NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the key issue over which pro abortionists and pro lifists argue throughout the day. Is a foetus, during the time period in which an abortion can be carried out, be alive?

Well we know it is alive in the same way bacteria is alive, in the same way that trees are alive - i.e. that it is made out of living tissue and has to use organic processes in order to maintain its existence.

But is that humanity? There is no actual thought going on in the mind of the foetus, no more than a cabbage thinks. Any movements made by the foetus are usually just nerve reactions preparing the muscles and the reflex actions for life outside the womb.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Does the foetus think in this sense of the word? Can it even define itself? Probably not.

As we know in legal terms that, in both the USA and the UK, a foetus is not considered to be a human being (for that reason abortion is not murder). Morally I think I have reached the same conclusion: the foetus is no more alive in the human sense of the word than frog spawn.

I'm gonna have to agree with you on this. You're correct: A foetus has no more capacity to think than does a cabbage.

By your logic, a newborn is not sentient or human either.

By your logic, a newborn is not sentient or human either.

*rolls eyes*

By your logic, a newborn is not sentient or human either.

Yes... I think that was rather the point.

Yes... I think that was rather the point.

So we should not consider infanticide murder then and just legalize it?

A newborn is an autonomous organism that may remain alive without involving the mother. It is also capable of learning, albeit in a very limited fashion.

A zygote is neither of these things.

A newborn is an autonomous organism that may remain alive without involving the mother. It is also capable of learning, albeit in a very limited fashion.

A zygote is neither of these things.

*claps*

The poster's thread is a little strange. The title doesnt really match the content. He ends up agreeing that at the very least, the fetus is "alive" anyway.

So most people can agree that the fetus is "alive". The disagreement is about what value is placed upon the unborn baby. Whether or not there is brain activity, it still has the potential to grow into a mature human, as long as no one kills it. The term "tissue" is very troubling to me, as it carries the connotation that there is no "value" to the fetus, and can replaced like a chunk of skin.

And a side note: So many people emphasize the point of delivery, or birth. Either way, before and after birth, the baby is still dependant on an outside source for nourishment.

A newborn is an autonomous organism that may remain alive without involving the mother. It is also capable of learning, albeit in a very limited fashion.

A zygote is neither of these things.
Without a mother to feed and protect a newborn, it dies. Yes a newborn can learn but what makes you think an unborn baby is incapable of learning? Does something magical happen between the womb and the world?

Scans have shown that unborn babies show REM (no jokes please), which suggests they are capable of dreaming, which suggests they are capable of thinking.

Without a mother to feed and protect a newborn, it dies.


Bullshit.

Mothers die all the time in child bearing.

Their kids get wet nurses, or bottles, and other people can take care of the kid.


Yes a newborn can learn but what makes you think an unborn baby is incapable of learning?


Zygotes don't have brains or sensory organs.


Does something magical happen between the womb and the world?


Yes. The umbilical cord is cut.


Scans have shown that unborn babies show REM (no jokes please), which suggests they are capable of dreaming, which suggests they are capable of thinking.

Zygotes do not have eyes, so there are no eyes for Rapid Eye Movement.

The poster's thread is a little strange. The title doesnt really match the content. He ends up agreeing that at the very least, the fetus is "alive" anyway.


Yes. Living cells are alive, in the scientific sense.


So most people can agree that the fetus is "alive".


Yes. Like a cancer cell, or an earth worm.


The disagreement is about what value is placed upon the unborn baby.


Yep.


Whether or not there is brain activity, it still has the potential to grow into a mature human, as long as no one kills it.


Much like any combination of ovum or sperm.


The term "tissue" is very troubling to me, as it carries the connotation that there is no "value" to the fetus, and can replaced like a chunk of skin.


Fetuses are not hard to come by. Cancer chunks are actually harder to come by.


And a side note: So many people emphasize the point of delivery, or birth.


The point where the child is no longer physically attatched to the mother, forcing her to provide for it.


Either way, before and after birth, the baby is still dependant on an outside source for nourishment.

Yes. But, once born, it's a choice as to whether an individual will nourish it.

Zygotes do not have eyes, so there are no eyes for Rapid Eye Movement.

Umm...minor point, REM starts before birth but long after the zygote stage. Only the most rabid fundies would consider a zygote entitled to the same legal protections as an infant.

Bullshit.

Mothers die all the time in child bearing.

Their kids get wet nurses, or bottles, and other people can take care of the kid.



Zygotes don't have brains or sensory organs.



Yes. The umbilical cord is cut.



Zygotes do not have eyes, so there are no eyes for Rapid Eye Movement.I think you missed the point I was making. If there is no adult to look after the baby, of course it dies.

Actually going towards the end of term, unborn babies have all the necessary organs, developed brain do indeed have rapid eye movement. The zygote starts to develop immediately, each week, it becomes more human. In the womb unborn babies can be delevered earier than the 40th week and many survive. I think it would be interesting to know what the earliest delivery that allowed for survival is.

You are hung up on the zygote but this is not about the sentience of the zygote but at what point an unborn baby can be considered human.

Umm...minor point, REM starts before birth but long after the zygote stage. Only the most rabid fundies would consider a zygote entitled to the same legal protections as an infant.

Sure are a lot of those.

Most abortions are very very very early.

Does something magical happen between the womb and the world?

not exactly magical, but yes, big important things happen. haven't you had sex ed?

I think you missed the point I was making. If there is no adult to look after the baby, of course it dies.


Yes. But that adult gets to make that choice.

We, as a society, have chosen to fund orphanages towards that purpose.

Nobody has to work at an orphanage.

The pregnant woman, however, doesn't get that choice via any method but abortion. It's not physically possible for her to just not give it nutrients and house it without it being aborted.


Actually going towards the end of term, unborn babies have all the necessary organs, developed brain do indeed have rapid eye movement.


I said Zygote. Not "Five seconds before". I feel that, in all cases, the woman should be able to say, "Get this thing out of me." Doctors are free to keep it alive, if they wish.


The zygote starts to develop immediately, each week, it becomes more human.


Yes. But a zygote is a zygote until it is no longer a zygote. I'm getting closer to being worm food, but that doesn't make me a corpse.


In the womb unborn babies can be delevered earier than the 40th week and many survive. I think it would be interesting to know what the earliest delivery that allowed for survival is.


Agreed. Rip it out, see what happens.


You are hung up on the zygote but this is not about the sentience of the zygote but at what point an unborn baby can be considered human.

When it can go the opposite direction of its mother.

Yes. But that adult gets to make that choice.

We, as a society, have chosen to fund orphanages towards that purpose.

Nobody has to work at an orphanage.

The pregnant woman, however, doesn't get that choice via any method but abortion. It's not physically possible for her to just not give it nutrients and house it without it being aborted.



I said Zygote. Not "Five seconds before". I feel that, in all cases, the woman should be able to say, "Get this thing out of me." Doctors are free to keep it alive, if they wish.



Yes. But a zygote is a zygote until it is no longer a zygote. I'm getting closer to being worm food, but that doesn't make me a corpse.



Agreed. Rip it out, see what happens.



When it can go the opposite direction of its mother.
"rip it out" yes, thats a considered response!!!
You are talking about zygotes the term of pregnancy is not about carrying a zygote, it's about the development towards a human person.

I agree with you that the woman has the right to choose whether to go through the pregnancy or not, though to also acknowledge what other's opinions are, especially the fathers.

You are still missing the point that I'm making. An unborn baby cannot survive without it's mother and a newborn baby cannot survive without it's mother, father, grandparents, orphange or any other candidtates you feel should be mentioned. Yet our society would condem the mother for failing to ensure the safety and nurturing of the newborn child, yet blithley dismisses an abortion as the "womans right to choose"

An unborn baby cannot survive without it's mother and a newborn baby cannot survive without it's mother, father, grandparents, orphange or any other candidtates you feel should be mentioned. Yes, but a human requires not only nourishment, but also oxygen to survive. A newborn baby, while unable to feed itself, is able to breathe on its own. Therefore the newborn is not getting 100% of what it needs to survive from outside sources. However, a fetus does get 100% of what it needs to survive from outside sources. That is the difference.

Yes, but a human requires not only nourishment, but also oxygen to survive. A newborn baby, while unable to feed itself, is able to breathe on its own. Therefore the newborn is not getting 100% of what it needs to survive from outside sources. However, a fetus does get 100% of what it needs to survive from outside sources. That is the difference.By that same reasoning, the unborn baby requires the oxygen via it's mothers bloodstream, if she dies then the unborn baby dies also. However the main consideration is that the fetus or newborn cannot survive without assistance from someone else.

"rip it out" yes, thats a considered response!!!


You make it sound like I didn't consider this topic for several years before making a decision on it.

Yes. Rip the goddamn thing out. If it lives, it lives, if it dies, it dies.


You are talking about zygotes the term of pregnancy is not about carrying a zygote, it's about the development towards a human person.


So is spooge.


I agree with you that the woman has the right to choose whether to go through the pregnancy or not, though to also acknowledge what other's opinions are, especially the fathers.


He can care for it after she gets it ripped out.

And yes, rip is the right word. Abortions are rough.


You are still missing the point that I'm making. An unborn baby cannot survive without it's mother and a newborn baby cannot survive without it's mother, father, grandparents, orphange or any other candidtates you feel should be mentioned.


And?

Like I said. Remove it from a woman who no longer wants it. Let whoever does want it, or the government, take it from there.


Yet our society would condem the mother for failing to ensure the safety and nurturing of the newborn child, yet blithley dismisses an abortion as the "womans right to choose"

Because the woman basically adopted it if she didn't give it to the government at birth, thus taking on responsibilities.

It's like going to the SPCA, picking up a puppy, and let it starve to death. You CHOSE to bring the thing home.

By that same reasoning, the unborn baby requires the oxygen via it's mothers bloodstream, if she dies then the unborn baby dies also. However the main consideration is that the fetus or newborn cannot survive without assistance from someone else.
Yes, which is why the fetus is not considered human life, it gets 100% of what it needs to survive from the woman carrying it. However, after birth, it is capable of getting at least part of what it needs to survive on its own.

Originally Posted by Nova Castlemilk
Without a mother to feed and protect a newborn, it dies.
So 3 year olds would not die if left by themselves in the middle of nowhere, with no food or protection?



Either way, before and after birth, the baby is still dependant on an outside source for nourishment.

I could be wrong, but don't most animals no matter what their age.

The opposite of me is alive! :(

This is the key issue over which pro abortionists and pro lifists argue throughout the day.
Funny, there are very few pro-abortionists. Most of us are pro-choice.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM
That's hardly ancient. Descartes came up with that one.

As we know in legal terms that, in both the USA and the UK, a foetus is not considered to be a human being (for that reason abortion is not murder). Morally I think I have reached the same conclusion: the foetus is no more alive in the human sense of the word than frog spawn.
Ok.. You really do have a habit of making things seem highly offensive/flamebait-ish at the outset, you know.

I would say that anyone who carries any living creature in them got the right to say what should do about it and when it pops out then it comes to society to look after them. If its from God then it gets faster to Him and to better place. And what makes you think you even existed other than that "I think so I live" you could be just almost everything than living maybe a puppet of God jiggling when He makes you think when He makes you.

Hooray! An abortion thread! I was sooooo hoping for one of these. It's been so long since I've seen one.

Anyway ... my points:

1] What is life? Life is. A cabbage is life, yes. A zygote is life, yes. A tumor is life, yes. Termination is sometimes necessary, whether for medical reasons, protection, or cole slaw. Life ends as easily and naturally as it begins.

2] The connection between REM sleep and dreaming has long ago been proven nonexistent. We dream without REM and we REM without dreaming all the time. Sometimes they coincide. To dream requires memories, the human is incapable of memory until 3-5 months old and even then it doesn't stick well until 2-4 *years* old. Hence, babies in the womb do not dream.

3] If you truly trust women, you'll trust them to make such decisions. Everyone in this conversation who has a penis needs to stfu and deal with it. Every time a woman has a period, a potential life is destroyed. We better outlaw it quick! Dorks.

That's it. I'm done.

Funny, there are very few pro-abortionists. Most of us are pro-choice.


That's hardly ancient. Descartes came up with that one.


Ok.. You really do have a habit of making things seem highly offensive/flamebait-ish at the outset, you know.

Fair enough on the first two points if you want to split hairs.

I really fail to see what is offensive about the last point: it is a valid comparison though it is indeed unpleasant sounding.

A human is anything that has human DNA and is alive or once was living.
A fetus is technically alive and acts in an organized manner(first cleavaging or something when the big cell splits apart into smaller and smaller cells until it is normal size, then i think its cogation where they connect then they go through mitosis and meoisis(?)) and has human DNA, I am pretty sure that it is human then.

Now some of the arguments if I interrupted correctly states that the difference between a fetus and an infant is that a fetus needs support from the mother. Now if I interpertted that right then there is no difference because an infant requires support from a figure to allow it to survive.

Hooray! An abortion thread! I was sooooo hoping for one of these. It's been so long since I've seen one.

Anyway ... my points:

1] What is life? Life is. A cabbage is life, yes. A zygote is life, yes. A tumor is life, yes. Termination is sometimes necessary, whether for medical reasons, protection, or cole slaw. Life ends as easily and naturally as it begins.

2] The connection between REM sleep and dreaming has long ago been proven nonexistent. We dream without REM and we REM without dreaming all the time. Sometimes they coincide. To dream requires memories, the human is incapable of memory until 3-5 months old and even then it doesn't stick well until 2-4 *years* old. Hence, babies in the womb do not dream.

3] If you truly trust women, you'll trust them to make such decisions. Everyone in this conversation who has a penis needs to stfu and deal with it. Every time a woman has a period, a potential life is destroyed. We better outlaw it quick! Dorks.

That's it. I'm done.

Wisdom, people, wisdom!

Read it, memorize it, love it.

Wisdom, people, wisdom!

Read it, memorize it, love it.


Ooh ... I forgot something ... addendum to #3:

Even if you're married to a woman, you do not own her womb nor the contents thereof. You can have an opinion, but the choice is hers.

This is the key issue over which pro abortionists and pro lifists argue throughout the day. Is a foetus, during the time period in which an abortion can be carried out, be alive?

Well we know it is alive in the same way bacteria is alive, in the same way that trees are alive - i.e. that it is made out of living tissue and has to use organic processes in order to maintain its existence.

But is that humanity? There is no actual thought going on in the mind of the foetus, no more than a cabbage thinks. Any movements made by the foetus are usually just nerve reactions preparing the muscles and the reflex actions for life outside the womb.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Does the foetus think in this sense of the word? Can it even define itself? Probably not.

As we know in legal terms that, in both the USA and the UK, a foetus is not considered to be a human being (for that reason abortion is not murder). Morally I think I have reached the same conclusion: the foetus is no more alive in the human sense of the word than frog spawn.

1) the biggest disagreement between those that are pro-choice and anti-choice is that some of believe women have rights

2) you are using the wrong terminology -- which plays directly into the hands of those that are anti-choice. Of course, zygotes and fetuses are alive. The true question is whether they are persons: are they entitled to rights?

Ooh ... I forgot something ... addendum to #3:

Even if you're married to a woman, you do not own her womb nor the contents thereof. You can have an opinion, but the choice is hers.

Damn. This is the kind of thing that gives prophets a bad name. Anyhoo ...

More wisdom, people, more wisdom.

Read the addendum, memorize the addendum, love the addendum. ;)

Eh. I'm still suprised no one mentioned about Masturbation yet.

Guys Musn't Masturbate!! Your killing your future children :D

Yeah. I cry for my millions and millions babys wasted on dirty movie in TV.

Yeah. I cry for my millions and millions babys wasted on dirty movie in TV.

Correct.. Porno is murder and so is porn-watchers. :p

It's the worst form of murder, Porn is worse than Hitler!!

I could of swore in science class the teacher said Cells arent alive because they are unable to stay alive by them self.

By your logic, a newborn is not sentient or human either.

The point is, is the mother of said zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, a sentient human being, or a cow?

Funny, there are very few pro-abortionists.
Three words:
Church of Euthanasia.
:D

Isn't is amazing how men always forget there's a woman there too?

There is no actual thought going on in the mind of the foetus, no more than a cabbage thinks. Any movements made by the foetus are usually just nerve reactions preparing the muscles and the reflex actions for life outside the womb.
And you know this how?

I could of swore in science class the teacher said Cells arent alive because they are unable to stay alive by them self.
If your science teacher told you cells were not alive, and actually meant that, now would be a good time to drop out of the class.

The point is, is the mother of said zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, a sentient human being, or a cow?

Exactically! said the Caterpillar.

And you know this how?

Because until the late stages of pregnancy they don't have the necessary brain parts.

Because until the late stages of pregnancy they don't have the necessary brain parts.
So only "partial birth abortion" would be terminating what is essentially a human being?

This is the key issue over which pro abortionists and pro lifists argue throughout the day. Is a foetus, during the time period in which an abortion can be carried out, be alive?

Well we know it is alive in the same way bacteria is alive, in the same way that trees are alive - i.e. that it is made out of living tissue and has to use organic processes in order to maintain its existence.

But is that humanity? There is no actual thought going on in the mind of the foetus, no more than a cabbage thinks. Any movements made by the foetus are usually just nerve reactions preparing the muscles and the reflex actions for life outside the womb.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Does the foetus think in this sense of the word? Can it even define itself? Probably not.

As we know in legal terms that, in both the USA and the UK, a foetus is not considered to be a human being (for that reason abortion is not murder). Morally I think I have reached the same conclusion: the foetus is no more alive in the human sense of the word than frog spawn.

OK HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!:

A foetus is ALIVE. To BE ALIVE is to have dividing cells and to be taking in food to make energy. What the abortion debate boils down to is HUMAN LIFE. A foetus does not have higher brain function, what defines being human (or sentient). Therefore, abortion is ok, until the second trimestere.

IMHO, this thread is absolutely pointless, except for budding lawyers that need practice arguing. Extremely few people on either side of this issue are ever going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence for or against.

IMHO, this thread is absolutely pointless, except for budding lawyers that need practice arguing. Extremely few people on either side of this issue are ever going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence for or against.

Yes, but what else is there to do? ^.^

IMHO, this thread is absolutely pointless, except for budding lawyers that need practice arguing. Extremely few people on either side of this issue are ever going to change their minds, no matter what the evidence for or against.

Ah, the obligatory post by someone that does not realize that forums are a place where people argue.

We rarely cure diseases. We almost never create international peace.

We argue.

Get over it.

If you don't like it, DON'T READ IT.

(And, btw, some of us aren't budding lawyers.)

OK HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!:

A foetus is ALIVE. To BE ALIVE is to have dividing cells and to be taking in food to make energy. What the abortion debate boils down to is HUMAN LIFE. A foetus does not have higher brain function, what defines being human (or sentient). Therefore, abortion is ok, until the second trimestere.

Um. Close.

What the abortion debate should boil down to is that women are entitled to basic human rights.

But as most wish to ignore the mother, the proper question is PERSONHOOD.

A fetus does not have higher brain function, so abortion is OK until at least the end of the second trimester and/or the point of viability.

I really fail to see what is offensive about the last point: it is a valid comparison though it is indeed unpleasant sounding.
Oh, no, see that's the thing, there wasn't anything offensive about the last point, but the lead up to it had me expecting something like that.

Never said I didn't like it. I've read the entire thread, and been interested in it. Just don't see the point of arguing without the hope of winning.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Since when was that an ancient philosophical maxim? I think you'll find it was Rene Descartes. Neither ancient or... ok, he was philosophical, but he's warm in the ground comparatively.

So only "partial birth abortion" would be terminating what is essentially a human being?

Technically, "partial birth abortion" is make-believe. (Which is part of the reason the Nebraska law banning it was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

But, yes.

Which is why it is constitutional to prohibit abortion beyond the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks) unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Which is why almost every US state bans abortion beyond 24 weeks unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother (or, in a handful of states, other extreme circumstances like rape/incest of a minor or severe fetal abnormality).

And which is why only about 0.08% of abortions in the US occur at 24 weeks or beyond.

So only "partial birth abortion" would be terminating what is essentially a human being?
Yes, and partial birth abortions or dilation and extraction procedures are only preformed when the fetus is either dead or a huge health risk to the woman or would survive, like 5 mins after birth in excruciating pain.

Technically, "partial birth abortion" is make-believe. (Which is part of the reason the Nebraska law banning it was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

But, yes.

Which is why it is constitutional to prohibit abortion beyond the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks) unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Which is why almost every US state bans abortion beyond 24 weeks unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother (or, in a handful of states, other extreme circumstances like rape/incest of a minor or severe fetal abnormality).

And which is why only about 0.08% of abortions in the US occur at 24 weeks or beyond.
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Not being female or even very much involved in the entire abortion debate, some of these things are a bit obscure to me. My current take on this issue is that, although I have a personal aversion to abortion, I honestly don't see any other practical way at this time to address it other than to give the option to pregnant women. Any other way would smack too much of the State being able to have far too much control over what should be an intensely personal matter, IMHO.

Technically, "partial birth abortion" is make-believe. (Which is part of the reason the Nebraska law banning it was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court).

But, yes.

Which is why it is constitutional to prohibit abortion beyond the point of viability (roughly 24 weeks) unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

Which is why almost every US state bans abortion beyond 24 weeks unless it is necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother (or, in a handful of states, other extreme circumstances like rape/incest of a minor or severe fetal abnormality).

And which is why only about 0.08% of abortions in the US occur at 24 weeks or beyond.
Thanks for clarifying that for me. Not being female or even very much involved in the entire abortion debate, some of these things are a bit obscure to me. My current take on this issue is that, although I have a personal aversion to abortion, I honestly don't see any other practical way at this time to address it other than to give the option to pregnant women. Any other way would smack too much of the State being able to have far too much control over what should be an intensely personal matter, IMHO.

Hmm

Yes I can see where I went wrong - the title should have been something like "Define awareness". However if you do read carefully, you will see that I do not deny the foetus is alive (that would be an absurdity) - I deny that it is "alive in the human sense of the word" meaning that it is not aware and there is no level of thought beyond the most basic of biological transactions.

I should be more clear with my terminology but this is my first attempt to enter the great Abortion debate.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. Not being female or even very much involved in the entire abortion debate, some of these things are a bit obscure to me. My current take on this issue is that, although I have a personal aversion to abortion, I honestly don't see any other practical way at this time to address it other than to give the option to pregnant women. Any other way would smack too much of the State being able to have far too much control over what should be an intensely personal matter, IMHO.

You are welcome.

And your opinion is appreciated. I don't have a problem with abortion, but the key is that it cannot be banned by the State.

Hmm

Yes I can see where I went wrong - the title should have been something like "Define awareness". However if you do read carefully, you will see that I do not deny the foetus is alive (that would be an absurdity) - I deny that it is "alive in the human sense of the word" meaning that it is not aware and there is no level of thought beyond the most basic of biological transactions.

I should be more clear with my terminology but this is my first attempt to enter the great Abortion debate.

You were on the right track.

But, really, "is a fetus a person" or "what is a person with rights" are better questions.

Setting aside the rights of the woman (which is the truly important issue -- as even if a fetus is a person it does not have a superior right to the body of the woman), the issue is why does a fetus (let alone a zygote or embryo) have a greater claim to a right to life than a pig, monkey, or dolphin?

A newborn is an autonomous organism that may remain alive without involving the mother. It is also capable of learning, albeit in a very limited fashion.

A zygote is neither of these things.
Yes sir u are right, so woody person, you are wrong. A fetus is not an autonomous organ, a newborn is and can think. For example, a newborn child quickly discovers what a hand is and what a finger is and does. A fetus cannot.

OK HERE'S THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!:

A foetus is ALIVE. To BE ALIVE is to have dividing cells and to be taking in food to make energy. What the abortion debate boils down to is HUMAN LIFE. A foetus does not have higher brain function, what defines being human (or sentient). Therefore, abortion is ok, until the second trimestere.

Ok, so is a tree alive because it has dividing cells and when we cut one down, it should be illegal?

Ok, so is a tree alive because it has dividing cells and when we cut one down, it should be illegal?
I believe you misread his argument, as it seems both of you are arguing for the same side.

Ok, so is a tree alive because it has dividing cells and when we cut one down, it should be illegal?

Did you read what you responded to?

Or did you just go directly to sticking your foot in your mouth?

Yes, trees are alive. Did you think they weren't?

But you ignored this part:

A foetus does not have higher brain function, what defines being human (or sentient). Therefore, abortion is ok, until the second trimestere.

So, no, killing a tree isn't murder and shouldn't be illegal (at least not for the same reasons late-term abortions and murder are illegal) -- because trees don't have higher brain functions!

I think something constatutes as "Alive" when it can tear your brains out.

Thus, Zombies are "Alive."

Zombies are "Alive."

I am whole-heartedly, 100%, vehemently opposed to zombie abortion.

I am whole-heartedly, 100%, vehemently opposed to zombie abortion.
dude, it's their decrepit, rotting body driven only by intense and primal hunger, not yours, not the states. it's fine that you're against it, but that does't mean it should be outlawed. yes, it's not a pretty procedure. yes the shotgun blast to the abdomen is a little less surgical than one might like. but the choice remains theirs, and as long as they keep moaning once to signify yes, i'll keep practicing my street abortions on them. and that's that.

Time to create a Anti-Zombie abortion group, eh, Keruvalia?

i'll keep practicing my street abortions on them. and that's that.


Infidel.

It's like going to the SPCA, picking up a puppy, and let it starve to death. You CHOSE to bring the thing home.

The woman also CHOSE to put herself in a position to GET pregnant (barring rape, of course, but that is another matter). So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity. (Not you Incenjucarania, I mean people in general)

I have tremendous respect for young single mothers who decide to keep their babies and raise them.

The woman also CHOSE to put herself in a position to GET pregnant (barring rape, of course, but that is another matter). So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity. (Not you Incenjucarania, I mean people in general)

No, you mean women in general. Who you apparently do not respect. Feel free to tell half of all women in the United States that they are simply "being a child."

Sorry, but having sex does not obligate one to have a child. Someone may choose to have sex -- nothing more, nothing less. They need not be punished for it, despite what you and the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad think. They may use contraceptives. And, they may choose to have an abortion.

That you would attack the maturity of millions and millions of women who you do not know and do not know about from your little soapbox speaks volumes about your own lack of maturity.

Perhaps if you knew a damn thing about what you are lecturing women who have actually faced the question then you would know that women choose to have abortion for a multitude of reasons. Mere whim isn't one of them.

I have tremendous respect for young single mothers who decide to keep their babies and raise them.

I do too.

But sometimes it is harmful to them and to society for them to do so.

No, you mean women in general. Who you apparently do not respect. Feel free to tell half of all women in the United States that they are simply "being a child."

Of course I meant women, and not men. Get over your self, get a clue, and use your brain to make that smallest of intellectual leaps. You are correct, I do not respect ANYONE who chooses to have an abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. But that doesn't mean I think I am better than anyone. I just place a high value on the unborn life.

Sorry, but having sex does not obligate one to have a child. Someone may choose to have sex -- nothing more, nothing less. They need not be punished for it, despite what you and the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad think. They may use contraceptives. And, they may choose to have an abortion.

Currently, legally, you are correct. Pregnancy is NOT a punishment, it's a consequence. You are correct, they may use contraceptives, which I am not against. And you are correct, they may have an abortion...legally.

That you would attack the maturity of millions and millions of women who you do not know and do not know about from your little soapbox speaks volumes about your own lack of maturity.

Blah, blah, I can say the same about your attacks against anything "Christian", for example your oh-so-intelligent euphemism used regarding Christians above. Yes, I am attacking their decisions to have an abortion. They have the legal right to choose one, and I have a right to state my opposition. The only lack of maturity I've seen so far is from you and your statements.

Perhaps if you knew a damn thing about what you are lecturing women who have actually faced the question then you would know that women choose to have abortion for a multitude of reasons. Mere whim isn't one of them.

I DO know people who have had an abortion, some of which are in my family. So don't lecture me on what I do or don't know, especially when you know NOTHING about ME.

I do too.

But sometimes it is harmful to them and to society for them to do so.

Harmful for them and society to keep a baby alive? Oh, Boo-friggin-Hoo. That baby is a soon-to-be part of that society. It's life can only enrich it and the lives of those around it. These babies deserve to be allowed to live. Give them a chance!

Of course I meant women, and not men. Get over your self, get a clue, and use your brain to make that smallest of intellectual leaps. You are correct, I do not respect ANYONE who chooses to have an abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. But that doesn't mean I think I am better than anyone. I just place a high value on the unborn life.

Gee. Apparently anyone who dares disagree with you must be responded to with insults.

Thank you. You do not respect over half of the women in the United States.
You think they act like children and are irresponsible.

That was my point. If you are going to rail against a group you should be clear about who it is.

When you look at the millions and millions and millions of women you are labeling as childish and irresponsible, your scolding seems a little foolish, doesn't it?

That is why how felt you had to resort to insults.

It does sound like you think you are better than them, however.

Currently, legally, you are correct. Pregnancy is NOT a punishment, it's a consequence. You are correct, they may use contraceptives, which I am not against. And you are correct, they may have an abortion...legally.

It is not a necessary consequence.

Nor is this just "currently."

Blah, blah, I can say the same about your attacks against anything "Christian", for example your oh-so-intelligent euphemism used regarding Christians above. Yes, I am attacking their decisions to have an abortion. They have the legal right to choose one, and I have a right to state my opposition. The only lack of maturity I've seen so far is from you and your statements.

You are apparently under the misapprehension that all Christians agree with you.

They don't.

Not only do many Christians believe abortion should be legal, but even many of those that disagree have more respect for women than you display.

If you think labeling half the women in the US as childish and irresponsibile is acting maturely, so be it.

But many women are far more mature than you and have damn good reasons for seeking abortions.

And just as you have the right to call them names, I have the right to call your opinion immature and inane.


I DO know people who have had an abortion, some of which are in my family. So don't lecture me on what I do or don't know, especially when you know NOTHING about ME.

How very special those moments must be when you tell them they are childish and irresponsible. Family get-togethers must be real fun.

But I am curious. You feel free to lecture millions and millions of women about whom YOU know NOTHING. In fact, half of all women in the U.S. You call them childish and lecture them on their lack of responsibility.

But when I point out that you do not know these women or why they make the choice they do then it's "dont lecture me ... especially when you know NOTHING about ME."

Get over yourself. You know NOTHING about the 30-40 million women that have had legal abortions in the US. You are the one that shouldn't be lecturing them.

Harmful for them and society to keep a baby alive? Oh, Boo-friggin-Hoo. That baby is a soon-to-be part of that society. It's life can only enrich it and the lives of those around it.

Very mature.

If you are going to rely on pablum like every life "can only enrich [society] and the lives of those around it." There is little hope of a discussion.

You, of course, know better than both society and women what is best for them and their children.

You don't trust women with a choice, but you'll trust them with the children you would force them to have.

These babies deserve to be allowed to live. Give them a chance!

Pray tell, why do they deserve to be allowed to live. Why is every zygote, embryo, and fetus entitled to "a chance."

But the pig whose flesh I ate for lunch didn't.

And why you are at it you can explain why the zygote/fetus's "chance" is more important than the rights and well-being of the mother.

Gee. Apparently anyone who dares disagree with you must be responded to with insults.

Where do I start. Lemme see.

I never "insulted" anyone on here, that was YOU. It is my personal belief that abortion is wrong, and irresponsible. Nowhere did I insult these women. The only person I called immature was you, as evidenced by YOUR insults and libel. (See your post)

YOU are the one who seems sensitive to people who disagree with YOU.

Thank you. You do not respect over half of the women in the United States.
You think they act like children and are irresponsible.

True, I do not respect their actions. But I never said they were childish. Don't libel.

That was my point. If you are going to rail against a group you should be clear about who it is.

Pretty clear I think, SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORTION !!

When you look at the millions and millions and millions of women you are labeling as childish and irresponsible, your scolding seems a little foolish, doesn't it?

I labelled as irresponsible. But I never said childish and I never scolded. Don't libel.

That is why how felt you had to resort to insults.

Again, you provided the insults, not me.

It does sound like you think you are better than them, however.

I never said that. Actually I said the exact OPPOSITE. Please read before posting.

It is not a necessary consequence.

It is a natural consequence. People took the "necessity" out of it by legalizing abortion. Isn't that what part of the debate is about? Killing for convenience?

Nor is this just "currently."

Um. Yes, this is "currently." A fact, if you will. The people always have the power to overturn and rewrite law. It will probably never happen, but one can always hope. :D

You are apparently under the misapprehension that all Christians agree with you.

They don't.

Apparently? How the hell did you reach that conclusion? I was refering to your insults regarding me and "the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad." Don't libel.

Not only do many Christians believe abortion should be legal, but even many of those that disagree have more respect for women than you display.

You are correct that many Christians believe abortion should be legal. Let me clarify something before you libel me again. I have a pretty healthy amount of respect for most people. That doesnt mean that I respect their decisions.

But I'm not judging anyone, that's up to God. If there are spiritual consequences, then that's between them and God. I'm not rallying against women, I'm rallying for unborn babies.

If you think labeling half the women in the US as childish and irresponsibile is acting maturely, so be it.

Again, I never said childish. Obviously they are adults and can make their own decisions. Dont libel.

But many women are far more mature than you and have damn good reasons for seeking abortions.

You are correct, there are many women far more mature than me. Isn't that the point of life: learning and maturing? Seems like you think that you have already reached the zenith of maturity.

The only "damn good reason" for abortion in my view is to protect the mother's health.

And just as you have the right to call them names, I have the right to call your opinion immature and inane.

Never called them names. Don't libel. And yes, you do have the right to call my opinion immature and inane. Free country, and all that jazz.

How very special those moments must be when you tell them they are childish and irresponsible. Family get-togethers must be real fun.

Again, don't libel. Just because I believe someone made an irresponsible act, doesnt mean I hold it against them. We all make mistakes. My family member who had the abortion told me it was the biggest mistake of her life.

The only insensitivity I see is coming from you. (See above quote)

But I am curious. You feel free to lecture millions and millions of women about whom YOU know NOTHING. In fact, half of all women in the U.S. You call them childish and lecture them on their lack of responsibility.

So anyone in this forum who dares voice their opinion is suddenly "lecturing?" Take the log out of your own eye hypocryte! And you have felt free to lecture ME, about whom YOU know NOTHING.

And I never said childish. Don't libel.

But when I point out that you do not know these women or why they make the choice they do then it's "dont lecture me ... especially when you know NOTHING about ME."


Get over yourself. You know NOTHING about the 30-40 million women that have had legal abortions in the US. You are the one that shouldn't be lecturing them.

*Sigh* Need I even comment?

Very mature.

Well, one of us has to be.

If you are going to rely on pablum like every life "can only enrich [society] and the lives of those around it." There is little hope of a discussion.

Rather than "a baby's life is only of value when it does not impede on my own personal freedoms and conveniences?"

You, of course, know better than both society and women what is best for them and their children.

So aborting an unborn baby is "the best thing" for it? Life is ALWAYS better than death, my friend.

You don't trust women with a choice, but you'll trust them with the children you would force them to have.

Me trusting anyone is not the issue, did you pull that one out of your ass?

Pray tell, why do they deserve to be allowed to live. Why is every zygote, embryo, and fetus entitled to "a chance."

The same reason you were entiltiled to a chance. The same reason I was entitled to a chance. Life is priceless.

But the pig whose flesh I ate for lunch didn't.

Dont confuse killing something for food (which is a natural part of life) and killing something out of convenience.

And why you are at it you can explain why the zygote/fetus's "chance" is more important than the rights and well-being of the mother.

Bottomline: Everyone deserves a chance at life. How does being pregnant interfere with the well-being of a mother? It doesn't, unless you equate inconvenience with an absence of well-being.

In my opinion, the "right" of a woman to have an abortion is not a God-given right (if you believe in Him), and it is not a natural right. It is a legal, state-given right. So I have to respect it, but I don't have to agree with it.


So there is my opinion. And I respect yours. Our conversations would go alot better without your numerous cases of libel, accusations, and insults.

Take care. :D

Where do I start. Lemme see.

I never "insulted" anyone on here, that was YOU. It is my personal belief that abortion is wrong, and irresponsible. Nowhere did I insult these women. The only person I called immature was you, as evidenced by YOUR insults and libel. (See your post)

YOU are the one who seems sensitive to people who disagree with YOU.

True, I do not respect their actions. But I never said they were childish. Don't libel.



Let us see:
"Get over your self, get a clue, and use your brain to make that smallest of intellectual leaps"

"So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity"

Sure you didn't insult anyone or call anyone childish?


Pretty clear I think, SINCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORTION !![/QUOTE}

Real rocket scientist there.

But the point I was making was not just women -- but the number of women.

Over half the women in the US have had or will have an abortion during their lifetime.

But you feel entitled to say they are all "being a child" and acting irresponsibly.

The exact nature and size of the party you are accusing is a relevant point.

You are the one that got all hysterical about me pointing that out.

[QUOTE=Bicipital Groove] I labelled as irresponsible. But I never said childish and I never scolded. Don't libel.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of libel, but that is a side point.

You said:

"The woman also CHOSE to put herself in a position to GET pregnant (barring rape, of course, but that is another matter). So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity."

That was scolding.

You didn't use the word childish. You said they were "being a child." Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.

Again, you provided the insults, not me.

See above, oh-glorious-one-of-the-selective-memory.

I never said that. Actually I said the exact OPPOSITE. Please read before posting.

You said you do not think you are better than anyone. I read that (or I wouldn't have quoted it and responded specifically to it.)

That you said it, does not make it so. I said your other words tend to belie your disclaimer.

Follow the difference?

It is a natural consequence. People took the "necessity" out of it by legalizing abortion. Isn't that what part of the debate is about? Killing for convenience?

No. No. No. and No.

Childbirth is not a inevitable natural consequence of sex. Many intervening natural factors can occur. Contraception also is an intervention short of abortion.

And, no, abortion isn't simply killing for convenience. But I wouldn't want to "libel" you by pointing out how you trivialize women's decisions.


Um. Yes, this is "currently." A fact, if you will. The people always have the power to overturn and rewrite law. It will probably never happen, but one can always hope. :D

And the period when it was illegal was only temporary as well, as it was preceded by a long history of legal abortion in this country -- and in Western Civilization.

The time from the late 1800s until 1973 hardly qualifies as the "norm."

Apparently? How the hell did you reach that conclusion? I was refering to your insults regarding me and "the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad." Don't libel.


As you appear to be enamoured with a word that does not apply:
libel: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt

You took the phrase "the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad" as an insult to all Christians. It wasn't. Just those who wish to deprive women of basic human rights and treat childbirth as a punishment for sex.

And if the shoe fits ....

You are correct that many Christians believe abortion should be legal. Let me clarify something before you libel me again. I have a pretty healthy amount of respect for most people. That doesnt mean that I respect their decisions.

Telling people to "stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity" is a funny way of showing respect.

But I'm not judging anyone, that's up to God. If there are spiritual consequences, then that's between them and God. I'm not rallying against women, I'm rallying for unborn babies.

Sorry, but the women whom you wish to force to serve as incubators against their will are likely to see you as rallying against them.

The women you say to whom you say "stop being a child and live up to your responsibility" are likely to see you as rallying against them.

"Honest, guv'nor, I'm not against the owners of the wallets, I'm just rallying for the liberation of wallets from the confinement of pockets."


Again, I never said childish. Obviously they are adults and can make their own decisions. Dont libel.

Technically you did not use the word "childish," instead you were much more respectful and said: "stop being a child and live up to your responsibility." :rolleyes:

And I though you didn't believe they should be allowed to make those decisions. Isn't that what you mean when you say you hope to overturn current law?

[QUOTE=Bicipital Groove]You are correct, there are many women far more mature than me. Isn't that the point of life: learning and maturing? Seems like you think that you have already reached the zenith of maturity.

But you feel free to claim they are "being a child" and acting irresponsibly without actually knowing them or their situtation. Way to show that respect you were talking about.

And, no, I'm not at the zenith of maturity. I am up there.

The only "damn good reason" for abortion in my view is to protect the mother's health.

Then you haven't spent much time thinking about it or learning the reasons why women actually have abortions.

How about when the fetus is dead?

How about when it is seriously deformed?

How about when the mother was raped or is the victim of incest?

Each case is different. Most are compelling in their own way.

But, you don't trust women to decide. Your opinion is the only one that should matter. (and before you say, "I trust women, where did I say I don't" -- remember your hope for a ban on abortion)


Again, don't libel. Just because I believe someone made an irresponsible act, doesnt mean I hold it against them. We all make mistakes. My family member who had the abortion told me it was the biggest mistake of her life.

The only insensitivity I see is coming from you. (See above quote)

Again, you misuse the term libel.

So, you only say women who have abortions are "being a child" and irresponsible if you don't know them. How sensitive.



So anyone in this forum who dares voice their opinion is suddenly "lecturing?" Take the log out of your own eye hypocryte! And you have felt free to lecture ME, about whom YOU know NOTHING.

And I never said childish. Don't libel.

You said:

The woman also CHOSE to put herself in a position to GET pregnant (barring rape, of course, but that is another matter). So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity.

Yes. That is lecturing women you have an abortion.

And telling someone to "stop being a child" is essentially the same as telling them they are being childish, isn't it?

I'll repeat what I said before:

You feel free to lecture millions and millions of women about whom YOU know NOTHING. In fact, half of all women in the U.S. You call them childish and lecture them on their lack of responsibility.

But when I point out that you do not know these women or why they make the choice they do then it's "dont lecture me ... especially when you know NOTHING about ME."

Get over yourself. You know NOTHING about the 30-40 million women that have had legal abortions in the US. You are the one that shouldn't be lecturing them.

Rather than "a baby's life is only of value when it does not impede on my own personal freedoms and conveniences?"

Do you ever listen? Did you read anything else in this thread?

A frickin' zygote is a clump of cells. No -- its life has no value.

An embryo and an early term fetus may have some value. What they do not have are rights to life that supercede a woman's right to her own body.

Your life has value. But you cannot make me yeild control of my own body to perserve your life. That is contrary to liberty and immoral.

Until a fetus can survive outside the womb, the alpha and omega of the rights in the situation belong to the woman. Her body. Her decision.

So aborting an unborn baby is "the best thing" for it? Life is ALWAYS better than death, my friend.

Life is NOT always better than death, my friend. Do I really need to give examples to dispute that silly canard?

Me trusting anyone is not the issue, did you pull that one out of your ass?

You say women are "being a child" and are irresponsible. You wish to take the right to choose away from them.

But you'd allow them to keep the baby you forced them to have.

So, yes, you appear not to trust women to choose, but you trust them to raise a child.

The same reason you were entiltiled to a chance. The same reason I was entitled to a chance. Life is priceless.

Life is not "priceless."

Or do you not eat? Plants are alive. Cows are alive. Chickens are alive.

Misquitoes are alive.

Try to think the issue through a little. So far, you are merely repeating tired falsehoods.

Dont confuse killing something for food (which is a natural part of life) and killing something out of convenience.

Ridiculous. You didn't even try at a moral distinction.

Or do you contend that if we ate the fetus it would be OK?

Bottomline: Everyone deserves a chance at life. How does being pregnant interfere with the well-being of a mother? It doesn't, unless you equate inconvenience with an absence of well-being.

Bottom line: pregnancy and childbirth carry serious physical, emotional, mental, and economic costs and risks.

Pregancy and childbirth are more than a mere inconvenience.

In my opinion, the "right" of a woman to have an abortion is not a God-given right (if you believe in Him), and it is not a natural right. It is a legal, state-given right. So I have to respect it, but I don't have to agree with it.

Is liberty a natural right?

Is self-ownership?

Is bodily integrity?

There are a long list of rights that are violated when you seek to ban abortion. They go to the very heart of whether women are entitled to freedom or condemned to reproductive slavery.

So there is my opinion. And I respect yours. Our conversations would go alot better without your numerous cases of libel, accusations, and insults.

Nifty. But I don't have to respect your opinion. And I don't. I show it the same disrespect you show for the decisionmaking capability and responsibility of women.

The great omnipotent answer to this question is something you will never find. Deciding at what point does the unborn have rights is rhetoric.

Let us pose the real question for the abortion argument:
At what point should the woman lose her rights? At what point can she be forced to permanently change her life?

The right to an abortion is a woman’s right, and it forever will be. Because in this day and age we strive to not move backwards in our astounding progresses with civil liberties and advancement in thought.

The abortion issue is a political wedge to evoke a gutteral responce and to get your vote! It is a topic that actually plays no part in government, as you can see nothing ever comes of it and for good reason. Government just wants your vote, so that they can decide how to spend your money.

And furthermore, if you are a man discussing this issue... in other words if you are speaking for what women should do with their lives and you are not one, we don't care.

The great omnipotent answer to this question is something you will never find. Deciding at what point does the unborn have rights is rhetoric.

Let us pose the real question for the abortion argument:
At what point should the woman lose her rights? At what point can she be forced to permanently change her life?

The right to an abortion is a woman’s right, and it forever will be. Because in this day and age we strive to not move backwards in our astounding progresses with civil liberties and advancement in thought.

And furthermore, if you are a man discussing this issue... in other words if you are speaking for what women should do with their lives and you are not one, we don't care.

Considering that it takes a man to make a baby and any baby made is just as much the father's as it is the mother's, I think men probably do have a right to discuss the issue of abortion and the rights surrounding.

After all why shouldn't the father have a say when it is his son/daughter is being aborted?

Admittedly he doesn't have to go through the pain of child birth so perhaps the final say should still belong to the mother but the father deserves at least a partial veto.

This is the key issue over which pro abortionists and pro lifists argue throughout the day. Is a foetus, during the time period in which an abortion can be carried out, be alive?

Well we know it is alive in the same way bacteria is alive, in the same way that trees are alive - i.e. that it is made out of living tissue and has to use organic processes in order to maintain its existence.

But is that humanity? There is no actual thought going on in the mind of the foetus, no more than a cabbage thinks. Any movements made by the foetus are usually just nerve reactions preparing the muscles and the reflex actions for life outside the womb.

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Does the foetus think in this sense of the word? Can it even define itself? Probably not.

As we know in legal terms that, in both the USA and the UK, a foetus is not considered to be a human being (for that reason abortion is not murder). Morally I think I have reached the same conclusion: the foetus is no more alive in the human sense of the word than frog spawn.
Just a quick thought. I'm pro-choice, but just for the sake of the argument.

What about the ability to develop intelligent life?

Considering that it takes a man to make a baby and any baby made is just as much the father's as it is the mother's, I think men probably do have a right to discuss the issue of abortion and the rights surrounding.

After all why shouldn't the father have a say when it is his son/daughter is being aborted?

Admittedly he doesn't have to go through the pain of child birth so perhaps the final say should still belong to the mother but the father deserves at least a partial veto.
People have the right to talk about whatever they like, it is unfortunate when they judge others after forming an opinion. Glory, of course you would have a say in this if it were you and the woman you love's decision to make. However, for anyone else it would not be your decision. It would have nothing to do with you; it would have no effect on your life. Having a child is a personal decision that only the two involved can make.

Intolerance cannot be passed into legislation. So then, what do you want from this? A little more than a say perhaps? Do you want to send our young women to jail for having illegal abortions? Because that is what would happen with a ban on all abortion.

A woman should never be forced to have a child. It is not good for the woman; it is not good for the child. The government cannot forcefully take away civil liberties based on personal opinion.

After all why shouldn't the father have a say when it is his son/daughter is being aborted?
No. This is not a man's rights issue.

A newborn is an autonomous organism that may remain alive without involving the mother. It is also capable of learning, albeit in a very limited fashion.

A zygote is neither of these things.

a foetus before birth is incapable of learning, but the same foetus, after birth is capable of learning? what happens down the birth canal to cause this transition?

People have the right to talk about whatever they like, it is unfortunate when they judge others after forming an opinion. Glory, of course you would have a say in this if it were you and the woman you love's decision to make. However, for anyone else it would not be your decision. It would have nothing to do with you; it would have no effect on your life. Having a child is a personal decision that only the two involved can make.

Intolerance cannot be passed into legislation. So then, what do you want from this? A little more than a say perhaps? Do you want to send our young women to jail for having illegal abortions? Because that is what would happen with a ban on all abortion.

A woman should never be forced to have a child. It is not good for the woman; it is not good for the child. The government cannot forcefully take away civil liberties based on personal opinion.

If you read my orginal post you will see I am quite pro choice. I do not think that abortion should be ruled out as an option nor do I think that women should be forced to have babies they do not want -that would be disasterous for the child and the mother.

However I merely put across the view that, too often in abortion debates, the rights of the father are sorely neglected.

If you read my orginal post you will see I am quite pro choice. I do not think that abortion should be ruled out as an option nor do I think that women should be forced to have babies they do not want -that would be disasterous for the child and the mother.

However I merely put across the view that, too often in abortion debates, the rights of the father are sorely neglected.
In my first post, it was directed towards the forum and why this is not a good debate. It reinforces the wrong and an undisputable argument for abortion on both sides. You either agree with that argument or not. The responce is so emotional for people, there is no persuation. I mean come on baby or cabbage? No one can get anything from that but an extreme reaction, and that does not help the debate. You must be proactive in discussing the points that can lead to change, hit home with people and put them emotionally in the position of what they oppose.

And your point about the man... (WHO IS REALLY JUST SOME DUDE WHO NUTTED OFF IN A CHICK, two weeks later he is a respectable father figure with fatherly rights?) Haha, no. Nothing changes about that guy, and everything changes for the woman whether she has the kid or not. Again, this is not a men's rights issue, unless you try to make it one for the sake of argument... like you did. :P

Think of the ancient, philosophical maxim:

I THINK THEREFORE I AM

Does the foetus think in this sense of the word? Can it even define itself? Probably not.
.

If you use this as the definition of life, many animals aren't alive and for that matter there are many humans that don't do much thinking. I'd be cautious with that definition for life...

After all why shouldn't the father have a say when it is his son/daughter is being aborted?

Admittedly he doesn't have to go through the pain of child birth so perhaps the final say should still belong to the mother but the father deserves at least a partial veto.

There is no such thing as a partial veto. You can't partially have an abortion. You either have one or you don't. I agree that a woman should talk to the father and get his input before making her decision, but the decision is ultimately all hers.

Considering that it takes a man to make a baby and any baby made is just as much the father's as it is the mother's, I think men probably do have a right to discuss the issue of abortion and the rights surrounding.

After all why shouldn't the father have a say when it is his son/daughter is being aborted?

Admittedly he doesn't have to go through the pain of child birth so perhaps the final say should still belong to the mother but the father deserves at least a partial veto.
There is no partial veto in this issue. If the father is allowed to veto this request, then that's as good as saying that he owns the woman in question as he is the one with the right to say what goes on in her body. It can be discussed between the parties, but really, it's her choice.

I could of swore in science class the teacher said Cells arent alive because they are unable to stay alive by them self.

She may have told you that your cells are not *organisms* or that a single cell in a multi-cellular organism is not "a life", but I doubt she said they weren't alive.

So only "partial birth abortion" would be terminating what is essentially a human being?

Pretty much. Of course, D&X is a procedure pretty much only used when the pregnancy is a danger to the mother, the fetus is already dead, or the fetus will be dead within minutes of any form of delivery.

The great omnipotent answer to this question is something you will never find. Deciding at what point does the unborn have rights is rhetoric.

No. The question of rights -- what entities have what rights -- is a vital question and one we should examine all the time.

I presume you think slavery and the Holocaust were wrong. You believe the objects of those atrocities have rights. Many -- if not all -- of the perpetrators of those atrocities did not agree.

We need to constantly re-examine our ethics. Lest we make similar mistakes.

(And before you jump to the worng conclusion -- I am firmly pro-choice, I believe abortion must be legal, and I do not believe the objects of abortion have rights. I can -- and have -- made principled, logical arguments in support of these positions.)

New British Glory is entirely correct that one of the reasons that the unborn lack rights is that they lack sentience.

Let us pose the real question for the abortion argument:
At what point should the woman lose her rights? At what point can she be forced to permanently change her life?

I agree completely. Made a very similar point myself.

The right to an abortion is a woman’s right, and it forever will be. Because in this day and age we strive to not move backwards in our astounding progresses with civil liberties and advancement in thought.

Whether that right will foreover be recognized legal remains in question.

An unwillingness to continue our advancement in thought does not help preserve that right.

The abortion issue is a political wedge to evoke a gutteral responce and to get your vote! It is a topic that actually plays no part in government, as you can see nothing ever comes of it and for good reason. Government just wants your vote, so that they can decide how to spend your money.

An odd blend of naivete and cynicism.

Abortion is used as a wedge issue and both sides use it to get votes.

Politicians on both side of the issue do however seek to either diminish or protect the right. Here in the US, the right-wing seeks to stack the Supreme Court with enough goons to overturn Roe v. Wade. Dubya has, in fact, implemented multiple programs restricting a woman's right to choose. Simply ignoring these efforts only abandons the playing field to those inimical to women's rights.

And furthermore, if you are a man discussing this issue... in other words if you are speaking for what women should do with their lives and you are not one, we don't care.

You should care what men think.

Not in the sense that men should in any way have an power or control over a woman's right to choose.

But because the more men you can persuade to protect -- or even just accept -- the right, the safer it is.

And many, many, many men are allies in the fight to protect your right.

I would like to think I am.

1. Growth

2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste

3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion

4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to itself

5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Let us see:
"Get over your self, get a clue, and use your brain to make that smallest of intellectual leaps"

"So stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity"

Sure you didn't insult anyone or call anyone childish?

Ok, if you insist on using the word "childish" fine. But you mistakenly saw it as an insult, and that's where the libel comes in. Voicing an opinion about someone's actions does not constitute an insult.

Real rocket scientist there.

But the point I was making was not just women -- but the number of women.

Over half the women in the US have had or will have an abortion during their lifetime.

But you feel entitled to say they are all "being a child" and acting irresponsibly.

The exact nature and size of the party you are accusing is a relevant point.

You are the one that got all hysterical about me pointing that out.

No, just wanted to make clear to you that you need to think a little more before you make unsupported accusations. And yes, I do think they are acting irresponsibly, but that's just my opinion.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of libel, but that is a side point.

Not a side point, as I mentioned it like 10 times. I do know what it means, and don't do it.


That was scolding.

No, it wasnt.

You didn't use the word childish. You said they were "being a child." Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.

Not really, you added a negative connotation to it, and falsely said I was insulting to these women.

See above, oh-glorious-one-of-the-selective-memory.

Again, you provided the insults, not me.

You said you do not think you are better than anyone. I read that (or I wouldn't have quoted it and responded specifically to it.)

That you said it, does not make it so. I said your other words tend to belie your disclaimer.

Follow the difference?

Yes, I follow the difference, but my words did not belie my disclaimer. If you took it the other way, then that's your problem. As I said, everyone on this forum has a right to an opinion. An opinion does not make anyone superior to anyone else, including YOU.

No. No. No. and No.

Childbirth is not a inevitable natural consequence of sex. Many intervening natural factors can occur. Contraception also is an intervention short of abortion.

And, no, abortion isn't simply killing for convenience. But I wouldn't want to "libel" you by pointing out how you trivialize women's decisions.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Dont put words in my mouth. I said it is a natural consequence, not an inevitible natural consequence. And don't insult my intelligence regarding what can happen between contraception and delivery.

In most cases, I believe it is killing for convenience.

And the period when it was illegal was only temporary as well, as it was preceded by a long history of legal abortion in this country -- and in Western Civilization.

The time from the late 1800s until 1973 hardly qualifies as the "norm."


So? Irrelevant to the point I was making.

As you appear to be enamoured with a word that does not apply:
libel: a defamatory statement or representation esp. in the form of written or printed words; specifically : a false published statement that injures an individual's reputation (as in business) or otherwise exposes him or her to public contempt

You took the phrase "the rest of the Puritan Misery Squad" as an insult to all Christians. It wasn't. Just those who wish to deprive women of basic human rights and treat childbirth as a punishment for sex.

I know what libel means. You libeled numerous times in your post. Please just stick to the debate at hand, and we'll avoid this mess.

Your phrase regarding me and "Puritan Misery Squad" was definitely a direct insult to all Christian opposing abortion. We don't belive it's a woman's "basic" human right to have an abortion. It's a right granted by the state. And maybe you see childbirth as a punishment, but I see it as a reward. But again, that's the difference between you and me.

Telling people to "stop being a child and live up to your responsiblity" is a funny way of showing respect.

Admonishing someone has nothing to do with respect or the lack thereof.

Sorry, but the women whom you wish to force to serve as incubators against their will are likely to see you as rallying against them.

The women you say to whom you say "stop being a child and live up to your responsibility" are likely to see you as rallying against them.

"Honest, guv'nor, I'm not against the owners of the wallets, I'm just rallying for the liberation of wallets from the confinement of pockets."

If they see it that way, fine, I can't do anything about that. But if I change one woman's mind, and her baby is saved, then it's worth it to me.

Technically you did not use the word "childish," instead you were much more respectful and said: "stop being a child and live up to your responsibility." :rolleyes:

See above
:rolls eyes:

But you feel free to claim they are "being a child" and acting irresponsibly without actually knowing them or their situtation. Way to show that respect you were talking about.

See above.

And, no, I'm not at the zenith of maturity. I am up there.

I'm glad you think so highly of yourself.

Then you haven't spent much time thinking about it or learning the reasons why women actually have abortions.

Yes, I have.

How about when the fetus is dead?

Then it's not an abotrion, silly.

How about when it is seriously deformed?

How deformed? That's a broad statement.

How about when the mother was raped or is the victim of incest?

Each case is different. Most are compelling in their own way.

To tell you the truth, this is a hard one. I think I still lean for the life of the baby. Give it up for adoption.

But, you don't trust women to decide. Your opinion is the only one that should matter. (and before you say, "I trust women, where did I say I don't" -- remember your hope for a ban on abortion)

Again, don't libel. Don't support your arguement by telling me not to respond in a certain way (when you know the natural response is exactly that, calling you out on your error).

I said they can make their own desicions. The ability to make this decision is granted by the state. No, my opinion is not the only one that matters, unless you weren't being sarcastic, and really believe that it does. :D

And yes, I hope for a ban on abortion, except where the mother's health is in danger.

Again, you misuse the term libel.

No, I didn't.

So, you only say women who have abortions are "being a child" and irresponsible if you don't know them. How sensitive.

Maybe it's not sensitive, but nowhere have I seen you as sensitive to ANYONE you disagree with on these forums.

Yes. That is lecturing women you have an abortion.

Not lecturing, just stating my opinion. You just think that anyone who disagrees with you is "lecturing."

And telling someone to "stop being a child" is essentially the same as telling them they are being childish, isn't it?

Essentially?....maybe. But you added a huge negative insulting tone to my statements. That's libel. It's one thing to say, "I feel insulted by your opinion." It's another to say "You insulted half the women in the US." That's libel.

I'll repeat what I said before:

You feel free to lecture millions and millions of women about whom YOU know NOTHING. In fact, half of all women in the U.S. You call them childish and lecture them on their lack of responsibility.

But when I point out that you do not know these women or why they make the choice they do then it's "dont lecture me ... especially when you know NOTHING about ME."

Get over yourself. You know NOTHING about the 30-40 million women that have had legal abortions in the US. You are the one that shouldn't be lecturing them.[/QUOTE]

I'll repeat what I said before. It's not lecturing. (Though if you realize that you are being childish you might take it that way.)

I pointed that out to show your hypocricy. You did the same thing you were telling me not to do... So get over YOURself.

Do you ever listen? Did you read anything else in this thread?

Funny, I was gonna ask you the same thing.

A frickin' zygote is a clump of cells. No -- its life has no value.

I disagree. It's a collection of cells that is actively dividing and differentiating to become a amture human being, if you let it.

An embryo and an early term fetus may have some value. What they do not have are rights to life that supercede a woman's right to her own body.

The fetus is a living entity inside the woman's body. Do what you want to your body, just don't hurt the baby.

Your life has value. But you cannot make me yeild control of my own body to perserve your life. That is contrary to liberty and immoral.

But I am not a living dependent inside your body. Two different things.

Until a fetus can survive outside the womb, the alpha and omega of the rights in the situation belong to the woman. Her body. Her decision.

I disagree.

Life is NOT always better than death, my friend. Do I really need to give examples to dispute that silly canard?

Well, I believe it is. Some people don't. Give me some examples if you want to change my mind on the matter.

You say women are "being a child" and are irresponsible. You wish to take the right to choose away from them.

Exactly. You finally get what I'm saying.

But you'd allow them to keep the baby you forced them to have.

Adoption. There are tons of other families that would die to have a child of their own.

So, yes, you appear not to trust women to choose, but you trust them to raise a child.

Broad leap, and untrue.

Life is not "priceless."

I belive it is. Human life, that is.

Or do you not eat? Plants are alive. Cows are alive. Chickens are alive.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Misquitoes are alive. Yes. Wow, you really did pay attention in biology class.

Try to think the issue through a little. So far, you are merely repeating tired falsehoods.

Have thought it through. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion means it's a "tired falsehood." But maybe you just have a bleak outlook on life.

Ridiculous. You didn't even try at a moral distinction.


No, you were equating killing an animal with killing a human baby/fetus.

Or do you contend that if we ate the fetus it would be OK?

Um...you're not turning cannibal on me are you?

Bottom line: pregnancy and childbirth carry serious physical, emotional, mental, and economic costs and risks.

No shit.

Pregancy and childbirth are more than a mere inconvenience.

Bottomline: that is exactly what abortion comes down to...inconvenience.


Is liberty a natural right?

Is self-ownership?

Is bodily integrity?

Yes, yes, and yes.

There are a long list of rights that are violated when you seek to ban abortion. They go to the very heart of whether women are entitled to freedom or condemned to reproductive slavery.

I don;t belive the rights are violated, just superceded by the right to life of the baby.

Nifty. But I don't have to respect your opinion. And I don't. I show it the same disrespect you show for the decisionmaking capability and responsibility of women.

Well, I guess the respect I had for you is down the drain as well. Seeing as how these posts are getting really long, lets cut this "conversation" off.

Good luck to you in life.

Not really, you added a negative connotation to it, and falsely said I was insulting to these women.

So telling someone "Don't be a child" doesn't already have a negative connotation?

In most cases, I believe it is killing for convenience.

You probably haven't met many women who have made that choice then. If you have, you must be sorely lacking in empathy.

Your phrase regarding me and "Puritan Misery Squad" was definitely a direct insult to all Christian opposing abortion.

Incorrect. I believe it is a term referring to everyone who wishes to force their own personal moral viewpoints on everyone else.

Then it's not an abotrion, silly.

Incorrect. The medical procedure known as an abortion is performed on fetuses that have already died.

How deformed? That's a broad statement.

How about severe cases of hydrocephaly, where the fetuses head may swell to 50cm? (the vagina at full dilation is about 10) This fetus will never gain consciousness and the mother cannot possibly deliver naturally.

I said they can make their own desicions. The ability to make this decision is granted by the state. No, my opinion is not the only one that matters, unless you weren't being sarcastic, and really believe that it does. :D

The state doesn't grant the ability to make a decision. Our laws are not permissive, they are restrictive. The government can restrict an action, but cannot grant the right to an action. Without a law, the default is that it is allowed.

And yes, I hope for a ban on abortion, except where the mother's health is in danger.

Good to know you think so highly of yourself that you can force your own subjective morals upon others.

Meanwhile, who decides if her life is in danger? How much danger is ok? Who decides that?

Adoption. There are tons of other families that would die to have a child of their own.

There are tons of children sitting around waiting. Tell those families that they could have their child, if they aren't waiting for a white, perfectly healthy infant.

And your point about the man... (WHO IS REALLY JUST SOME DUDE WHO NUTTED OFF IN A CHICK, two weeks later he is a respectable father figure with fatherly rights?) Haha, no.

What a huge generalisation and, to be honest, stereotypical. Some husbands, for example, want to be fathers but their wives do not to be mothers and so get an abortion. Is that in any way fair upon the husband?

Still I can understand where you are coming from.

Justice so long as its only for the women.

What a huge generalisation and, to be honest, stereotypical. Some husbands, for example, want to be fathers but their wives do not to be mothers and so get an abortion. Is that in any way fair upon the husband?

(a) You shouldn't get married without discussing that sort of thing well ahead of time.

(b) This is an unfortunate result of a basic biological difference. Women can be pregnant, men cannot. As such, the choice to continue a pregnancy lies squarely on the woman. If we could get men pregnant, they would have the choice as well. Allowing a man to decide whether or not a woman (someone else) will continue a pregnancy is giving him rights over her body, the very definition of slavery.

(a) You shouldn't get married without discussing that sort of thing well ahead of time.

(b) This is an unfortunate result of a basic biological difference. Women can be pregnant, men cannot. As such, the choice to continue a pregnancy lies squarely on the woman. If we could get men pregnant, they would have the choice as well. Allowing a man to decide whether or not a woman (someone else) will continue a pregnancy is giving him rights over her body, the very definition of slavery.

Yes I suppose I would have to agree with you in the end. I am not happy about it though.

(a) You shouldn't get married without discussing that sort of thing well ahead of time.

(b) This is an unfortunate result of a basic biological difference. Women can be pregnant, men cannot. As such, the choice to continue a pregnancy lies squarely on the woman. If we could get men pregnant, they would have the choice as well. Allowing a man to decide whether or not a woman (someone else) will continue a pregnancy is giving him rights over her body, the very definition of slavery.
Very well said.

What a huge generalisation and, to be honest, stereotypical. Some husbands, for example, want to be fathers but their wives do not to be mothers and so get an abortion. Is that in any way fair upon the husband?
How often do you really think that is the case? :confused:

Allowing a man to decide whether or not a woman (someone else) will continue a pregnancy is giving him rights over her body, the very definition of slavery.
Allowing a man to decide whether or not a child (part his) is in no way considered slavery. She decided to have sex. She took the risk of having a child. After that act, the child becomes the responsibility of both parties. I think that both parents (assuming both are present) should consent on the fate of the fetus.

Allowing a man to decide whether or not a child (part his) is in no way considered slavery.

This isn't actually a complete sentence, but it is completely wrong anyways. A woman has the choice of whether or not to have an abortion because she has complete control over her body. Allowing a man to force her to carry a pregnancy would be giving him control over her body. Giving one person control over another against their will is slavery, plain and simple.

She decided to have sex.

He decided to have sex with a woman who would not continue a pregnancy.

She took the risk of having a child.[/quote]

Incorrect. She took the risk of becoming pregnant, which does not necessarily equate to having a child. He took the risk of having an embryo that he helped create aborted, by having sex with a woman who would not consent to carry to term.

After that act, the child becomes the responsibility of both parties.

Wrong again. During pregnancy, the woman is the only one with any responsibility at all. She is the only one who is pregnant.

I think that both parents (assuming both are present) should consent on the fate of the fetus.

I think that I should be able to decide what body parts get chopped off of my significant other, but I don't get to. Darn, too bad slavery is illegal.

You ignore the fact that the "fate of the embryo" is inextricably tied to the fate of the mother, but not the father. As such, the father has no say in it.

Jumping in late here...

The thread opened with a comment about the status of the unborn but has become a general abortion debate. Those supporting the pro-life side of the equation and comments like 'its your body do anything you like but don't hurt the baby' scare me in their implications. Two scenarios in particular raise concerns.

Are you familiar with the florida case in which a woman was charged with child abuse as a result of her use of cocaine while she was still pregnant? The prosecutor was proceeding on the assumption that anything done during pregnancy that could be constued as damaging to the baby was the equivalent of post-birth abuse. So much can be construed as being 'bad for the baby' it would not be unbelievable that some state would design a home for 'troubled mothers-to-be' where any pregnant woman deemed to have an unsafe lifestyle would be incarcerated until she gave birth. (I believe Ireland even had a form of this until recently.) I mean, it would have to be illegal for a pregnant women to use many household chemicals, a variety of foods are deemed unsafe, certain exercises...could a woman in any way be considered free during her pregnancy under those terms? Would we next start mandating that things 'good for the baby' be done under pain of law?

Second and less alarmist is a serious question that I don't have the full information on. To what extent does pregnancy cause permanent changes to a woman's body? I mean if I had a growth in me that was going to cause permanent changes in me if not removed I know I'd want it taken out. If it was anything but a pregnancy no one would argue that I should be forced to keep it either I don't think. Just goes back to that 'anything you want but don't harm the baby' thing, what if the baby is 'harming' the woman by exposing her to risks of long term physical or emotional changes. Heck, we even legally define harm to include financial damage for everything else.

Not eleoquent but there it is...