certain extent, the lives of endangered animals and pets. Bacteria are alive. Just as alive, as a matter of fact, as a zygote. We destroy bacteria constantly, and are constantly searching for better and faster ways to do this. Or how about cockroaches? Anyone here from NYC? Would you hold the life of a cockroach as sacred?
No. This argument only works for humans, and thus "it's not [a human life] because of X Y Z" is quite relevant.

Um, you are largely correct, but "personhood" is a better criteria than "human life."

Something can be human and living and not have rights.

Humanity is neither sufficient nor necessary for rights.

Um, you are largely correct, but "personhood" is a better criteria than "human life."

Something can be human and living and not have rights.

Humanity is neither sufficient nor necessary for rights.
bingo. your spleen is human life. a recently-deceased human corpse is human life. every cell of your body contains your complete, individual DNA, and is human life. until NC gives us an argument in favor of awarding individual rights to each cell in the human body, i think he's done with that tangent. (though he may not know/admit it...)

Um, you are largely correct, but "personhood" is a better criteria than "human life."

Something can be human and living and not have rights.

Humanity is neither sufficient nor necessary for rights.

I guess we're dealing with different notions of the word "human". It is, after all, a word with more connotations than almost any other. What I meant by it was... oh, let's see if I can put this rather complex idea into words... I consider "a human life" to be a living member of our species, under the definitions of life that determine whether or not someone has "died". Ceased brain function? Deceased person. Lack of heart and lungs don't help, either. I believe, and this is just my personal belief, not one I am trying to force on anyone, that there is a fuzzy line where, when crossed, a fetus... not a zygote or an embryo... can be considered to have what you aptly call "personhood". Required would be heart, lungs, functional brain. Anything where, without it, paramedics would declare you dead. As I say, this is a fuzzy line, and does not occur instantaneously. However, I believe that if a certain time is fixed, which is a nice, round number and falls before that period of development, that an abortion before then is nothing more or less than the destruction of tissue, at least physically. Mentally, such a occurrance (natural, as in a miscarriage, or otherwise) can be very taxing for the mother, but then again, it was her choice. I believe that the needs of the mother outweigh the wishes even of a fetus which is almost mature, and, in cases of severe medical distress where it is the opinion of a doctor that there is absolutely no alternative, a C section should be preformed to remove the baby (and obviously try to save it).
Partially-developed fetuses are not (in my opinion) more important than the mother's needs. However, they do trump a mother's wants. First-trimester abortion carries no such weight, although I find it insensitive to do it instead of using a condom and/or other contraception.

And, just as an aside to Neo Cannen... c-o-n-t-r-a-c-e-p-t-i-o-n. Throughout this thread you have used both "contriception" and "contreception" interchangably. I do not claim to have anywhere near perfect spelling, and I do not expect it of everyone else. I make typos, just like anyone else. But to spell it, wrongly, two different ways, when it is spelled correctly in almost every other post in the thread, just irks me.

bingo. your spleen is human life. a recently-deceased human corpse is human life. every cell of your body contains your complete, individual DNA, and is human life. until NC gives us an argument in favor of awarding individual rights to each cell in the human body, i think he's done with that tangent. (though he may not know/admit it...)

That is indeed what I fear. Many people, when they are shown to be wrong in their reasons, fear for their beliefs and cut off anything that could possibly be contradictory. All we have been able to do is prove that their reasons are faulty, we (ok, now I'm taking liberties, I mean "I") are not claiming that believing what you do is wrong. However, we (again, "I", but this is the sense I'm getting) do have a problem with it when you want to send people for jail because of beliefs that you have, they don't share, and you can't come up with a single good reason for.

I guess we're dealing with different notions of the word "human". It is, after all, a word with more connotations than almost any other. What I meant by it was... oh, let's see if I can put this rather complex idea into words... I consider "a human life" to be a living member of our species, under the definitions of life that determine whether or not someone has "died". Ceased brain function? Deceased person. Lack of heart and lungs don't help, either. I believe, and this is just my personal belief, not one I am trying to force on anyone, that there is a fuzzy line where, when crossed, a fetus... not a zygote or an embryo... can be considered to have what you aptly call "personhood". Required would be heart, lungs, functional brain. Anything where, without it, paramedics would declare you dead. As I say, this is a fuzzy line, and does not occur instantaneously. However, I believe that if a certain time is fixed, which is a nice, round number and falls before that period of development, that an abortion before then is nothing more or less than the destruction of tissue, at least physically. Mentally, such a occurrance (natural, as in a miscarriage, or otherwise) can be very taxing for the mother, but then again, it was her choice. I believe that the needs of the mother outweigh the wishes even of a fetus which is almost mature, and, in cases of severe medical distress where it is the opinion of a doctor that there is absolutely no alternative, a C section should be preformed to remove the baby (and obviously try to save it).
Partially-developed fetuses are not (in my opinion) more important than the mother's needs. However, they do trump a mother's wants. First-trimester abortion carries no such weight, although I find it insensitive to do it instead of using a condom and/or other contraception.

And, just as an aside to Neo Cannen... c-o-n-t-r-a-c-e-p-t-i-o-n. Throughout this thread you have used both "contriception" and "contreception" interchangably. I do not claim to have anywhere near perfect spelling, and I do not expect it of everyone else. I make typos, just like anyone else. But to spell it, wrongly, two different ways, when it is spelled correctly in almost every other post in the thread, just irks me.

Our views are mostly the same. But we have illustrated the imprecision of referring to "human life" and the moral irrelevance of that phrase.

I believe "person" and "personhood" are more precise ethical terms.

Any particular reason why you repeated this argument without responding to the answers to it already provided?
thats why i said bingo ;)

I'll add there is a difference to someone having a right to use my body and a right to use their own body. With conjoined twins, the line is difficult to establish. Not so with pregnancy.
irrelevant. doesnt matter where the "line" is. analogy holds true. hypothetical: twin one kills twin two and thereby kills himself. this is not an option. twin two kills twin one because twin one is using his organs, flesh, blood, etc. twin two may kill and remove twin one without consequence to his own health. twin two kills twin one. is it murder?

the point of my pro-choice argument is that its not murder because a brainless embryo is not a living human being any more than someone who is declared dead
your argument says that it doesnt matter if its alive or not, it has no right to stay attatched to the mother. what right does twin one have to stay attached to twin two?

I don't know... maybe because their twin is a living human being? Scroll up, please.
after all this time you still dont understand there are two seperate pro-choice arguments going on?
cat tribe says it doesnt matter if the fetus is a living human being or a blob of cells it has no right to the mothers body at all period.
my argument says that an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain and thus is not a human being. when it develops a brain later and it has thoughts, feelings, etc. it is a living human being.
his line: birth
my line: brain development
pro-life line: conception

yes, i know im repeating myself

after all this time you still dont understand there are two seperate pro-choice arguments going on?
cat tribe says it doesnt matter if the fetus is a living human being or a blob of cells it has no right to the mothers body at all period.
my argument says that an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain and thus is not a human being. when it develops a brain later and it has thoughts, feelings, etc. it is a living human being.
his line: birth
my line: brain development
pro-life line: conception

Actually, I fully agree that abortion is more than justified on the grounds that an embryo and early-term fetus is not a person. (You have yet to explain why 9 weeks is a magic date.)

But it is not the only ground on which abortion is justified.

Pro-lifers wish to focus on the fetus as if it were the only being with rights in the equation -- when, if you put the question to the test, you cannot justify taking away a women's right to control her own body.

Women are moral agents with full rights and reason. They can be trusted to decide for themselves what to do about their pregnancy. It is more than ironic that they are trusted with a child, but not a choice.

A woman is not merely a vessel for a fetus. The focus should begin and end with the woman's rights.

thats why i said bingo ;)


irrelevant. doesnt matter where the "line" is. analogy holds true. hypothetical: twin one kills twin two and thereby kills himself. this is not an option. twin two kills twin one because twin one is using his organs, flesh, blood, etc. twin two may kill and remove twin one without consequence to his own health. twin two kills twin one. is it murder?

the point of my pro-choice argument is that its not murder because a brainless embryo is not a living human being any more than someone who is declared dead
your argument says that it doesnt matter if its alive or not, it has no right to stay attatched to the mother. what right does twin one have to stay attached to twin two?

1. "Your" pro-choice argument is also one I have advocated, thank you very much.

2. You are still ignoring the earlier arguments made by Bottle, for example.

3. Each twin has a right to that twin's body. And to live in that body. So, yes, it does matter where the line is.

Hey Cat, I TGed you. I want you to take the political compass test. I'm betting you're a bit of a lefty. At least a libertarian.

Hey Cat, I TGed you. I want you to take the political compass test. I'm betting you're a bit of a lefty. At least a libertarian.

Quite lefty. :D

Here are my scores from the last time I took the test:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.26

Your own viewpoint on an issue does not change whether it is or is not alive. Now I am not saying that a fetus is alive with that statement, my point was that morallity is not reletive to the point that not believeing something to be murder makes it not murder. Thats only a step away from "I beleive X race not to be human, ergo killing them is not murder"Not really, because x race surely have all the characteristics of humanity, not just the most basic of biological ones (and it is debatable whether or not embryos even have those). Also, in some cultures, definitions of murder vary vastly from our own. Here, if someone kills your entire family, and you subsequently go out and murder them in response, the latter action is considered as murder as well as the former. In some cultures throughout time and throughout the globe, actions such as the latter described would have been acceptable. So, although in the vast majority of cases you can describe murder as universally wrong, it is not always the case.

It also becomes an issue of semantics and personal belief as to whether the intentional killing of an unborn kid is murder. Again, it's about whether or not you believe it posesses personhood. If you do, you may be correct in your personal opinion that abortion is murder. However, many people do not consider it a person, and if one holds to that opinion (as I do), then it cannot be described as murder.

Then one of the two of you can be surgically sterilised. Which is a 100% effective birth control method.I fully intend to, but in the UK they won't steralise people until they're 25 (I'm nearly 22), so until that point I have to use normal methods of contraception. If the NHS won't offer me steralisation until that point, then I can only take advantage of the services they do provide.

Yes but you see, if you hadn't been born you wouldnt have had the forsegight to make that judgement. You wouldnt have any judgement or any knowledge at all for that matter.But isn't that exactly the point? I wouldn't be here to know what had happened to either my mother or myself, so it wouldn't be an issue for me.

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.

Considering your "list of answers to all conceivable arguments" does not even include the MAIN philosophical argument as to why abortion is a good moral choice I daresay your claim that dismissing these is having no counterargument is a bit .. well... false.

Now, I again ask you to show me that aborting a foetus = harming a foetus.
THis means doing both a and b:
a. Prove that there is a fundamental diference for the foetus itself between being aborted before it has gained the ability to have any experiences/feel anything and never having existed in the first place.
b. Prove that every life is per definition a positive addition to the world, that the biologicaql fact of life itself is per definition something positive.
Or to simplify and rephrase: prove that the world will be a better place if the baby is born and that it is better for the baby itself.

If you cannot prove b you cannot say with certainty that an abortion is harming the foetus: you may after all preventing it from becoming miserable. The happyness and harm are both merely potentials. But by denying the mother an abortion you *are* harming her. Not potentially, but actually.

(bold is mine)
Ah, but grasshopper, it is not to every life that we give that privelege. Only to human life, and, to a certain extent, the lives of endangered animals and pets. Bacteria are alive. Just as alive, as a matter of fact, as a zygote. We destroy bacteria constantly, and are constantly searching for better and faster ways to do this. Or how about cockroaches? Anyone here from NYC? Would you hold the life of a cockroach as sacred?
No. This argument only works for humans, and thus "it's not [a human life] because of X Y Z" is quite relevant.

You miss the point. While an zygote (fused egg and sperm) may not be a life, it is becoming one, and will be one in a matter of time, the only thing stopping that is a natural error. Therefore killing it is killing the certian potential of a life.

having read all the posts on here (and going through half a pack of smokes while doing it) and hearing both sides of the issue, i am forced to remember what me and a friend of mine talked about when it came to abortions...why not try to get some kind of good out of it.....

1) your first abortion is free, paid for by the state...have a nice day...

2) 2nd costs $250...

3) 3rd costs $500 and you must perform 100 hours of community service...

4) 4th costs $1000 and you must perform 200 hours of community service...

5) 5th...you get fixed so you can never have any children again and are added to a national regestriy that prohibits you from adopting any children...

rape and incest would be excluded from these laws as well as when the life of the mother is at risk...i know that there are flaws with this idea...but it is better than banning abortions outright and will salvage a bit of good from the experience...just a thought.....

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.

This is true that it is morally justifiable to remove the violinist if they were plugged into without your knowing. However, a woman can only become pregnant by doing a voluntary act. There are options of effective birth control out there, pregnancy is a risk the woman takes when she fails to use these options. I believe the problem with abortion is when the woman makes the choice. If two months into keeping the violinist alive, you pull the plug killing her, I believe that is not morally justifiable. Thus a woman who chooses to take the pill/patch, has already made her decision she does not wish to become pregnant. She should then be allowed, and only then, to have an abortion based on her previous choices. We need to have a more open discussion in our classrooms on these risks, and ways to prevent these risks.

You miss the point. While an zygote (fused egg and sperm) may not be a life, it is becoming one, and will be one in a matter of time, the only thing stopping that is a natural error. Therefore killing it is killing the certian potential of a life.

Far from certain btw, but the huge frequency of natural abortions "due to the will of God" has been adressed already.

The question now is: is killing the potential of Life where Life does not actually exist yet harming anyone ? Note the capital on life, used to distinguish between the life of bunch of cells and the Life of something that can feel things.

Far from certain btw, but the huge frequency of natural abortions "due to the will of God" has been adressed already.

The question now is: is killing the potential of Life where Life does not actually exist yet harming anyone ? Note the capital on life, used to distinguish between the life of bunch of cells and the Life of something that can feel things.

It can't feel things but that doesnt mean its not alive. The point is that by having sex you accept that you may be creating a life. As such you should afford that life protection that it cannot afford itself.

after all this time you still dont understand there are two seperate pro-choice arguments going on?
cat tribe says it doesnt matter if the fetus is a living human being or a blob of cells it has no right to the mothers body at all period.
my argument says that an embryo is a blob of cells with no brain and thus is not a human being. when it develops a brain later and it has thoughts, feelings, etc. it is a living human being.
his line: birth
my line: brain development
pro-life line: conception

yes, i know im repeating myself

Sorry, I forgot that's where you stood on this issue. I was just so annoyed with people ignoring my points and repeating theirs endlessly that I sort of automatically word-spanked you. My bad, I apologize.

The woman you just prevented from having an abortion could have gone to college and found a cure for cancer.

It can't feel things but that doesnt mean its not alive. The point is that by having sex you accept that you may be creating a life. As such you should afford that life protection that it cannot afford itself.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't you said this before in the last few pages, and hasn't someone responded to it already?
Why aren't you responding to that?

Hey Cat, I TGed you. I want you to take the political compass test. I'm betting you're a bit of a lefty. At least a libertarian.

I'm betting you already know this, but I'm not sure because your statement was ambiguous... libertarian is considered "right" on the linear model, it's rather conservative. Of course, the political compass is more accurate, because libertarians do agree with liberals on some issues (although for completely different reasons most of the time) and conservatives on others. I just had to look twice when you seemed to put "libertarian" into the "liberal" category.

You miss the point. While an zygote (fused egg and sperm) may not be a life, it is becoming one, and will be one in a matter of time, the only thing stopping that is a natural error. Therefore killing it is killing the certian potential of a life.

You admit that a zygote is not alive "yet". Then how can killing it be murder? I can understand how you could call it morally wrong, but not murder. Murder is, to oversimplify drastically, taking life. You can't take life from something that doesn't have it yet. It's that simple. While destroying the potential for life may be morally wrong (that's open to subjective opinion) it cannot be murder, because the zygote is not alive.

It can't feel things but that doesnt mean its not alive. The point is that by having sex you accept that you may be creating a life. As such you should afford that life protection that it cannot afford itself.
Even assuming this point (which is quite a leap of the imagination), how is abortion murder? It is destroying something which does not, at this exact moment, have life. You can't "kill" something that isn't alive to begin with.
You can't prove that it's murder, because a zygote does not have Life (to borrow the term). You can argue subjectively about whether they're "right" or not, but you cannot possibly expect me to believe that it in any way falls under "murder".

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but haven't you said this before in the last few pages, and hasn't someone responded to it already?
Why aren't you responding to that?

'Cuz he doesn't have an answer.

He thinks potential for life = right to life.

Sex = obligation to carry pregnancy to birth.

He simply repeats these in different forms, but justifies neither statement.

'Cuz he doesn't have an answer.

He thinks potential for life = right to life.

Sex = obligation to carry pregnancy to birth.

He simply repeats these in different forms, but justifies neither statement.

I have already justified them over a hundrud times, you just refuse to accept it. If you continue in your inane ignorence I may just add you to my ignore list.

Let me put it another way to you, there are these things called "HUMAN RIGHTS" which basicly set out what rights a life has. If sex results in conception and sex can and does create life then therefore it has succeded in creating life. Life has rights and as such should be protected

As to the sex = obligation to carry pregnacy to birth, I wil l again explain. If you have sex, it can be for any number of reasons but there is a posibility (which is lowered by contreception) that a pregnancy will result. If you cannot accept this posibility then you shouldnt have sex. Because by having sex you essentially agree to take that risk. In the same way, if I role a dice, I should be prepared for any number from 1-6. I may need a number 4 but I shouldnt consider it unfair if I dont get one. Since the pregnancy (not sex itself) is the creation of life, that life demands certian protections (see above). The fact that something is not yet a life but will be soon does not mean that its right to kill it. Thats like saying if you know someone intends to kill someone and has the capacity to do it that you shouldnt inform the police because he hasnt done it yet. It is certian he will do it unless stoped so you dont try and stop him. That makes no sense. The right thing to do would have been to save the life of the person under threat. If you hadn't done that the person under therat would have died. If you dont abort, there is a very good chance the featus will develop into a life. There are possibilites that it will die naturally but that doesnt excuse abortion. That logic would imply that its ok to kill people as they will eventually die anyway of natural causes if you dont kill them.

I have already justified them over a hundrud times, you just refuse to accept it. If you continue in your inane ignorence I may just add you to my ignore list.

Let me put it another way to you, there are these things called "HUMAN RIGHTS" which basicly set out what rights a life has. If sex results in conception and sex can and does create life then therefore it has succeded in creating life. Life has rights and as such should be protected

As to the sex = obligation to carry pregnacy to birth, I wil l again explain. If you have sex, it can be for any number of reasons but there is a posibility (which is lowered by contreception) that a pregnancy will result. If you cannot accept this posibility then you shouldnt have sex. Because by having sex you essentially agree to take that risk. In the same way, if I role a dice, I should be prepared for any number from 1-6. I may need a number 4 but I shouldnt consider it unfair if I dont get one. Since the pregnancy (not sex itself) is the creation of life, that life demands certian protections (see above). The fact that something is not yet a life but will be soon does not mean that its right to kill it. Thats like saying if you know someone intends to kill someone and has the capacity to do it that you shouldnt inform the police because he hasnt done it yet. It is certian he will do it unless stoped so you dont try and stop him. That makes no sense. The right thing to do would have been to save the life of the person under threat. If you hadn't done that the person under therat would have died. If you dont abort, there is a very good chance the featus will develop into a life. There are possibilites that it will die naturally but that doesnt excuse abortion. That logic would imply that its ok to kill people as they will eventually die anyway of natural causes if you dont kill them.

First - "Human Rights" are optional. They only 'exist' as long as everyone agrees.

Second - there are no 'Human Rights' outside of the implicit approval of society. Try telling a tiger that you have a right-to-life, while he is gnawing on your head.

Third - Sex sometimes leads to conception... which in turn may lead to implantation, which in turn may lead to cell division. At none of those points is the 'life' that has been created an actual 'living human' - any more than the bacon I had for breakfast is already 'excrement'.

Eventually - the foetus will reach a point where you could consider it legitimately alive... but very few people would argue that the ENTITY was alive at conception... although cells might be.

Fourth - Life has rights? Rubbish.

I have already justified them over a hundrud times, you just refuse to accept it. If you continue in your inane ignorence I may just add you to my ignore list.

You just keep repeating yourself and making jumps in logic.

Repeating the same thing over and over and not responding to the flaws in what you are saying is inane.

I would note that you have been insulting repeatedly. I have not. Can you not make your argument civilly?

Let me put it another way to you, there are these things called "HUMAN RIGHTS" which basicly set out what rights a life has. If sex results in conception and sex can and does create life then therefore it has succeded in creating life. Life has rights and as such should be protected

You keep repeating the mantra that "life has rights" without justifying them in anyway.

This is key to the flaw in your theory. Some life has rights and some does not. The criteria for determining what life has rights is critical to, but absent from, your argument.

As to the sex = obligation to carry pregnacy to birth, I wil l again explain. If you have sex, it can be for any number of reasons but there is a posibility (which is lowered by contreception) that a pregnancy will result. If you cannot accept this posibility then you shouldnt have sex. Because by having sex you essentially agree to take that risk. In the same way, if I role a dice, I should be prepared for any number from 1-6. I may need a number 4 but I shouldnt consider it unfair if I dont get one. Since the pregnancy (not sex itself) is the creation of life, that life demands certian protections (see above).

Essentially, you say the life has rights because the life has rights -- not because sex was consensual, but because life has rights regardless.

Moreoever, you continue to make the leap from consent to possibility of sex to obligation to carry pregnancy to birth.

You can say a woman has agreed to take the risk that she may get pregnant. That is not the same thing as agreeing to take the burden of giving birth. Conception does not equal birth.

The fact that something is not yet a life but will be soon does not mean that its right to kill it. Thats like saying if you know someone intends to kill someone and has the capacity to do it that you shouldnt inform the police because he hasnt done it yet. It is certian he will do it unless stoped so you dont try and stop him. That makes no sense. The right thing to do would have been to save the life of the person under threat. If you hadn't done that the person under therat would have died. If you dont abort, there is a very good chance the featus will develop into a life. There are possibilites that it will die naturally but that doesnt excuse abortion. That logic would imply that its ok to kill people as they will eventually die anyway of natural causes if you dont kill them.


Again, these examples are inapposite and aimed a strawmen.

If something does not have a right to life because it is not a person, then -- yes -- you may kill it.

I have already justified them over a hundrud times, you just refuse to accept it. If you continue in your inane ignorence I may just add you to my ignore list.

Let me put it another way to you, there are these things called "HUMAN RIGHTS" which basicly set out what rights a life has. If sex results in conception and sex can and does create life then therefore it has succeded in creating life. Life has rights and as such should be protected

As to the sex = obligation to carry pregnacy to birth, I wil l again explain. If you have sex, it can be for any number of reasons but there is a posibility (which is lowered by contreception) that a pregnancy will result. If you cannot accept this posibility then you shouldnt have sex. Because by having sex you essentially agree to take that risk. In the same way, if I role a dice, I should be prepared for any number from 1-6. I may need a number 4 but I shouldnt consider it unfair if I dont get one. Since the pregnancy (not sex itself) is the creation of life, that life demands certian protections (see above). The fact that something is not yet a life but will be soon does not mean that its right to kill it. Thats like saying if you know someone intends to kill someone and has the capacity to do it that you shouldnt inform the police because he hasnt done it yet. It is certian he will do it unless stoped so you dont try and stop him. That makes no sense. The right thing to do would have been to save the life of the person under threat. If you hadn't done that the person under therat would have died. If you dont abort, there is a very good chance the featus will develop into a life. There are possibilites that it will die naturally but that doesnt excuse abortion. That logic would imply that its ok to kill people as they will eventually die anyway of natural causes if you dont kill them.


Human rights apply to human people, you havent argued compellingly that they apply to a fetus or zygote or anything else that is "potentially a human person in the future."

You also have not compellingly argued, only repeated for the Nth time, that a person consents to the obligation to bear a child when they have sex.

Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true, you've failed to show any reasonable connection between having sex and being responsible to bear a child. Abortion is a valid option and any woman who chooses to have sex is perfectly able to consent to nothing more than the faint possiblity of having an abortion.

Having sex is consenting to carry a baby to term if the sex results in pregnancy? How is that? You claim that it is because you know it's a possibility before you started. Whenever you play sports, you know that you might get a cut. Pads can reduce this risk, but it's still possible. That cut could get infected. Proper care can mitigate this risk, but it's still there. That infection could potentially spread and become fatal. Antibiotics can help, but there's still a threat. Under your logic, playing sports, even with as many safety precautions as exist, is consenting to death.

ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL

What the **** will you people think of next? Oh yeah, all us Pro-choicers like to kill babies! It's our favorite thing to do!

ABORTION DOCTORS ARE EVIL

What the **** will you people think of next? Oh yeah, all us Pro-choicers like to kill babies! It's our favorite thing to do!


Of course it is. We need their stem cells in order to become superhuman!

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.

I take objection to you presuming that your belief is anymore enlightened than those who favour abortion. Having read the rest of your (rather pathetic) post, I have come to the conclusion that your opinion is certainly not enlightened.

Abortion doctors are not evil and cannot be in any circumstance compared to Nazi holocaust doctors. This is for one vital reason:

THE JEWS HAD NO CHOICE TO PARTICIPATE IN EXPERIMENTS WHEREAS PREGNANT WOMEN MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISON AS TO WHETHER TO HAVE AN ABORTION

That is why your 'enlightened' opinion is so fundamentally wrong. No one forces these women into 'killing' their babies. What gives you and other pro life people the right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? They have to suffer the agonies of child birth, they have to clothe the child and pay thousands so it can live with them for the next 18 years of its life. So I say give them the choice - you can no more force a women to have an abortion that you could force a man to be neutered (or is at a vascetomy, I am not sure but I think you will understand my meaning).

I think this sums up whether life exists in a foetus:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

A foetus cannot be 'killed' after a certain number of weeks (20 to 25 isnt it) - before that period it certainly does not have the capacity to think anymore than a blob of cells can think. All the foetus is, is a bunch of cells with some very basic nerve signals.

Having sex is consenting to carry a baby to term if the sex results in pregnancy? How is that? You claim that it is because you know it's a possibility before you started. Whenever you play sports, you know that you might get a cut. Pads can reduce this risk, but it's still possible. That cut could get infected. Proper care can mitigate this risk, but it's still there. That infection could potentially spread and become fatal. Antibiotics can help, but there's still a threat. Under your logic, playing sports, even with as many safety precautions as exist, is consenting to death.
EXACTLY.

yes, a woman should be aware that certain sexual activity may result in pregnancy. no, that does not mean that she consents to REMAIN pregnant if said mishap should occur against her plans and wishes.

if i go skiing and break my leg, does the doctor get to tell me that i consented to be injured because i knew the risks when i got up on the skis?!

There is a reason people are required to sign wavers when they do certain activities. That reason is that participation does not imply accepting the risks. Thus "libel" law.

Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true, you've failed to show any reasonable connection between having sex and being responsible to bear a child. Abortion is a valid option and any woman who chooses to have sex is perfectly able to consent to nothing more than the faint possiblity of having an abortion.

I will explain this again. If you have sex you must accept the possibility of creating a life, because thats what sex can do. If it does then the fact that sex creates life is the reason unto itself. Why? Because IT IS A LIFE. If sex creates life then logically you must give to that life the same you would any other life the defence. It cannot defend itself. You cant just kill it because it is "inconvienent". If you have sex you accept the possibilty (however small) that a life is the result. You should not dodge those responabilities by abortion because life is what sex creates.

Would others agree that abortion is irresponsible?

Would others agree that abortion is irresponsible?
absolutely not. in many cases, abortion is (in my opinion) the most responsible choice.

absolutely not. in many cases, abortion is (in my opinion) the most responsible choice.

I would agree with the original person. Abortion is a symptom of being unwilling to accept the consequences of your actions. Therefore its irrisponable.

I would agree with the original person. Abortion is a symptom of being unwilling to accept the consequences of your actions. Therefore its irrisponable.
meh, it's a matter of opinion. however, while i am willing to let individuals make this choice based on their personal judgment and their individual situation, you seem to believe you are wise enough to decide such matters for all other people. my, you are a bright one, aren't you?

Would others agree that abortion is irresponsible?

I would say that having sex without taking the risks and benefits into account is irresponsible. Both peopl eshould be well aware of what they will do in the event of a pregnancy before any nudity ensues.

meh, it's a matter of opinion. however, while i am willing to let individuals make this choice based on their personal judgment and their individual situation, you seem to believe you are wise enough to decide such matters for all other people. my, you are a bright one, aren't you?

You seem to be able to judge that fetus are not lives at all. My are'nt you bright.

You seem to be able to judge that fetus are not lives at all. My are'nt you bright.


Well, applying simple, reasonable tests anyone would come to the same conclusion that bottle has.

A fetus is not a living being so long as it has not developed into one.

You seem to be able to judge that fetus are not lives at all. My are'nt you bright.

You miss the difference. Bottle is not trying to force others to agree with or live by her view.

As far as whether abortion is responsible or irresponsible, I believe that it is all a matter of what the situation is.
Rape, incest, medical conditions, etc.: responsible
Did everything you could to prevent it, but you still get pregnant:
immediate abortion: responsible
delayed abortion: irresponsible
Used a condom incorrectly, it breaks, you're pregnant: somewhere in the middle
Use no protection because you believe it "enhances the experience", and have repeated abortions because you keep getting pregnant: incredibly irresponsible
used almost worthless forms of contraception: (e.g. douching, rhythm method) either irresponsible or uninformed.

Everyone else is welcome to have other categories (I just came up with them off the top of my head) and disagree with the ones I have here... this is just my opinion, folks, answering the question.

I would agree with the original person. Abortion is a symptom of being unwilling to accept the consequences of your actions. Therefore its irrisponable.

On the contrary. Abortion IS accepting the consequences of your actions... and dealing with them.

Just NOT in the way YOU would like.

But, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

On the contrary. Abortion IS accepting the consequences of your actions... and dealing with them.

Just NOT in the way YOU would like.

But, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

The consequeses of sex is (sometimes) a life formed

Rather than dealing with that life properly, you instead kill it. Thats not the proper way to deal with a life.

You miss the difference. Bottle is not trying to force others to agree with or live by her view.

What is and is not murder is not reletive. You need to undestand this (as does a large number of people) that NOT EVERYTHING IS RELITIVE

What is and is not murder is not reletive. You need to undestand this (as does a large number of people) that NOT EVERYTHING IS RELITIVE

That's the thing. You believe a fetus is alive the second sperm meets egg.

We don't.

Don't like abortion? Don't get one. Don't let your daughter get one. Fine.

But get the fuck out of my life.

What is and is not murder is not reletive. You need to undestand this (as does a large number of people) that NOT EVERYTHING IS RELITIVE

As you said, lots of people need to understand that not everything is relAtive. One of them being you. Scientifically and medically speaking, a zygote does not have personhood. That is, although each individual cell is alive, the unit as a whole is not alive, in the context of a human.
It can't be denied (well, I would put any past NS users, but...) that sex can lead to pregnancy which can lead to life. However, there is a big difference between the potential for life and life. A zygote has the potential for life, but it is by no means a sure thing, even if it isn't terminated. It is not, however, alive at that state. It has no organs, no brain... the cells haven't even started to specialize yet (specialization of cells is why we have organs and different tissues... as opposed to being a large, ovoid blob) and so it cannot, by any meaningful definition, be called a human life.
If there is no human life, no human life can be taken away. If no human life is taken away, there is no murder. It does not have rights, other than any rights the mother may voluntarily give it. While you may find it morally wrong to take away the potential for life, other do not. Morality is relative. And please, don't say that only some morality is relative, and that murder isn't (again) because as I just explained this is not, and can not, possibly, be murder.

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.

Different. A fetus is inside of you and is supposed to be naturally. The violinist would be outside of you and a kidney donation would more be inline.

As you said, lots of people need to understand that not everything is relAtive. One of them being you. Scientifically and medically speaking, a zygote does not have personhood. That is, although each individual cell is alive, the unit as a whole is not alive, in the context of a human.
It can't be denied (well, I would put any past NS users, but...) that sex can lead to pregnancy which can lead to life. However, there is a big difference between the potential for life and life. A zygote has the potential for life, but it is by no means a sure thing, even if it isn't terminated. It is not, however, alive at that state. It has no organs, no brain... the cells haven't even started to specialize yet (specialization of cells is why we have organs and different tissues... as opposed to being a large, ovoid blob) and so it cannot, by any meaningful definition, be called a human life.
If there is no human life, no human life can be taken away. If no human life is taken away, there is no murder. It does not have rights, other than any rights the mother may voluntarily give it. While you may find it morally wrong to take away the potential for life, other do not. Morality is relative. And please, don't say that only some morality is relative, and that murder isn't (again) because as I just explained this is not, and can not, possibly, be murder.

If it could become a human and you terminate it then would it be able to become a human/live? No. I can make a similar comparison.

This requires a lil thought outside the box. An abortionist logic the following would be acceptable.

Killing of teenagers and over is illegal(same how homocide is illegal) but killing people who are not yet 13 is acceptable since it is not considered human until it has the ability to reproduce.

By that logic if a parent doesnt want the responsibility fo a ten year old then the could just terminate the life. Since it was not a human life no murder was comitted no big deal although it had the potentiality to become human.

What is and is not murder is not reletive. You need to undestand this (as does a large number of people) that NOT EVERYTHING IS RELITIVE

You can only murder a living human being. You have already admitted that an embryo is not yet a living human being. As such, it is impossible to murder it.

You are right, this is not relative because you are not one who believes that the emrbyo is a living *person*.

Of course, many people do, and *that* is relative because the reasoning behind it is purely subjective.

If it could become a human and you terminate it then would it be able to become a human/live? No. I can make a similar comparison.

This requires a lil thought outside the box. An abortionist logic the following would be acceptable.

Killing of teenagers and over is illegal(same how homocide is illegal) but killing people who are not yet 13 is acceptable since it is not considered human until it has the ability to reproduce.

By that logic if a parent doesnt want the responsibility fo a ten year old then the could just terminate the life. Since it was not a human life no murder was comitted no big deal although it had the potentiality to become human.

Teenagers are demonstrably living, thinking human beings, so no, it is not acceptable to those who are pro-choice.

So, what, as soon as a woman is pregnant she isn't a person anymore? Her choice and happiness mean nothing?

On the contrary. Abortion IS accepting the consequences of your actions... and dealing with them.

Just NOT in the way YOU would like.

But, that is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
Well said.

There are so many obscenities coming to mind to call you, Commando...

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."

I'm going to simply answer: Oh, no you didn't.

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.

You know, this whole people will do it anyway arguement actually helps you ignorant anti-choicers (see how we can turn your title around too?). Whena woman goes in to have an abortion, she is counselled to make sure she is emotionally ready to "murder" (in your terms) the parasite inside of her. If she isn't....she is sent home for at least another 48 hours and if she is still not ready after that...SHE WILL NOT HAVE ONE! So you see, there's one more "life" saved in your eyes...
Unless a fetus has the capability to survive outside of the womb...IT IS NOT A LIFE! IT IS A PARASITE!
Unless you want to pay the welfare check of the mothers who decide to keep the child and find it too difficult to give it up for adoption, or pay/provide the years of psycho-therapy for a child that was given up for adoption and only found foster parents who sexually or physically or emotionally abused the child...please...stop calling it a genocide and care about an ACTUAL genocide...lik oh...i dunno...the one going on in the Sudan as we bicker over the removal of parasitic beings. There are actual full grown humans being killed over there and being raped and being tortured to degrees that you would find unthinkable. You, however, probably think these people did something wrong to deserve such treatment and it's just god "striking" them for the awful sins they've committed. Sir, (I'm just assuming you're male because males don't have any biological obligation to a fetus, so why would you care what happens to a child or their mother for that matter) the United States of America is not a church, it is a country where Muslims, Atheists, and Jews occupy, (it is not only Christians) and it is selfish to impose your pro-misery beliefs on those who do not believe the same way. Then, to call us pro-choice and life advocates "brainwashed" (not to mention "abortionists") when you present subjective information to support your argument is not very...smart. Every abortion is needed, there is always some situation that makes it impossible to have a baby in the person's life.

I'm sure I'll have more to say soon...

It can't feel things but that doesnt mean its not alive. The point is that by having sex you accept that you may be creating a life. As such you should afford that life protection that it cannot afford itself.
when i artificially inseminate a cow, i create life. if i choose to turn it into a hamburger, that is my choice. (again, please prove potential to life=life)

I'm betting you already know this, but I'm not sure because your statement was ambiguous... libertarian is considered "right" on the linear model, it's rather conservative. Of course, the political compass is more accurate, because libertarians do agree with liberals on some issues (although for completely different reasons most of the time) and conservatives on others. I just had to look twice when you seemed to put "libertarian" into the "liberal" category.
i dont know about your test but in the real world far left is communist and far right is facist. i guess that makes libertarian up or down of something....

Teenagers are demonstrably living, thinking human beings, so no, it is not acceptable to those who are pro-choice.
Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex. Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least. Everyone looks back in the past and wonders how humans could have been so barbaric and brutal, how are we any different now with our technology. Now we're just making death more efficient. Efficiency doesn't make death any better.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

And on a side note, I also find it rather hypocritical how people can be pro-life yet be pro-Iraq war (note that I am not exactly a pacifist, but there should at least be a case of war if you're going to go to war) and pro-death penalty. You people need to choose what you want to support, life, or death?

You seem to be able to judge that fetus are not lives at all. My are'nt you bright.
so we shouldn't even attempt to judge when a person is brain dead? we should unearth all the corpses which have ever been judged dead and do our best to keep them alive?

Joroma']Unless a fetus has the capability to survive outside of the womb...IT IS NOT A LIFE! IT IS A PARASITE!
And by having sex, you've submitted to the possibility that you may willl most likely develop a "parasite". With that foregiven knowledge you decide to go for it anyway, at that point, it's your own damn fault. Now, if you knew there was a surefire, simple and painless way to prevent a parasite from entering your body, wouldn't that seem much more appealing than having to be opened up and having it removed?

Don't get screwed, or at least use some contraceptive that'll work.

If it could become a human and you terminate it then would it be able to become a human/live? No. I can make a similar comparison.

This requires a lil thought outside the box. An abortionist logic the following would be acceptable.

Killing of teenagers and over is illegal(same how homocide is illegal) but killing people who are not yet 13 is acceptable since it is not considered human until it has the ability to reproduce.

By that logic if a parent doesnt want the responsibility fo a ten year old then the could just terminate the life. Since it was not a human life no murder was comitted no big deal although it had the potentiality to become human.
people who are under 13 are human because they have a brain. any animal who is unable to reproduce is still alive because it is made of cells, responds to stimuli, etc. it is alright to kill an animal because even though its alive, it is not human. it is not human because it doesnt have a human brain and cannot think or have the same consciousness, sentience, etc. (as i have said before but it hasnt been refuted)
the ability to reproduce is only used in biology text books to seperate living matter from non-living matter (example: the chair your sitting in isnt alive).
why do i draw the line at consciousness, sentience, etc? because thats how we seperate ourselves from bacteria, cattle, and anything else that is alive but is not human. sure people choose to not eat meat but forcing someone else not to eat meat is considered illegal and morally wrong.

So, what, as soon as a woman is pregnant she isn't a person anymore? Her choice and happiness mean nothing?
every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapinness. i agree with you. an embryo is not a person thus it doesnt have the right to life. a woman is a person and does have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapinness.

I don't think you have to go around quoting everyone and then saying if you disagree or agree. You can do that in one post...

And by having sex, you've submitted to the possibility that you may willl most likely develop a "parasite". With that foregiven knowledge you decide to go for it anyway, at that point, it's your own damn fault. Now, if you knew there was a surefire, simple and painless way to prevent a parasite from entering your body, wouldn't that seem much more appealing than having to be opened up and having it removed?

Don't get screwed, or at least use some contraceptive that'll work.
1. you can't dictate to people how they should remove parasites from their body.
2. people do use contraceptives, condoms, the pill, etc. and they dont work
3. it doesnt matter if you can say, oh just get castrated and solve that problem. you must prove that abortion is killing a living human being and should therefore be considered murder.

And by having sex, you've submitted to the possibility that you may willl most likely develop a "parasite". With that foregiven knowledge you decide to go for it anyway, at that point, it's your own damn fault. Now, if you knew there was a surefire, simple and painless way to prevent a parasite from entering your body, wouldn't that seem much more appealing than having to be opened up and having it removed?

Don't get screwed, or at least use some contraceptive that'll work.

A. There's rape, enough said.
B. People who willingly have sexual intercourse with each other use contraceptives...they don't always work and there is nothing we can do about that. It is human nature to have sexual urges, however, it is the individual's choice to act on them but it should also be the individual's choice on how to deal with the consequences of human nature.
C. By having sex you are also submitting to the possibility of contracting tons of STDs, especially AIDS or HIV. Do you think we should discontinue treatment to individuals infected with these diseases, or stop studies that are trying to cure them???

I am all for waiting to have sex until it is right and you can accept the possibility of having a child and can trust your partner is not infected with an STD, but there are some people less educated and less fortunate whose circumstances do not allow them to wait. They should not have to live with the consequences that life gave them no choice over in the first place.

Joroma']A. There's rape, enough said.
B. People who willingly have sexual intercourse with each other use contraceptives...they don't always work and there is nothing we can do about that. It is human nature to have sexual urges, however, it is the individual's choice to act on them but it should also be the individual's choice on how to deal with the consequences of human nature.
C. By having sex you are also submitting to the possibility of contracting tons of STDs, especially AIDS or HIV. Do you think we should discontinue treatment to individuals infected with these diseases, or stop studies that are trying to cure them???
A. That is one of the cases I think abortion is (somewhat) excusable.
B. Human nature isn't an excuse, just because you're horny doesn't mean you should go out and have sex. I said contraceptives would help, but they are also not an excuse. They may or may not work, and that's a risk the indivduals having sex need to take into consideration. As I said, there is a simple and painless way to prevent child-birth, and when there is a simple and painless way to prevent something, then there is no excuse. If you needed to mutilate youself in order to not have sex, then you have other problems. Killing in general can be considered human nature just as much as having childless sex can, that doesn't mean we can't not kill (and I'm well aware that was a double negative). Human will can stop human nature, it's just some would rather let human nature take over. We have brains for a reason, if we didn't we'd do everything instinctually like all the other animals.
C. Babies won't hurt/kill you? Well, they may endanger the life of the mother in certain rare situations, in which I also see abortion as (somewhat) excusable because in that case it's either one life or the other. But anyway, STD's can be prevented in the exact same way a baby can... If it's too hard for modern society to wait, and make sure they're willing to accept (all) the consequences of having sex, that's pretty disgusting/barbaric to say the least. Being horny is just an urge to do something, much like punching your boss may be. For some reason I think the majority of people would be able to restrain themselves from punching their boss, if they tried.

:mad:
You just have to ignore that immature crap brigate, they can't really defend it, so they do stuff like that.

What's ironic is how this thread spoke of genocide and the nazis, and I could honestly see Hitler saying that in German. Except he may have just been speaking of Jewish babies particularly.

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex. Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least. Everyone looks back in the past and wonders how humans could have been so barbaric and brutal, how are we any different now with our technology. Now we're just making death more efficient. Efficiency doesn't make death any better.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

And on a side note, I also find it rather hypocritical how people can be pro-life yet be pro-Iraq war (note that I am not exactly a pacifist, but there should at least be a case of war if you're going to go to war) and pro-death penalty. You people need to choose what you want to support, life, or death?
1. science has changed since 50 years ago. its not an excuse, an embryo is no more a human being than bacteria, cattle, etc. as for definitions changing. MY definition has always been that the human brain is the only thing which determines that you are human. i beleive that infanticide is wrong. abortion is not infanticide.
2. who's saying that? refute the arguments made in this post. refuting some random argument that you just pull out of your ass from personal experience proves nothing.
3. prove that its just as bad and that life=potential for life. what is the "modern definition?"
4. who said sex was just for pleasure? what if you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregneant. no one said efficiency made death any better. the death of a human is bad. an embryo is not a human.
5. mute people were invented? your pro-choice but saying that its inexcusable that people have abortions? make up your mind. as for your side not alot of people truly beleive that they are saving lives and helping people by going to war in Iraq. even though, you and even i may disagree with that, it doesnt mean they're pro-death. for some and many,in fact, the intention is in the right place.

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex. Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least. Everyone looks back in the past and wonders how humans could have been so barbaric and brutal, how are we any different now with our technology. Now we're just making death more efficient. Efficiency doesn't make death any better.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

And on a side note, I also find it rather hypocritical how people can be pro-life yet be pro-Iraq war (note that I am not exactly a pacifist, but there should at least be a case of war if you're going to go to war) and pro-death penalty. You people need to choose what you want to support, life, or death?
1. science has changed since 50 years ago. its not an excuse, an embryo is no more a human being than bacteria, cattle, etc. as for definitions changing. MY definition has always been that the human brain is the only thing which determines that you are human. i beleive that infanticide is wrong. abortion is not infanticide.
2. who's saying that? refute the arguments made in this post. refuting some random argument that you just pull out of your ass from personal experience proves nothing.
3. prove that its just as bad and that life=potential for life. what is the "modern definition?"
4. who said sex was just for pleasure? what if you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregneant. no one said efficiency made death any better. the death of a human is bad. an embryo is not a human.
5. mute people were invented? your pro-choice but saying that its inexcusable that people have abortions? make up your mind. as for your side note, alot of people truly beleive that they are saving lives and helping people by going to war in Iraq. even though, you and even i may disagree with that, it doesnt mean they're pro-death. for some and many,in fact, the intention is in the right place.

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex. Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least. Everyone looks back in the past and wonders how humans could have been so barbaric and brutal, how are we any different now with our technology. Now we're just making death more efficient. Efficiency doesn't make death any better.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

And on a side note, I also find it rather hypocritical how people can be pro-life yet be pro-Iraq war (note that I am not exactly a pacifist, but there should at least be a case of war if you're going to go to war) and pro-death penalty. You people need to choose what you want to support, life, or death?
1. science has changed since 50 years ago. its not an excuse, an embryo is no more a human being than bacteria, cattle, etc. as for definitions changing. MY definition has always been that the human brain is the only thing which determines that you are human. i beleive that infanticide is wrong. abortion is not infanticide.
2. who's saying that? refute the arguments made in this post. refuting some random argument that you just pull out of your ass from personal experience proves nothing.
3. prove that its just as bad and that life=potential for life. what is the "modern definition?"
4. who said sex was just for pleasure? what if you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregneant. no one said efficiency made death any better. the death of a human is bad. an embryo is not a human.
5. mute people were invented? your pro-choice but saying that its inexcusable that people have abortions? make up your mind. as for your side note, alot of people truly beleive that they are saving lives and helping people by going to war in Iraq. even though, you and even i may disagree with that, it doesnt mean they're pro-death. for some and many,in fact, the intention is in the right place.

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

Oh, how little you know. Common law in Britain well before 50 years ago was that a fetus was *not* life before the mother could feel it moving. This was also law in the US up until abortions could be medically provided - then there were suddenly laws against them.

Meanwhile, even the Bible makes a clear distinction between the value of the unborn and the born, in Exodus.

The idea that an embryo/fetus is the same as a born life is an incredibly *new* idea in the scheme of things.

1. science has changed since 50 years ago. its not an excuse, an embryo is no more a human being than bacteria, cattle, etc. as for definitions changing. MY definition has always been that the human brain is the only thing which determines that you are human. i beleive that infanticide is wrong. abortion is not infanticide.
2. who's saying that? refute the arguments made in this post. refuting some random argument that you just pull out of your ass from personal experience proves nothing.
3. prove that its just as bad and that life=potential for life. what is the "modern definition?"
4. who said sex was just for pleasure? what if you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregneant. no one said efficiency made death any better. the death of a human is bad. an embryo is not a human.
5. mute people were invented? your pro-choice but saying that its inexcusable that people have abortions? make up your mind. as for your side not alot of people truly beleive that they are saving lives and helping people by going to war in Iraq. even though, you and even i may disagree with that, it doesnt mean they're pro-death. for some and many,in fact, the intention is in the right place.
1. Yes, to your new definition. All I see it as is an excuse to get rid of a problem.
2. Just because I'm not refuting one of your points, doesn't mean I made that up you arrogant prick. People actually said that a couple of times in this thread, and that is what I was refuting...
3. Well, being that the potential of a child being born if it isn't aborted is probably around 95%. Would you pull the plug on a grandfather you loved if he had a 95% recovery? He had the potential to survive, but you didn't want to have to pay for anything else and pulled the plug. Usually people that move to technicalites are desperate to avoid being at fault. Imagine your mother making a batch of cookies. You love cookie dough, and right after she puts them in the oven and walks away, you open the oven and snatch a couple of the cookies. After they're fully baked, she notices that a few were missing, she asks if you ate any of her cookies. You reply with a no. You are happy because you didn't get in trouble and try to stay free of the guilt since you ate the dough and not the cookies, since they were not fully baked yet, they weren't cookies. Sounds like bullshit to me.
4. Who said not having sex wasn't a precaution ? If you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregnant then that's too bad because if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. THAT is what sex is for, otherwise our bodies would've had natural contraceptives, like being able to have sex without impregnating your partner. Instead we had to make makeshift tools in order to avoid the consequences.
5. "mute people were invented?" I was using figurative language, it's what comedians and writers do to make their material more interesting. The pro-choice thing that I wrote was a typo, after having read all that I wrote, anyone that should've understood that.

Off topic: And about the war, the intention was said by Bush and then once that intention couldn't be backed up, it was changed... too bad the war already started.

...mean I made that up you arrogant prick...
Stay back from the flaming please

C. Babies won't hurt/kill you? Well, they may endanger the life of the mother in certain rare situations, in which I also see abortion as (somewhat) excusable because in that case it's either one life or the other.

A woman's health and life are in danger with any pregnancy. The percentages are small for actual lasting harm (unless you count a tendency towards late onset diabetes and osteoporosis, which are rather highly correlated), but they are certainly there.

A woman's health and life are in danger with any pregnancy. The percentages are small for actual lasting harm (unless you count a tendency towards late onset diabetes and osteoporosis, which are rather highly correlated), but they are certainly there.
Though I am curious are thoes an effect of being pregnant to start with (hormone changes) or carrying it to term

Meaning is it something that can be avoided by an abortion or just out of luck anyways (just curious not trying to use it to prove anything)

3. Well, being that the potential of a child being born if it isn't aborted is probably around 95%.

If you are starting to use the term "child" at conception, try about 20%.

I'm pro-choice. I'd rather not have some bible-humping fascist cram his views down my throat.

Besides, babies suck.

Though I am curious are thoes an effect of being pregnant to start with (hormone changes) or carrying it to term

Meaning is it something that can be avoided by an abortion or just out of luck anyways (just curious not trying to use it to prove anything)

They are a product of hormone changes, but there is a big difference between a couple of months of changed hormones and 9 months. The diabetes comes from developing gestational diabetes - which occurs later in pregnancy generally.

The osteoporosis has to do with missed periods and calcium leaching.

They are a product of hormone changes, but there is a big difference between a couple of months of changed hormones and 9 months. The diabetes comes from developing gestational diabetes - which occurs later in pregnancy generally.

The osteoporosis has to do with missed periods and calcium leaching.
So you get some unless you catch it RIGHT away and it gets worse the longer your pregnant? (thats what I took out of it)

A woman's health and life are in danger with any pregnancy. The percentages are small for actual lasting harm (unless you count a tendency towards late onset diabetes and osteoporosis, which are rather highly correlated), but they are certainly there.
And how many cases of abortion were due to that concern? Nevertheless, those symptoms can still be fundamentally prevented by not having sex in the first place. I was talking about directly causing death, like during or before labor, when the mother may have wanted the child at first, but then after finding out that she may die during labor, changes her mind.

I'm pro-choice. I'd rather not have some bible-humping fascist cram his views down my throat.

Besides, babies suck.
Lucky for you your mother was too ignorant to see things your way.

So you get some unless you catch it RIGHT away and it gets worse the longer your pregnant? (thats what I took out of it)

To my knowledge, there have been no cases of gestational diabetes before the 2nd trimester.

As for osteoporosis, I don't know of any studies that have used women who didn't carry to term in their correlations, so I really couldn't answer that.

To my knowledge, there have been no cases of gestational diabetes before the 2nd trimester.

As for osteoporosis, I don't know of any studies that have used women who didn't carry to term in their correlations, so I really couldn't answer that.
It would be a hard study ... being the length and weath of independent causes (everything from lifestyle factors to genetics) Cuting it down to one factor would be a royal pain

It would be a hard study ... being the length and weath of independent causes (everything from lifestyle factors to genetics) Cuting it down to one factor would be a royal pain

Correlation studies always are a pain - the sample size would have to be outrageous.

Correlation studies always are a pain - the sample size would have to be outrageous.
But the population size (women) would reduce the stringancies of a "large" sample size though if you want to keep your C levels up... not to mention R^2 levels

Yeah depends on the the number of variables
A good sample size for the population of lets say 3.5 billion (women) would be 40*10*Number of independant causes

So a lot :)

Actualy not THAT bad 400 people for every independant cause

1. Yes, to your new definition. All I see it as is an excuse to get rid of a problem.
2. Just because I'm not refuting one of your points, doesn't mean I made that up you arrogant prick. People actually said that a couple of times in this thread, and that is what I was refuting...
3. Well, being that the potential of a child being born if it isn't aborted is probably around 95%. Would you pull the plug on a grandfather you loved if he had a 95% recovery? He had the potential to survive, but you didn't want to have to pay for anything else and pulled the plug. Usually people that move to technicalites are desperate to avoid being at fault. Imagine your mother making a batch of cookies. You love cookie dough, and right after she puts them in the oven and walks away, you open the oven and snatch a couple of the cookies. After they're fully baked, she notices that a few were missing, she asks if you ate any of her cookies. You reply with a no. You are happy because you didn't get in trouble and try to stay free of the guilt since you ate the dough and not the cookies, since they were not fully baked yet, they weren't cookies. Sounds like bullshit to me.
4. Who said not having sex wasn't a precaution ? If you have sex and take all the precautions but still get pregnant then that's too bad because if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex in the first place. THAT is what sex is for, otherwise our bodies would've had natural contraceptives, like being able to have sex without impregnating your partner. Instead we had to make makeshift tools in order to avoid the consequences.
5. "mute people were invented?" I was using figurative language, it's what comedians and writers do to make their material more interesting. The pro-choice thing that I wrote was a typo, after having read all that I wrote, anyone that should've understood that.

Off topic: And about the war, the intention was said by Bush and then once that intention couldn't be backed up, it was changed... too bad the war already started.
1. o.k. you haven't proven that an embryo is equal to a human despite the lack of a brain. this means it doesnt matter if its just "an excuse to get rid of a problem." i see nothing wrong with getting rid of the problem. is it an excuse that i have a leach on my leg and i want to get it off because its sucking my blood?
2. quote? id like to know who's saying that because theres a small chance the embryo can die in the womb, that abortion is o.k.
3. if my grandfather was alive i wouldnt kill him. an embryo is not a living human being, therefore i am killing a blob of cells not a living human being. your second example is irrelevant. the cookie dough was not a cookie. it was cookie dough. if i eat the cookie dough, i eat the cookie dough. i can still get in trouble because it wasn't my cookie dough, it was my moms. this example does not carry over to abortions. killing a brainless blob of cells is not the same as killing a living human being
4. no one. no its not bad because you can get an abortion if you want too. your point is that its too bad because your killing a living human being when you have an abortion. this has not been etablished

*sigh*
Silly people, you are all missing an even bigger picture. The earth is overpopulated right now, unless we not only allow but encourage abortions we doom the childern, that the pro-lifers would not let us prevent from developing, to a life of untold suffering, lacking enough space for proper waste disposal many would have to live in their own reffuse, without enough food to eat or water to drink, the quintessencial starving ethopian child, with their sad face and distended stomach, would look well fed by their standards.
If we stopped population growth right now within the next 3 or 4 generations we would have to have a way to create about half again the amount of food, water, and shelter (to negate people below the poverty level) while making only 50% of the waste we are now and using only about half of the space for production we are now (so the people currently living could have proper living space). Before you force a child into the world think of the world that you are sending them into, do you think they would really want to live if they had to live like that.

A. That is one of the cases I think abortion is (somewhat) excusable.
B. Human nature isn't an excuse, just because you're horny doesn't mean you should go out and have sex. I said contraceptives would help, but they are also not an excuse. They may or may not work, and that's a risk the indivduals having sex need to take into consideration. As I said, there is a simple and painless way to prevent child-birth, and when there is a simple and painless way to prevent something, then there is no excuse. If you needed to mutilate youself in order to not have sex, then you have other problems. Killing in general can be considered human nature just as much as having childless sex can, that doesn't mean we can't not kill (and I'm well aware that was a double negative). Human will can stop human nature, it's just some would rather let human nature take over. We have brains for a reason, if we didn't we'd do everything instinctually like all the other animals.
C. Babies won't hurt/kill you? Well, they may endanger the life of the mother in certain rare situations, in which I also see abortion as (somewhat) excusable because in that case it's either one life or the other. But anyway, STD's can be prevented in the exact same way a baby can... If it's too hard for modern society to wait, and make sure they're willing to accept (all) the consequences of having sex, that's pretty disgusting/barbaric to say the least. Being horny is just an urge to do something, much like punching your boss may be. For some reason I think the majority of people would be able to restrain themselves from punching their boss, if they tried.

You didn't read my entire post evidently because you would have seen why the need to have sex for some people means they have to have it. You truly need to have compassion to understand this aspect of it. There are girls and boys that grow up without a father figure and their mother doesn't give a you-know-what about whether they're dead or alive, who have not had someone to teach them that it is a wide decision to not have sex until there are sure-fire guarantees. They learn sexual behavior from their friends because they have had no one to tell them any different. And don't say that doesn't happen because as a city resident, I have seen it happen too much. These people have these urges and know of no other way to deal with them than to act on them. What you have said simply is a Republicanly Christian way of looking at things. The point of it all is that it is no one's business to deem whether a woman can have an abortion except for herself. If she is raped or at a high risk of danger if she is to go through with pregnancy or whatever the case is no one's business except for her's and her doctor's. Rape is hard enough for a woman to deal with and having everyone know that she was raped can often bring more shame.

But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable?
To go along with what I just said: Calling that a simple solution, to me, proves your naivety on the situation that there are circumstances where it is NOT at all simple. Are you calling those less fortunate slow, stupid, and dumb because they can't use these "simple" solutions???

Being pro-choice, in my opinion, means having an opened enough mind to realize that people are going to have sex and have abortions no matter what you do and that it is no one's business to know why they need one except for the woman's and her doctor's. Maybe you should go and educate all of the people too unfortunate to know will power...or maybe chop some parts off of rapists...

Hyperbia....well said.

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.

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

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



I'm sorry, but that is the largest load of bullshit i have seen in a long while.

Let me explain.

a) Abortions occur before the fetus is a baby, mostly in the 1st trimester, rarely in the 2nd. ITS NOT A BABY YOU FOOL. The doctors dont take babies out of mothers that are about to deliver and kill them. These are usually tiny clumps of cells (embryos), the largest they can get before it is illegal to abort them is smaller than your fist (early fetus).

Moving on. In the nurse story. The fetus cannot move when it is in the 2nd trimester. It certainly cannot kick and squirm. If it is, then the abortion is not legal and that procedure was not as well.
And the procedures are not done with tools, but with medicines that force a miscarriage.

It seems that you are the one who is "misinformed".

EDIT - Oh, and i almost forgot. How did that good samaritan of a pro-lifer gain access into the alleged back room with the alleged dead babies? You would think an abortion clinic with that kind of terrible secret would, oh, i dont know, LOCK their back rooms full of dead babies? Thats fiction if i ever saw it.

*sigh*
Silly people, you are all missing an even bigger picture. The earth is overpopulated right now, unless we not only allow but encourage abortions we doom the childern, that the pro-lifers would not let us prevent from developing, to a life of untold suffering, lacking enough space for proper waste disposal many would have to live in their own reffuse, without enough food to eat or water to drink, the quintessencial starving ethopian child, with their sad face and distended stomach, would look well fed by their standards.
If we stopped population growth right now within the next 3 or 4 generations we would have to have a way to create about half again the amount of food, water, and shelter (to negate people below the poverty level) while making only 50% of the waste we are now and using only about half of the space for production we are now (so the people currently living could have proper living space). Before you force a child into the world think of the world that you are sending them into, do you think they would really want to live if they had to live like that.
last i checked, stopping population growth would collapse the world economy and cause alot of what you described....

I'm sorry, but that is the largest load of bullshit i have seen in a long while.

Let me explain.

a) Abortions occur before the fetus is a baby, mostly in the 1st trimester, rarely in the 2nd. ITS NOT A BABY YOU FOOL. The doctors dont take babies out of mothers that are about to deliver and kill them. These are usually tiny clumps of cells (embryos), the largest they can get before it is illegal to abort them is smaller than your fist (early fetus).

Moving on. In the nurse story. The fetus cannot move when it is in the 2nd trimester. It certainly cannot kick and squirm. If it is, then the abortion is not legal and that procedure was not as well.
And the procedures are not done with tools, but with medicines that force a miscarriage.

It seems that you are the one who is "misinformed".

EDIT - Oh, and i almost forgot. How did that good samaritan of a pro-lifer gain access into the alleged back room with the alleged dead babies? You would think an abortion clinic with that kind of terrible secret would, oh, i dont know, LOCK their back rooms full of dead babies? Thats fiction if i ever saw it.
look at dempublicients first or second post on this thread. one of the early ones explains all this.

If it could become a human and you terminate it then would it be able to become a human/live? No. I can make a similar comparison.

This requires a lil thought outside the box. An abortionist logic the following would be acceptable.

Killing of teenagers and over is illegal(same how homocide is illegal) but killing people who are not yet 13 is acceptable since it is not considered human until it has the ability to reproduce.

By that logic if a parent doesnt want the responsibility fo a ten year old then the could just terminate the life. Since it was not a human life no murder was comitted no big deal although it had the potentiality to become human.
Ability to reproduce is a necessary trait for a species as a whole. Kind of like mammals breast-feed their young from mammary glands. Well, guess what: the males don't. Mammary glands, like reproduction, are things that classify a species, not an individual. If that were the case, someone who is impotent is dead.
During the time period where abortion is legal, you're not dealing with a functioning person who can't reproduce. Sorry, functioning might be the wrong word... let's say "has brain function". Brain death is the general line at which we declare someone dead, so I believe it should be the line by which we declare someone not yet alive.
A 10-year-old has brain function. A zygote does not. Totally different. Unless, of course, you're prepared to argue that a pre-teen is a miniscule clump of cells :-\

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex. Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least. Everyone looks back in the past and wonders how humans could have been so barbaric and brutal, how are we any different now with our technology. Now we're just making death more efficient. Efficiency doesn't make death any better.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

And on a side note, I also find it rather hypocritical how people can be pro-life yet be pro-Iraq war (note that I am not exactly a pacifist, but there should at least be a case of war if you're going to go to war) and pro-death penalty. You people need to choose what you want to support, life, or death?
I can understand some of your points, but others I honestly have no clue.
A zygote is not alive. This is the truth. It has the potential for life. This is also the truth. So does a sperm and an egg that are free to get to each other, before conception. A zygote or an embryo is just a small clump of cells. No cell is any different than any other... there are no organs, no tissues, no nothing. Every cell does the exact same thing... divide, divide, divide. Later, they begin to specialize, and it starts to become something we might consider "life".
The "definition" was not changed because people wanted it to be. It was changed because the old one was wrong. Some people choose to consider pregnancy sacred, and choose to treat an embryo as they would a living human. For those people, abortion would be out of the question. I would fully support them in their decision to follow what they believe to be right. But scientifically, there's nothing at all special about an embryo. Those who believe that an abortion is the right choice for them should be able to get one. Those who do not should not, because for them it would be more trouble than it's worth: the emotional pain would outweigh the physical relief.
As for apes bashing their babies' head on rocks... that's in no way shape or form representative of abortion. That's what we call "infanticide", and it's illegal. For one who claims to be rational about things, this isn't exactly it. A better description would be, "apes don't eat wild herbs that induce miscarriages" or whatever, assuming those actually exist which I'm assuming NOT... although, enough hormones and it might do that trick. But I digress.
As for the death penalty, that deals with the sanctioned killing of human beings. Embryos and zygotes are not human beings by any stretch of the imagination. And I'm against the Iraq war.

And by having sex, you've submitted to the possibility that you may willl most likely develop a "parasite". With that foregiven knowledge you decide to go for it anyway, at that point, it's your own damn fault. Now, if you knew there was a surefire, simple and painless way to prevent a parasite from entering your body, wouldn't that seem much more appealing than having to be opened up and having it removed?

Don't get screwed, or at least use some contraceptive that'll work.
1. You don't get "opened up"
2. Many married couples do not want babies right away, because they're still in school. But you better believe they have sex. If they're smart, the woman's on the pill and the man uses a condom (correctly), but if those both fail (which is possible) then an abortion in the early weeks is completely fine.
3. There are no contraceptives that are definitely going to work. You can cut down on your chances, but nothing's definite except abstinence (and I'm not talking about "technical virginity"... i mean abstaining from all forms of sex)
4. Having sex sometimes results in pregnancy, but if that was not the intent of the sex then you are not accepting the result. Sure, since pregnancy is a possibility, it would be irresponsible to have an abortion twice a month because you keep getting pregnant because you bang all day long and never use condoms. But if you make a best faith effort, I don't think you should be arrested for removing a small cluster of ordinary cells.

last i checked, stopping population growth would collapse the world economy and cause alot of what you described....
Either way, we're all f*cked (no pun intended).
Capitalism has to keep expanding in order to work. We can't do that unless:
1. We come up with some sort of miraculous scientific discovery, which allows us to use resources more efficiently and not destroy the Earth.
2. We come up with some sort of miraculous scientific discovery, which allows us to colonize other worlds (rather far-fetched... worlds with resources, anyway).
3. Fundamentalists are right and the world ends and so it doesn't matter what state it's in.

I only used the ape head bashing thing because to the best of my knowledge, that was the only way they could prevent a child. Since you mentioned there really aren't alternatives to creatures, it was a bad example in the first place.

But anyway, we should all just aggree to disaggree. For some reason these threads keep popping up and all people do is bicker, myself included, since most people are passionate in what they believe. But honestly, what else can come out of these threads other than fighting and swearing? It's going to be rather hard to get someone to change their mind over the internet, it's far too impersonal. Lots of people have points that are valid to a certain group of people, and lots of other people have points valid to other groups. All these threads do is get both, or however many, groups to congregate and call eachother wrong. I know these threads won't change my stance, and I have a feeling they won't change anyone else's either.

Yes, but definitions can change, as happened about 50 years ago. People decided that in order so they can have sex and not have to worry about bearing a child, getting fat, paying for it, having your parents get mad, etc. they could just kill it before it devolops organs or w/e excuse you guys use. The definition for the millenia prior was that once you succesfully conceive, you have a child that the mother and father are both responsible for. But, so they could have it their way, they increased the requirements of being human. In another hundred years maybe parents that don't like having to put up with their 6 year olds will try and raise the requirement of being human to being able to reproduce, the guy who posted that had a reasonable point.

What on earth makes you think abortion is new invention within the last 50 years?

Abortion has been around as long as man. Bans on abortion have waxed and waned. A little over 100 years ago is when there was a movement in the US to ban abortion -- primarily by doctors seeking to forbid the practices of midwives and other competition.

Your fictional history only demonstrates your ignorance of this subject.

And for those of you trying to excuse abortion by saying, oh, and it's concevied a baby can still die in the womb. No shit... Everything dies guys, but it is DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT when a death is brought intentionally, than when a mother misscarries. You CANNOT compare those two, and if you do, then you must be out of ways to back yourself up.

I don't believe anyway has sought to argue that abortion is justified because some pregnancies miscarry. So, strike two for your commentary.

Taking away a potential "life", "life" under its modern definition, is just as bad as taking away a real "life".

Pray tell, why?

You should use more precise language. But a "potential life" is, by definition, not a "life." Why should it be treated the same?

Is burning some pinecones equal to chopping down an old growth forest?

If you for whatever reason cannot have a child, here's a fair word of advice. Don't have sex until you want to, being that the reason their is sex is to conceive. I don't think, for those of you that believe in evololution, sex was made just for pleasure... Otherwise there be another way to reproduce and sex would then be sex.

Or you can have all the pleasurable sex you want so long as you practice safe sex. And, if you nonetheless get pregnant, you can have the clump of cells removed. No harm, no foul.

For those of you that don't believe in evolution, perhaps you should do a little reading -- things have advanced since the 19th century.

As has been pointed out here, sex serves many functions in both animals and in humans. Reproduction is undeniably one of those functions. And that is relevant because .......?

Apes are more human than you, while they may have sex for pelasure on occasion, which I'm not even sure about, if they do conceive, you don't see them bashing their child's brain on a rock the second it comes out do you? No, they actually take care of it, and bear the burden, even if the father isn't there.

Again, perhaps you should learn more about a subject before you pontificate.

Many animals, including many types of apes, do have sex for pleasure and for reasons other than procreation.

Also, many species do destroy their young. That would be at least strike three for you.


If you can't accept others knowing that you're pregnant, therefore not willing to have the child and put it up for adoption, then there's proof of your immaturity. If there were no way to avoid getting pregnant, then maybe, maybe, the pro-choice people would have a point. But when there's a solution as simple as not having sex, how can that be excusable? If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption at the very least.

Ah, not mature enough to be allowed a choice -- but mature enough to have a child. That makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all?

One can believe it is wrong to kill persons.

A living, breathing, adult human -- such as someone sentenced to death -- is a person.

A clump of cells is not a person.

QED.


Political parties are the dumbest thing invented since mute people, if you don't get that that's your own problem. I'm just as liberal as I am conservative and most americans don't understand how that can happen. I don't like Bush, I don't like the death penalty, yet I'm pro-choice, and anti-gay marriage OMG WOWZORZ@!

When were "mute people" invented? By whom?

Political parties have existed for as long as there have been politics.

Apparently you have an abiding hatred for democracy. That is unfortunate.

Also, you are clearly very confused in your thinking and poorly informed. Luckily, you can get help for these problems.

8snip*But anyway, we should all just aggree to disaggree. For some reason these threads keep popping up and all people do is bicker, myself included, since most people are passionate in what they believe. But honestly, what else can come out of these threads other than fighting and swearing? It's going to be rather hard to get someone to change their mind over the internet, it's far too impersonal. Lots of people have points that are valid to a certain group of people, and lots of other people have points valid to other groups. All these threads do is get both, or however many, groups to congregate and call eachother wrong. I know these threads won't change my stance, and I have a feeling they won't change anyone else's either.

<sigh>

The forums are a place where people debate things. If you don't wish to participate, don't.

If you do participate and you keep your mind open, you might learn some things.

I only used the ape head bashing thing because to the best of my knowledge, that was the only way they could prevent a child. Since you mentioned there really aren't alternatives to creatures, it was a bad example in the first place.
Fair enough... although killing a child and preventing a child aren't the same thing... perhaps it would be their only way to not have to raise the child, but in that case it would have been a living ape.

But anyway, we should all just aggree to disaggree. For some reason these threads keep popping up and all people do is bicker, myself included, since most people are passionate in what they believe. But honestly, what else can come out of these threads other than fighting and swearing?
Perhaps I have failed, but it is always my intent whenever I join a thread like this to try to argue logically and call people on both sides when the cross the line and start flaming. To my knowledge I have not sworn at anyone, and have not insulted anyone unless I somehow lost control when someone was spouting objective bs... not subjective BS, which I think is BS because I don't agree with it, but actual, factually wrong things. In my experience, the flamers who have no actual points to make eventually go away and you wind up with a good discussion. I'm willing to respect both sides of the issue, even though I believe very strongly that I am right. It is not so much that I am trying to convert people to my way of thinking, but rather it is a good mental exercise and it's good to see what other people think.
It's going to be rather hard to get someone to change their mind over the internet, it's far too impersonal. Lots of people have points that are valid to a certain group of people, and lots of other people have points valid to other groups. All these threads do is get both, or however many, groups to congregate and call eachother wrong. I know these threads won't change my stance, and I have a feeling they won't change anyone else's either.
Very true. But that doesn't have to be the point of debate (see above).

I only used the ape head bashing thing because to the best of my knowledge, that was the only way they could prevent a child. Since you mentioned there really aren't alternatives to creatures, it was a bad example in the first place.

But anyway, we should all just aggree to disaggree. For some reason these threads keep popping up and all people do is bicker, myself included, since most people are passionate in what they believe. But honestly, what else can come out of these threads other than fighting and swearing? It's going to be rather hard to get someone to change their mind over the internet, it's far too impersonal. Lots of people have points that are valid to a certain group of people, and lots of other people have points valid to other groups. All these threads do is get both, or however many, groups to congregate and call eachother wrong. I know these threads won't change my stance, and I have a feeling they won't change anyone else's either.
agreeing to disagree is what pro-choicers have been arguing all along. if we agree to disagree that means that woman get to choose if they want abortions or not. this is exactly our point. i guess that means we win....

Is burning some pinecones equal to chopping down an old growth forest?
bad example, as i recall when pinecones burn they actually spread their seeds and plant new trees. the analogy carries over with acorns though :)

agreeing to disagree is what pro-choicers have been arguing all along. if we agree to disagree that means that woman get to choose if they want abortions or not. this is exactly our point. i guess that means we win....
Lol perhaps, but don't push it ;-)

bad example, as i recall when pinecones burn they actually spread their seeds and plant new trees. the analogy carries over with acorns though :)

When I burn pinecones in my fireplace, the seeds do not produce new trees.

The point I was making is unaffected.

When I burn pinecones in my fireplace, the seeds do not produce new trees.

The point I was making is unaffected.
i know, i was just trying to be a dick. ;)

bad example, as i recall when pinecones burn they actually spread their seeds and plant new trees. the analogy carries over with acorns though :)

That's only certain species though. In most pine species, burning the cones will burn the seeds. There are a few athat *need* fire to actually open up and make new trees. =)

ahhhhhhhhhhhh... the beauty of digression...

agreeing to disagree is what pro-choicers have been arguing all along. if we agree to disagree that means that woman get to choose if they want abortions or not. this is exactly our point. i guess that means we win....

And as I would again point out, this is not an issue on which relativeism is a deciding factor. Either abortion is wrong or right. We cant just say "If its right for you, its ok". People have got to stop acting as if everything is ok and alright for anyone to do. Now I am not saying here "Abortion is wrong" (I have said that earlier but that isnt the point I am making here), the point I am making is that this is such a vital issue and a moral question that we cannot just say "whatever.." and be done with it. These days, many people have become cowards in their decisions, refusing to take one because taking one has consequences. Not taking a decision has no consequences and therefore is much safer, is the message that people seem to be sheading out now. A government and a society should be a decicisve one, not just saying "whatever.." to every question thats difficult to answer.

And as I would again point out, this is not an issue on which relativeism is a deciding factor. Either abortion is wrong or right. We cant just say "If its right for you, its ok". People have got to stop acting as if everything is ok and alright for anyone to do. Now I am not saying here "Abortion is wrong" (I have said that earlier but that isnt the point I am making here), the point I am making is that this is such a vital issue and a moral question that we cannot just say "whatever.." and be done with it. These days, many people have become cowards in their decisions, refusing to take one because taking one has consequences. Not taking a decision has no consequences and therefore is much safer, is the message that people seem to be sheading out now. A government and a society should be a decicisve one, not just saying "whatever.." to every question thats difficult to answer.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of liberty.

Whether from a natural law standpoint or utilitarianism or any number of other reasons, we have rights as persons.

We may exercise these rights in ways condemned by others. We may even do things that we have a right to do, but are immoral.

Many governments and societies -- unlike you -- recognize that rights, that liberty are vital.

Go read a little John Locke and come back when you have some understanding of liberty.

You seem to have a problem with the concept of liberty.

Whether from a natural law standpoint or utilitarianism or any number of other reasons, we have rights as persons.

We may exercise these rights in ways condemned by others. We may even do things that we have a right to do, but are immoral.

Many governments and societies -- unlike you -- recognize that rights, that liberty are vital.

Go read a little John Locke and come back when you have some understanding of liberty.

Liberty is of course right, but as a society we seem more and more obsessed with applying it to areas in which it is not applicable. Abortion is one of them. We should make an actuall decsion, rather than just let it be.

And as I would again point out, this is not an issue on which relativeism is a deciding factor. Either abortion is wrong or right. We cant just say "If its right for you, its ok". People have got to stop acting as if everything is ok and alright for anyone to do. Now I am not saying here "Abortion is wrong" (I have said that earlier but that isnt the point I am making here), the point I am making is that this is such a vital issue and a moral question that we cannot just say "whatever.." and be done with it. These days, many people have become cowards in their decisions, refusing to take one because taking one has consequences. Not taking a decision has no consequences and therefore is much safer, is the message that people seem to be sheading out now. A government and a society should be a decicisve one, not just saying "whatever.." to every question thats difficult to answer.

If you cannot provide an objective reason which applies to every single human being for why it is "wrong", then it is subjective and saying "I'll do what I believe to be right and you do what you believe to be right" is all you have.

And this is such a case.

Liberty is of course right, but as a society we seem more and more obsessed with applying it to areas in which it is not applicable. Abortion is one of them. We should make an actuall decsion, rather than just let it be.

As soon as you provide *objective* reasoning which leads to the inevitable conclusion that embryos should have rights, then we can make a decision. Until then, there is no decision to be made that does not infringe upon liberty.

Liberty is of course right, but as a society we seem more and more obsessed with applying it to areas in which it is not applicable. Abortion is one of them. We should make an actuall decsion, rather than just let it be.

And yet you have been unable to justify why the government rather than the mother should make the decision.

The decision to respect individual rights is a decision. It is the best decision. It is the right decision.

And yet you have been unable to justify why the government rather than the mother should make the decision.

The decision to respect individual rights is a decision. It is the best decision. It is the right decision.

No, because the government has to make a decision as to whether or not it is killing or not. Abortion is not murder in one case and not in another. There must be a universal government decision on abortion, how long into the pregnacy an abortion is allowed or wheter one is allowed at all. This is not a circumstance which changes from individual to individual. It is a universal issue.

No, because the government has to make a decision as to whether or not it is killing or not.

The government cannot make such a decision without some sort of objective reason to do so. It has none, and thus makes no decision.

Abortion is not murder in one case and not in another.

No, it isn't. But it is murder to some people and not to others.

There must be a universal government decision on abortion, how long into the pregnacy an abortion is allowed or wheter one is allowed at all. This is not a circumstance which changes from individual to individual. It is a universal issue.

Yes, and I suppose there must also be a universal government decision on whether or not plastic surgery is ok, whether or not someone can practice a dangerous religion, etc.

Oh wait, there isn't, and shouldn't be.

No, because the government has to make a decision as to whether or not it is killing or not. Abortion is not murder in one case and not in another. There must be a universal government decision on abortion, how long into the pregnacy an abortion is allowed or wheter one is allowed at all. This is not a circumstance which changes from individual to individual. It is a universal issue.

Again, you seem unable to grasp the concept of liberty. (And the US concept of federalism.)

Regardless, most countries -- including the US -- do have a decision as to how long into a pregnancy an abortion is allowed and whether it is allowed at all.

The Roe v. Wade schema in the US is an eminently reasonable compromise.

You have yet to justify any problem with it.

The government cannot make such a decision without some sort of objective reason to do so. It has none, and thus makes no decision.

No, it isn't. But it is murder to some people and not to others.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It is either murder or not. A government cannot sit on the fence.


Yes, and I suppose there must also be a universal government decision on whether or not plastic surgery is ok, whether or not someone can practice a dangerous religion, etc.

Oh wait, there isn't, and shouldn't be.

Plastic surgery is not infringing on anothers rights

A dangerous religon is only dangerous if it threatens anothers life

In this case we are talking about the life of the featus which so far no one has provided a valid reason why it is invalid. A fetus will develop into a life form and so that development should be protected.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It is either murder or not. A government cannot sit on the fence.

The government cannot do anything else when there is no objective reason to otherwise. Do you really want your government making decisions at the drop of the hat because of someone's completely subjective argument?

Plastic surgery is not infringing on anothers rights

A dangerous religon is only dangerous if it threatens anothers life

...and you cannot prove objectively that abortion infringes upon anothers' rights or threatens anothers' life.

In this case we are talking about the life of the featus which so far no one has provided a valid reason why it is invalid. A fetus will develop into a life form and so that development should be protected.

We cannot provide rights to potential. If we did, we would allow children to go ahead and drive, we would give retirement checks to 20-year olds, and we would give everyone handicapped stickers since they *might* one day need to park in the handicapped spaces.

The government cannot do anything else when there is no objective reason to otherwise. Do you really want your government making decisions at the drop of the hat because of someone's completely subjective argument?

...and you cannot prove objectively that abortion infringes upon anothers' rights or threatens anothers' life.

Errm, the childs?


We cannot provide rights to potential. If we did, we would allow children to go ahead and drive, we would give retirement checks to 20-year olds, and we would give everyone handicapped stickers since they *might* one day need to park in the handicapped spaces.

I've already explained that those examples are flawwed. In the case of driving, its unsafe. In the case of pensions, pensions are specificly for the over 65 and so they shouldnt be given to the 20 year olds as its a massive drain on welfare to people who dont need it and the handicapped stickers are for those who ARE handicapped. In the case of human life there is no practical reason why a fetus should not be considered alive. It isn't unsafe to do so (unless the mothers life is at serious risk, in which case abortion is an option, but ONLY then) and it causes no one else any harm. It is needed by the fetus as it is unable to protect itself and so needs rights to protect it. So can you provide a good, practical reason why giving human rights to fetus would damage anyone elses actual rights. And when I say rights dont come up with "right to body control" because I have already explained that several times over.

Errm, the childs?

What child?

I've already explained that those examples are flawwed.

And I have already explained that they are *exactly* the same as your insistence on applying rights to potential.

In the case of driving, its unsafe.

But one day it won't be.

In the case of pensions, pensions are specificly for the over 65 and so they shouldnt be given to the 20 year olds as its a massive drain on welfare to people who dont need it

So? They will be 65 one day, we should obviously go ahead and give them the rights they will one day have.

and the handicapped stickers are for those who ARE handicapped.

But people may one day be handicapped, and since you think it is ok to assign rights based on the *potential* of something, then you have no reason not to give them to everyone.

In the case of human life there is no practical reason why a fetus should not be considered alive.

There is no practical reason why an embryo *should* be considered a human life, especially when, biologically, it is not.

It is needed by the fetus as it is unable to protect itself and so needs rights to protect it.

You still have yet to provide a reason to give an embryo/fetus rights that isn't based on potential.

So can you provide a good, practical reason why giving human rights to fetus would damage anyone elses actual rights. And when I say rights dont come up with "right to body control" because I have already explained that several times over.

Actually, you have yet to explain away the right to control one's own body.

Errm, the childs?

Errm, what rights? We've repeatedly established the "child" has no rights.


I've already explained that those examples are flawwed. In the case of driving, its unsafe. In the case of pensions, pensions are specificly for the over 65 and so they shouldnt be given to the 20 year olds as its a massive drain on welfare to people who dont need it and the handicapped stickers are for those who ARE handicapped. In the case of human life there is no practical reason why a fetus should not be considered alive.

You persist in using deliberately flawed language.

A pratical reason why a fetus should not be considered a person prior to the last portion of a pregnancy is that it lacks a functioning brain. It is not sentient.

It isn't unsafe to do so (unless the mothers life is at serious risk, in which case abortion is an option, but ONLY then) and it causes no one else any harm. It is needed by the fetus as it is unable to protect itself and so needs rights to protect it. So can you provide a good, practical reason why giving human rights to fetus would damage anyone elses actual rights.

Yes, it does cause harm.

Pregnancy and birth have mental and physical risks and costs that abortion does not.

It can cause economic harm.

It can interfere with education or employment.

To say "it causes no one else any harm" to prohibit abortion is to callously disregard undeniably living, breathing, sentient human persons -- the mothers!!

And, it does violate actual rights -- the right to self-ownership, the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to bodily integrity.

Women are persons.

Zygote-embryo-early fetuses aren't.

And when I say rights dont come up with "right to body control" because I have already explained that several times over.

And you have failed to make a cohesive argument.

Errm, what rights? We've repeatedly established the "child" has no rights.

You persist in using deliberately flawed language.

A pratical reason why a fetus should not be considered a person prior to the last portion of a pregnancy is that it lacks a functioning brain. It is not sentient.

No, you have established that with no good reason. The simple reason that it is not sentient is not enough. The fact is that it is developing the capacity to be sentient. It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster.

And by a practical reason I meant a reason that would actually affect other people, not one of definion.


Yes, it does cause harm.

Pregnancy and birth have mental and physical risks and costs that abortion does not.

If they are not risks to the mothers life it is not worth killing the baby over


It can cause economic harm.

It can interfere with education or employment.

You dont have a right to have a healthy bank ballance and a good job. Those things are privilages. Is something a blow against freedom because it can seriously damage your wealth?


And, it does violate actual rights -- the right to self-ownership, the right to privacy, the right to reproductive freedom, the right to bodily integrity.

Women are persons.

Zygote-embryo-early fetuses aren't

As I have explained, those rights are given up by sex. If you are aware that you may have to have a life living within you as a result of something you do then those rights do not apply. The woman is causing the life to exist within her so her bodily inigerity is risked at her own choice. There is no excuse as there is no 100% effective contrception. Since it has already been proven that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure aspect is a system designed to encourage procreation, the woman must be prepared to carry a child as a result of sex. This does not mean that contreception is wrong or that sex for pleasure alone is wrong, its just that sex's primary purpose is procreation so people should accept it when it comes. Reproductive freedom is not a right I am famillar with but it certianly should not come above a right to life. And as for privicy, again self wavered by sex. Im getting rather fed up of having to repeat myself here. No one has yet sucessfully refuted this so please just go away if you cant. I have already delt with the medical treetment analogy and the acident one back in the therd. Go look yourself.

No, you have established that with no good reason. The simple reason that it is not sentient is not enough. The fact is that it is developing the capacity to be sentient. It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster.

It has not yet developed the ability to be classified as life. WHy should the fact that it might get there give it rights over another human being?

And by a practical reason I meant a reason that would actually affect other people, not one of definion.

That may be the most idiotic statement you have ever made. You asked for a reason that an embryo/fetus should not be defined as life and then state that you don't want a definition?

If they are not risks to the mothers life it is not worth killing the baby over

What baby?

You dont have a right to have a healthy bank ballance and a good job. Those things are privilages. Is something a blow against freedom because it can seriously damage your wealth?

If it is forced upon you, yes.

As I have explained, those rights are given up by sex.

Personal opinion, as yet unjustified.

If you are aware that you may have to have a life living within you as a result of something you do then those rights do not apply.

Basic rights *always* apply.

Since it has already been proven that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure aspect is a system designed to encourage procreation,

Wait, where was this "proven"?

Reproductive freedom is not a right I am famillar with but it certianly should not come above a right to life.

Only human persons have a right to life.

Im getting rather fed up of having to repeat myself here.

Then try saying something intelligent, or at the very least refuting the arguments presented to you instead of just repeating the same stuff that has already been countered.

No one has yet sucessfully refuted this so please just go away if you cant. I have already delt with the medical treetment analogy and the acident one back in the therd. Go look yourself.

You have not successfully dealt with it. Care to try again?

The thing is Neo, that the the default state in law is that something is allowed. If you wish to restrict it, you must provide a reason. The only reason you have thus provided is "well, one day, it might be a human person, so we should go ahead and give it the rights of a human person now," but you have yet to explain why the law should use potentiality as a reasoning. You and I may place value on that potential, but many do not. This is inherently subjective and choice made by the individual - what makes you so sure that your version is right that you think you can force it upon others?

No, you have established that with no good reason. The simple reason that it is not sentient is not enough. The fact is that it is developing the capacity to be sentient. It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster.

The simple reason that is is not sentient is more than sufficient.

Why does a zygote have rights but a tree doesn't?

Why does an embryo have rights but a chimpanzee doesn't?

Why does an early fetus have rights but a pig doesn't?

The only way to draw a logical, moral line is personhood.

And by a practical reason I meant a reason that would actually affect other people, not one of definion.

Of course, I then provided such reasons and you chose to ridicule them as not related to the "baby's" alleged right to life. Try not to contradict yourself.

If they are not risks to the mothers life it is not worth killing the baby over

Bait and switch.

You said that banning abortion causes "no one any harm."

That is untrue. It can cause significant psychological and physical harm.

You dont have a right to have a healthy bank ballance and a good job. Those things are privilages. Is something a blow against freedom because it can seriously damage your wealth?

You asked for practical reasons, then you say they don't count because they aren't freedoms. Make up your mind.

As I have explained, those rights are given up by sex. If you are aware that you may have to have a life living within you as a result of something you do then those rights do not apply. The woman is causing the life to exist within her so her bodily inigerity is risked at her own choice. There is no excuse as there is no 100% effective contrception.

And the flaws in this theory have been explained.

You do not waive your right to control your own body by having sex.

Since it has already been proven that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure aspect is a system designed to encourage procreation, the woman must be prepared to carry a child as a result of sex.

Actually, no it hasn't been proven. You, in fact, backpedalled on this.

Even assuming that because sex carries a possibility of pregnancy means you accept the risk of pregnancy by having sex, agreement to carry the child to birth does not follow.

Im getting rather fed up of having to repeat myself here. No one has yet sucessfully refuted this so please just go away if you cant. I have already delt with the medical treetment analogy and the acident one back in the therd. Go look yourself.

I am tired of you repeating yourself without responding to the many flaws in your arguments.

Fuck, this thread is still going? I haven't been in here in a week or so...

Fuck, this thread is still going? I haven't been in here in a week or so...

Sad, isn't it?

almost 450 posts and no one has even come close to convincing me that abortion is wrong....

And as I would again point out, this is not an issue on which relativeism is a deciding factor. Either abortion is wrong or right. We cant just say "If its right for you, its ok". People have got to stop acting as if everything is ok and alright for anyone to do. Now I am not saying here "Abortion is wrong" (I have said that earlier but that isnt the point I am making here), the point I am making is that this is such a vital issue and a moral question that we cannot just say "whatever.." and be done with it. These days, many people have become cowards in their decisions, refusing to take one because taking one has consequences. Not taking a decision has no consequences and therefore is much safer, is the message that people seem to be sheading out now. A government and a society should be a decicisve one, not just saying "whatever.." to every question thats difficult to answer.
Not everything is that black and white. There are many things where some people think it's OK, others don't, and you're free to choose. Like a roller coaster. Against roller coasters? Don't ride in them. But for those who believe they're OK, they have the right to ride/build them. I'm not trying to compare abortion to a roller coaster, so don't even try to "refute" my "point"... I'm just saying that there are many choices each of us makes, and if something cannot be proven one way or the other that is generally what happens.

Errm, the childs?
S/He went on to show why the embryo (not "child") does not apply.


I've already explained that those examples are flawwed. In the case of driving, its unsafe.
Granted.

In the case of pensions, pensions are specificly for the over 65<snip>
Yes... and human rights are specifically for those who are alive...
and the handicapped stickers are for those who ARE handicapped.
Once again, human rights are for those who actually ARE alive, not those who might eventually BECOME alive. Just like with the handicapped parking.
In the case of human life there is no practical reason why a fetus should not be considered alive. It isn't unsafe to do so (unless the mothers life is at serious risk, in which case abortion is an option, but ONLY then) and it causes no one else any harm. It is needed by the fetus as it is unable to protect itself and so needs rights to protect it.
Circular reasoning... wait, not even... ignoring the point, more like... you say that a fetus should have rights because it needs those rights because it can't protect itself. Having needs requires being alive. So... I'm still not seeing how your point makes any sense whatsoever.
So can you provide a good, practical reason why giving human rights to fetus would damage anyone elses actual rights. And when I say rights dont come up with "right to body control" because I have already explained that several times over.
An unwanted birth can ruin one, two, or many peoples' lives. Some people have to drop out of school, and are never able to make anything of themselves. People who might have gone on to med school, dropping out of high school because they have to get a job to pay for day care and food for their baby. If the father sticks around, it ruins his life too, which I personally think is totally unfair. He should be rewarded for doing the right thing and not abandoning his child, but instead, he throws his life away by making the right choice. The girl's family is often torn apart by the constant tension, and parents are often completely unforgiving. Adoption? Are you seriously asking a woman to go through 9 months (hopefully) of pregnancy, possibly days of labor, and God knows how many mL of morphine just to give away their child? That also causes pain, psychologically speaking, both to the mother and the child. Abortion does not hurt the embryo, because it does not have a nervous system. It can be taxing on the mother, but (unless they are themselves strongly against abortion) not nearly as taxing as the alternatives.
So yes, it harms people. Many, many, many people.

No, you have established that with no good reason. The simple reason that it is not sentient is not enough. The fact is that it is developing the capacity to be sentient. It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster.
It's not the embryo's "fault". It's that it isn't alive. "It can't develop any faster"... of course it can't. You can't get older any faster, is that a reason why we should let you collect Social Security?

And by a practical reason I meant a reason that would actually affect other people, not one of definion.
If definition isn't good enough for you, then I'm not exactly sure what's going on with you. An example?
"That is not a square" I say, "That is a triangle."
"But what if it IS a square?" you say, "If it is, we should call it one!"
"But it has only three sides" I say, "By definition that is a triangle, not a square. Squares must have four sides."
"But if you moved this line over here, and added another one, it WOULD be a square! Thus we should call it one, because if it can be turned into a square we should call it a square and thus it is a square."
"But it is NOT a square... you cannot give any evidence that it is, and by definition it is not."
"But do you have any reason why it can't be a square? I mean, something that affects other people? Definition isn't good enough."
This is how one fails Kindergarten geometry.




If they are not risks to the mothers life it is not worth killing the baby over
I agree, it would not be worth killing a baby. Fortunately, it's not killing, as it isn't alive, and it's not a baby, because it isn't alive ;)



You dont have a right to have a healthy bank ballance and a good job. Those things are privilages. Is something a blow against freedom because it can seriously damage your wealth?
You just switched your criteria. You started with "but it doesn't hurt anybody else" and ended with "but they don't have absolute rights to those things that they lose and ruin their lives". Pick one.



As I have explained, those rights are given up by sex. If you are aware that you may have to have a life living within you as a result of something you do then those rights do not apply. The woman is causing the life to exist within her so her bodily inigerity is risked at her own choice. There is no excuse as there is no 100% effective contrception. Since it has already been proven that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure aspect is a system designed to encourage procreation, the woman must be prepared to carry a child as a result of sex. This does not mean that contreception is wrong or that sex for pleasure alone is wrong, its just that sex's primary purpose is procreation so people should accept it when it comes.
This is your opinion, which you are free to have. But it is only that.
Reproductive freedom is not a right I am famillar with but it certianly should not come above a right to life.
No, they're not. Luckily, an embryo is not a life, so this is a non-issue.
And as for privicy, again self wavered by sex. Im getting rather fed up of having to repeat myself here. No one has yet sucessfully refuted this so please just go away if you cant. I have already delt with the medical treetment analogy and the acident one back in the therd. Go look yourself.
We're tired of you repeating yourself too, when you have been refuted.

The consequeses of sex is (sometimes) a life formed

Rather than dealing with that life properly, you instead kill it. Thats not the proper way to deal with a life.

That, my dear fellow, is YOUR opinion.

I do not agree.

Yes - I agree that it MIGHT be right to allow the foetus to mature into a living, breathing child... but that depends on the circumstances of the individual(s) concerned.

Personally - every day that I hear about some young female pressured to keep her child, who ends up suiciding, or dropping a two-hour-old baby into a dumpster, I think that there is more and more reason for abortion.

Not as a policy... but as an option.

I disagree with your holier-than-thou belief that you should be able to legislate what is appropriate for ALL people in ALL circumstances.

They are a product of hormone changes, but there is a big difference between a couple of months of changed hormones and 9 months. The diabetes comes from developing gestational diabetes - which occurs later in pregnancy generally.

The osteoporosis has to do with missed periods and calcium leaching.

I have already pointed out both of these risks to Neo, who STILL seems to insist that there are no adverse health risks to pregnancy.

That, my dear fellow, is YOUR opinion.

I do not agree.Exactly. Neo Cannon was complaining a few pages back that we need to understand that "not everything is relative". He may or may not be correct in that statement - but that's not the issue. However, one thing that is definitely relative is a person's opinion. And, whether you like it or not, abortion essentially boils down to a matter of opinion (of where life begins, if all life is sacred, etc, etc, etc). The fact that people so vehemently disagree on the issue proves that.

And as I would again point out, this is not an issue on which relativeism is a deciding factor. Either abortion is wrong or right.

I disagree with your black and white assessment of reality, Neo.

Fire? Good or Bad?

Fire on a cold night, carefully controlled: Good or bad?

Fire uncontrolled in a tinder-dry forest, putting people at risk: Good or bad?

Fire uncontrolled in a tinder-dry forest, as NEEDED from an environmental viewpoint: Good or bad?

You make your assertion that there MUST be a 'wrong' or 'right' option... but that isn't a logical platform.

Exactly. Neo Cannon was complaining a few pages back that we need to understand that "not everything is relative". He may or may not be correct in that statement - but that's not the issue. However, one thing that is definitely relative is a person's opinion. And, whether you like it or not, abortion essentially boils down to a matter of opinion (of where life begins, if all life is sacred, etc, etc, etc). The fact that people so vehemently disagree on the issue proves that.

Exactly... where the issue IS opinion, and where each opinion IS relative...

Then: the issue IS relative.

Noe can bluster as he pleases, but his assertions that this issue is 'not relative' is flawed, for exaclty the reasons you just illuminated.

This is exactly what I am talking about. It is either murder or not. A government cannot sit on the fence.


First: It is not murder, Neo. 'Murder' is a term with an implicit legal definition, and the commonly available abortion fails to meet AT LEAST one of those criteria.

Second: Government should have little or nothing to do with 'law'.

I have already pointed out both of these risks to Neo, who STILL seems to insist that there are no adverse health risks to pregnancy.

Well, usually he says "well she chose to take those on by having sex" and then a few pages later says there are no adverse health risks.

There is quite a bit of vacillation when you talk to Neo about anything.

No, you have established that with no good reason. The simple reason that it is not sentient is not enough. The fact is that it is developing the capacity to be sentient. It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster.


Curious.

Plants are becoming more 'advanced', Neo... in many ways.

They are adapting to their environments, becoming better at protecting themselves against threats.

(Note, I am steering clear of actually referring to 'evolution').

Given sufficient time, is it not logical that plants will develope the ULTIMATE form of defence... by adapting? That of 'sentiency'?

So - we shouldn't be allowed to kill plants, right? Because they are slowly "developing the capacity to be sentient"...

So - plants should be allowed ALL the same rights as humans, because, as you said " It can't be denied rights on the grounds of its development capacity. It just cant develop any faster".


Since it has already been proven that the primary purpose of sex is procreation and that the pleasure aspect is a system designed to encourage procreation, the woman must be prepared to carry a child as a result of sex.


This is a lie.

I have seen NO evidence presented that PROVES that the primary purpose of sex must be procreation.

Anal sex, for instance, seems like obvious evidence to the contrary.


Im getting rather fed up of having to repeat myself here. No one has yet sucessfully refuted this so please just go away if you cant.

You haven't made a single point that hasn't been refuted.

You still assert something that is PURE opinion... so, of course, nobody can convince you otherwise. But, all your 'arguments' have been refuted.

Please illustrate any that you think have NOT been refuted.

(Mental Note: Neo... just because you don't like someone else's answer, doesn't make the refutation 'wrong'. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you" is not a valid debate practice).

This is my comments on the thread so far... Man I'm glad that this is saved to word...

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." Actually, having a baby is a choice. If a mother has three children already and can hardly support them, another one would mean that all four would most likely either starve or be taken away from her. Here we have a ‘greater good’ argument. ^_^

"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. People can make bad decisions and end up pregnant (such as the “Oh, I’m not drunk, neither’s he, I’m just going to lie down now...”) The point is, you’re probably a virgin saying this.

"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. Don’t be stupid. If you were a young girl still in school, and got pregnant through rape or incest, you would want the right to be able to continue your education to build a life for your future children.

We know by science that beginning from the moment of conception No, we can guess from what science knows so far that human life begins around about the beginning of the third trimester, when brainwaves begin to be formed.
The Catholic Church is the only political entity that argues that life starts at conception.

The baby has his own cardiovascular system and does not share in his mother's system! You know... Except for the Nutrients and oxygen that pass from the mother’s bloodstream to the foetuses via the placenta...

"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. You do realise that the mother’s immune system is trying to get rid of the foetus throughout pregnancy, right?

"Gee, don't like slavery? Don't have a slave!" --See how stupid that is? Doesn’t sound stupid to me.

"You can't legislate morality."
Answer: Of course you can. We do it all the time. ... 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. No, those laws are to protect people and to stop the world going to hell.

First, what makes a human being a human being? The unique genetic makeup, of course, which is present from conception Not really. I mean, your fingernails have genetic code too. Doesn’t make them ‘human life’. Ditto the hairs on your head and your left arm.

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. No, they cannot adopt because you stupid Americans have a stupid adoption system and a problem with homosexual couples for some reason.

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! *sweatdrop* That logic is so faulty that I don’t know what to say. If there is no way for them to survive, carrying them to term is pointless.


The very thought of a child being "unwanted" by his own mother disgusts me! Why do think they get abortions, you twit!

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. Lol, yes!

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? Not quite. It’s only if the hen has been *ahem* ‘visited’ by a cock that the eggs can hatch. Otherwise, you’d have babies instead of your period. ^_^

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. The good ol’ ‘Mrs Nerg’ acronym. ^_^

Movement: Only later on in pregnancy
Reproduction: If male, only after puberty, if female, during gestation
Sensitivity: Not until very late in gestation

Nutrition: It’s actually getting it’s nutrition via the placenta, not ingesting materials itself...
Excretion: Not until just before birth
Respiration: Hm, I’m not too knowledgeable about this one... But if it’s growing, it must be respiring, I suppose.
Growth: That’s all that it does...

So as it isn’t getting nutrition itself or excreting, it aint alive!

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. It does have a beating heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitutionals
I myself never NEVER support abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose.

...................what?????? which one is it!?! Easy. Other people can choose to have an abortion, but her choice is not to.

The reproduction descriptor is generally only applied to species - as such, I did not include it. Hang on, does that mean that Mules aren’t alive? They’re sterile.

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. Hm, I suddenly had the thought of a Kangaroo Joey. They are separate from the mother, in an external womb, does that mean that if Kangaroo’ were debating abortion then, then... Oh, it’s too late at night to think.

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. Actually, there are many reasons in certain circumstances.

Actually, we are unsure as to whether viruses and other microorganisms are alive. Viruses are not alive - they don’t display and signs of life. Bacteria and Fungi are alive.

In the case of a rape(which is very very rare) You’re never been to Ilfracombe, have you?

Guess what, the bible makes NO mention of abortion specifically. Except for in the Laws of Moses where it says that any woman that’s pregnancy is suspected to be due to adultery must take a ‘potion’ that makes her belly swell up and terminated the pregnancy if she is guilty.

Its seperate when its fertilized and begins developing its own mixed genetic code. Begins? From fertislisation it has a basic code, no ‘developing’ process.

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) In that case, it’s ‘too bad for them’ that abortions happen, because rats are a helluva lot more self-aware than a foetus.

Can you really call a newborn baby fresh out fo the womb sentient? Is it aware of itself? What about when you were 1? Yes, it is self aware - it knows when it’s hungry or smelly, and cries accordingly. And also, I have memories from being 6 months old - my first Christmas.

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. Actually, another guardian aside from the mother can take care of the infant, for example if she dies in Childbirth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottle
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. The biological breakthroughs that determined that are relatively recent.

I would argue to any hardcore Christians out there that, according to the Bible, abstinence isn't 100% either ;-) Lol!

By that logic we should leagalise all illegal drugs and allow everyone to carry knives and let everyone have samples of smallpox on demand. The reason being that if you outlaw X then only outlaws will have/do X. Yes, drugs should be legal, people shouldn’t have knives in certain places, smallpox is extinct.

2. am i willing to sacrifice 18 years of my life? maybe i shouldnt have had sex and even risked getting pregneant? Sex is part of life.

Its quite simple. The primary purpose of sex is procreation. Don’t be silly. Nothing in biology has a specific purpose.

Killing of teenagers and over is illegal(same how homocide is illegal) but killing people who are not yet 13 is acceptable since it is not considered human until it has the ability to reproduce. actually, that logic only dosn’t extend to pre-teen boys. Premenstruating girls have the eggs in their ovaries.

I also find it ironic how a lot of pro-choice people are against the death penalty. How the fuck does that make any sense at all? Easy. The grown woman’s rights outweigh the foetuses, and the death penalty is blatantly a barbaric way of dealing with people. There is an alternative to the Penalty - imprisonment, but in cases abortion is the only viable option.

apes don't eat wild herbs that induce miscarriages" or whatever, assuming those actually exist which I'm assuming NOT They do exist.

You dont have a right to have a healthy bank ballance and a good job. However, you do have the right to get an education.

No, we can guess from what science knows so far that human life begins around about the beginning of the third trimester, when brainwaves begin to be formed.

Just for the record, "brainwaves" is not a descriptor of life. It is a descriptor of *human* life, but not all life.

The Catholic Church is the only political entity that argues that life starts at conception.

The majority of the Republican party seems pretty stuck on it too.

Nutrition: It’s actually getting it’s nutrition via the placenta, not ingesting materials itself...
Excretion: Not until just before birth

For the record, if the entity itself has a method of getting nutrition and excreting wastes (ie. a bloodstream), the fact that it needs another lifeform does not preclude this. All it means is that the entity is living as a parasite.

It does have a beating heart.

Not as an early embryo. =)

Hang on, does that mean that Mules aren’t alive? They’re sterile.

No, it means that mules do not meet the requirements to be classified as a separate species. If you had read what I said, you would notice that I do not use the reproduction qualifier as a definition of individual life, because that would preclude many creatures that are undeniably alive. You only use the reproduction qualifier in order to define species.

No, we can guess from what science knows so far that human life begins around about the beginning of the third trimester, when brainwaves begin to be formed.
thats not true, there are plenty of protestant churches that think abortion is wrong :rolleyes: ...... oh wait that doesnt matter :)

Okay, i haven't read most of this article but i think i'll add my two cents in as each opinion can be spoken freely, at least in america.

Is abortion murder? That's really not the point here, and making that the point is diverting attentions from the real issue.

Most pro lifers are really hazy on the whole pro life aspect, pro life should be pro all life yet i'm pretty sure the guy who started this thread has no cumpulsions against killing ants or spiders or houseflies, so therefore he's probably not 'pro-life' but rather 'anti-woman'.

now i'm not for abortion, per se. but i'm pro choice. choice is what separates us from the animals and machines. if you take away humanity's right to choose youi invent a world that Big Brother hasn't even dreamt of. and even if you outlaw abortion, that does not mean it's going to stop or even minimize the prevalence of the action. it's not. it's only going to remove the safety from the women who have them. you take away abortion doctors, you'll have back alley abortions in mexico or coat hanger abortions. the women who really need or want an abortion will do it themselves if they have to so either way baby's are getting 'murdered'.

Also a good number of abortions are not promiscuous women who made a mistake, they're medically necessary, either from pregnancy complications or pre-existing health issues that could cause the death of the mother and or the child if the child is carried to term. and if you want to say that life begins at fertilization of the egg, then any woman who has had sex and more than one period is potentially a murderer. because not every fertilized egg takes root in the uterus, several are flushed from the body during the natural cycle just because they were fertilized too late.

Also another angle to look at, there's way too many humans on the planet as is, i mean think about it. over 60 billion humans on the face of the earth. that seriously dwarfs the entirety of most other species combined. i mean most animals are either endangered or on thier way to it, why? too many people eating up thier environment. you of the religeous right (lets face it they're the ones with the biggest and loudest voice in the pro life/anti-woman movement) are demanding that we add to the problem. why? Because god told you to, without religeon lets face it, this issue wouldn't be as complicated as it is. now i'm not dissing on religeon just stating the facts as i see them.

in closing i'll return to my original point, whether you think abortion is wrong or not is irrelevant, what is at stake here is maintaining your right to choose for yourself or to be forced into submission by big brother. frankly. unless your wife or girlfriend or yourself (if you're female) have an abortion it really isn't any of your business, it's the choice of the woman involved and ultimately she has to live with the consequences of that action, (whether by overwhelming sense of loss due to abortion or 18 years of hell from a child she doesn't want) Not you. so really it's none of your business what the individual does. as i said before i'm not pro abortion, but i'm pro choice. without choice we're living in the matrix.

For those who will say it's in god's plan to have said unnnamed woman be pregnant and carry the child think of it this way. if God is so all prevalent and all knowing and all powerful then nothing, including abortion, the haulocaust, world war, famine, pestilence, death happens without his john hancock blazed across the order form. how do you know that that abortion is not in god's plan? haven't you ever been working on a project and decided to delete something in favor of a better idea later? think about that before you get all high and mighty with your righteous fury.

anyway that's my 2 bucks worth of opinion take it as you will.

i in no way try to impose my opinion as your own but i would like to voice a well thought out differing opinion as it is my right of free Choice to do so.

so therefore he's probably not 'pro-life' but rather 'anti-woman'.
i stopped reading right here.

i stopped reading right here.

well then you made the choice to disregard a valid position and an intelligently worded debate. but that is your choice and that is the definition of what pro choice is about. whether you agree with abortion or not does not give you the right to limit the choices of others.

well then you made the choice to disregard a valid position and an intelligently worded debate.
i guess we'll never know........

i guess we'll never know........

and that is your choice.

i stopped reading right here.

Too bad. There were several good points -- including that one.

Much opposition to abortion is sexist.

i fart in your general direction, clown.

i fart in your general direction, clown.

Wow... that was mature... so when is your 10th birthday?

<snip>
Also another angle to look at, there's way too many humans on the planet as is, i mean think about it. over 60 billion humans on the face of the earth. that seriously dwarfs the entirety of most other species combined. i mean most animals are either endangered or on thier way to it, why? too many people eating up thier environment. <snip>

You made a few good points, but I just had to correct this for the record... a little over 6 billion people in the world... not 60 billion... for all I know that's a typo or a brain fart. But also, as far as humans "dwarfing" other species (let alone combined), you must only be thinking of furry woodland creatures. Ants alone beat us by weight, let alone numbers. But yes, we're screwing over the furry woodland creatures :(

60 billion was a typo, yes. and as for ants, i didn't say all species combined i said most species combined, mostly meaning the other mammalian species.

60 billion was a typo, yes. and as for ants, i didn't say all species combined i said most species combined, mostly meaning the other mammalian species.

I think the rats could take us all.

again i'll state that i said MOST other species, rodents are not most species on the planet. i was meaning tigers wolves bears deer etc. rats are numerous but they're not most species on the planet. ants are numerous but again not most species on the plannet i'm not debating that there aren't a few species more numerous than humans but they are by far in the minority. most species on the planet especially mammals are outnumbered by humans hundreds if not hundreds of thousands to one. i mean there's only a few thousand tigers left in the world, only a few thousand wolves and bears. most species of those particular animals were wiped out by us. the same people who suppoert 'pro life' also support the same laws and industries killing off these species. that to me is more than a bit hypocritical. now i'm not a vegitarian environmentalist. i eat meat like most people, but then again i never go around preaching about the sanctity of life while i chow down on a steak and cuddle into my fur coat while watching a criminal get the death penalty. the same people preaching sanctity of life are usually the ones who are backing the oil industry or other destructive industries that hurt more life than they hold sacred. take that for what you will. i just think if you're gonna go so far as to impeed someone else's choices based on your own bias you should at least have to practice what you preach

there point isnt that life is sacred its that human life is sacred. if your god said to you protect these zygotes, i bet you'd do it too. its kind of obvious they dont give a shit about animals and they say pro-life because its short and it sounds good. we say pro-choice because its short and it sounds good. does that mean that we are in favor of all choices? obviously not.

I recently became against abortion. But It would be impossible to get rid of it without creating new problems. In fact, I dont think we Can get rid of it. The last time abortion was banned, there were thousands of deaths from dangerous back alley abortions. Mother and child.

Even if we allow it, we can still regulate it.

Of course, the reason there will never be compromise on this issue is fanatics like the one who started this.

Plus, from a christain standpoint... its probably not the best place to argue from. Not being a good witness because it seems that YOU ARE FORCING YOUR RELIGION ON OTHERS. Most of the time when that happens, there are mass killings (case in point, the Spanish Inquisition).

there point isnt that life is sacred its that human life is sacred. if your god said to you protect these zygotes, i bet you'd do it too. its kind of obvious they dont give a shit about animals and they say pro-life because its short and it sounds good. we say pro-choice because its short and it sounds good. does that mean that we are in favor of all choices? obviously not.

It's called political spin. The anti-abortion groups don't want to be a negative (anti) because that automatically attaches a negative connotation to them. Likewise, the pro-abortion groups chose choice because it also didn't have as negative a connotation as abortion did.

I recently became against abortion. But It would be impossible to get rid of it without creating new problems. In fact, I dont think we Can get rid of it. The last time abortion was banned, there were thousands of deaths from dangerous back alley abortions. Mother and child.

Even if we allow it, we can still regulate it.

Of course, the reason there will never be compromise on this issue is fanatics like the one who started this.

Plus, from a christain standpoint... its probably not the best place to argue from. Not being a good witness because it seems that YOU ARE FORCING YOUR RELIGION ON OTHERS. Most of the time when that happens, there are mass killings (case in point, the Spanish Inquisition).
This is just about the same viewpoint I share, New Bend

It's called political spin. The anti-abortion groups don't want to be a negative (anti) because that automatically attaches a negative connotation to them. Likewise, the pro-abortion groups chose choice because it also didn't have as negative a connotation as abortion did.

I think that pro-choice use pro-choice because so many of us are not pro-abortion. In fact, very few are.

60 billion was a typo, yes.
k
and as for ants, i didn't say all species combined i said most species combined, mostly meaning the other mammalian species.
Most species on Earth are "bugs"... I get what you're trying to say, but there is no way we are even close.

again i'll state that i said MOST other species, rodents are not most species on the planet. i was meaning tigers wolves bears deer etc. rats are numerous but they're not most species on the planet. ants are numerous but again not most species on the plannet i'm not debating that there aren't a few species more numerous than humans but they are by far in the minority. most species on the planet especially mammals are outnumbered by humans hundreds if not hundreds of thousands to one. i mean there's only a few thousand tigers left in the world, only a few thousand wolves and bears. most species of those particular animals were wiped out by us. the same people who suppoert 'pro life' also support the same laws and industries killing off these species. that to me is more than a bit hypocritical. now i'm not a vegitarian environmentalist. i eat meat like most people, but then again i never go around preaching about the sanctity of life while i chow down on a steak and cuddle into my fur coat while watching a criminal get the death penalty. the same people preaching sanctity of life are usually the ones who are backing the oil industry or other destructive industries that hurt more life than they hold sacred. take that for what you will. i just think if you're gonna go so far as to impeed someone else's choices based on your own bias you should at least have to practice what you preach
As I said, most species of animal on earth are not the fuzzy-wuzzies you're talking about. Mammals make up a very small percentage. You said "most" species, and I believe over 50% of all species within Animalia are insects. Therefore, no matter how picky a chooser you are, you have to include some of them, and they would far outnumber us. It's a shame you're sticking to this one point... I agree with you on everything else :)

I think that pro-choice use pro-choice because so many of us are not pro-abortion. In fact, very few are.


Precisely, there is a difference between saying "people should go out and get abortions" and "people should have the right to go out and get abortions."

Just for the record, "brainwaves" is not a descriptor of life. It is a descriptor of *human* life, but not all life. I said human life.

[also to Dempublicents] One of the very first things that happen at fertilisation is the starting to the ‘tick’. Correct me (with relevant reference) if I’m wrong.

No, it means that mules do not meet the requirements to be classified as a separate species. If you had read what I said, you would notice that I do not use the reproduction qualifier as a definition of individual life, because that would preclude many creatures that are undeniably alive. You only use the reproduction qualifier in order to define species. Sorry, I was writing as I read, and no-one had said that at the point that I was reading when I wrote that.
^Confusing sentance structure, or is that just me?

Likewise, the pro-abortion groups chose choice because it also didn't have as negative a connotation as abortion did. No, pro-abortion would be “Oh, you’re pregnant? You better go and get an abortion!” Pro-choice says that it’s the woman’s choice whether she gets an abortion or not.
EDIT: Like the two above me just said. ^_^

i guess we'll never know........

We might.... you obviously won't.

Fuck, this thread is still going? I haven't been in here in a week or so...

What? You finally got World of Warcraft too?

I said human life.

[also to Dempublicents] One of the very first things that happen at fertilisation is the starting to the ‘tick’. Correct me (with relevant reference) if I’m wrong.
"Tick"? Perhaps I'm just out of the loop, but I can't tell if what you're saying makes sense or not unless I know what you're referring to :)

Sorry, I was writing as I read, and no-one had said that at the point that I was reading when I wrote that.
^Confusing sentance structure, or is that just me? <snip>
That's OK, that's what I do too until I catch up... and yes, that is a confusing sentence structure.

We might.... you obviously won't.
you'll think. i'll never know, therefore we'll never know. so again... i guess well never know.

I said human life.

[also to Dempublicents] One of the very first things that happen at fertilisation is the starting to the ‘tick’. Correct me (with relevant reference) if I’m wrong.

Sorry, I was writing as I read, and no-one had said that at the point that I was reading when I wrote that.
^Confusing sentance structure, or is that just me?

No, pro-abortion would be “Oh, you’re pregnant? You better go and get an abortion!” Pro-choice says that it’s the woman’s choice whether she gets an abortion or not.
EDIT: Like the two above me just said. ^_^
i think dem meant that she wouldnt want to get an abortion, and thats what made her not pro-abortion. she does however support any womans right to choose whether or not they want to get an abortion

you'll think. i'll never know, therefore we'll never know. so again... i guess well never know.

Sorry, my friend... but I think you are wasting my time...

You seem to be arguing over the validity of knowledge that you refuse to even assess...

In my head, ignorance MAY be bliss... but it is still ignorance - and not a good debate technique.

I said human life.

[also to Dempublicents] One of the very first things that happen at fertilisation is the starting to the ‘tick’. Correct me (with relevant reference) if I’m wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tick". The first thing that happens after fertilization is that cells begin to divide. These cells are all exactly the same. Over time, they form a blastocyst. The stem cells in the blastocyst go on to form all of the organ structures. The first organ to begin working is the heart.

You were discussing brainwaves - a phenomenon that cannot possibly occur until there is a brain present - well into fetal development.

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.....


Interesting, because Mr. Savage does not cite a source for his claims. This means that we don't know if this is the result of months of careful research, or stuff he's just pulling out of his ass. We just don't know.

i stopped reading right here.
ever consider there might be a reason i stopped reading there?

ever consider there might be a reason i stopped reading there?

Not as much as I have wondered why you are still posting on the subject...

because it seems like theres no good pro-life arguments out there and im trying to find one.

because it seems like theres no good pro-life arguments out there and im trying to find one.


Thats correct, there are no good pro-life arguements out there.

"Tick"? Perhaps I'm just out of the loop, but I can't tell if what you're saying makes sense or not unless I know what you're referring to Tick = heartbeat before there’s a heart to beat in. In the pacemaker.

i think dem meant that she wouldnt want to get an abortion, and thats what made her not pro-abortion. she does however support any womans right to choose whether or not they want to get an abortion I’m the same.

The first organ to begin working is the heart. Which is what I said...

Tick = heartbeat before there’s a heart to beat in. In the pacemaker.

Which is what I said...

I believe you mentioned something about brain waves - which is why I replied to you in the first place.

In any case, no, the tick does not start right after fertilization. There are no cells differentiating along those lines until after the blastocyst stage.