NationStates Jolt Archive

ok i still really haven't gotten a good answer from the pro-lifers. heres what my position is based on so far.
an embryo (not fetus) is not a living human being so it is not murder or immoral in any way.
people say life begins at conception. true enough, but not human life
an embryo is no different from someone who is clinically brain dead (not persistive vegitative state, i mean really completely brain dead) cells continue to form, finger nails grow etc.
but then you say, "but it has the potential to become a human being"
but potential to be human =/= actual human.
how do you retort?

a fetus is human but its not a person, its alive but its not a baby.

im strictly talking about embryo for now. as in, no brain development even close to starting by any stretch of the imagination.

an embryo (not fetus) is not a living human being so it is not murder or immoral in any way.

Just because something is not "human" doesn't mean that ending it's life would not be murder.

Technically speaking, abortion is murder, but I think it really is a necessary evil.

why? when you kill a pig, its not murder. prove that an embryo is different

why? when you kill a pig, its not murder. prove that an embryo is different


Killing a pig is murder, it's just not looked upon by society as the same as, say, killing an old lady.

You seriously need to go to dictionary.com and look up the definition of "murder."

See (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder)?

The definition of it is not simply "a human ending the life of another", but also simply to "kill brutally or inhumanly."

Just because something is not "human" doesn't mean that ending it's life would not be murder
So, you are a vegetarian, right? Otherwise what you said makes no sense. :rolleyes:

Killing a pig is murder, it's just not looked upon by society as the same as, say, killing an old lady.

You seriously need to go to dictionary.com and look up the definition of "murder."
The definition of muder is a "the act of a person killing another person". More than one dictionary agrees with that.

fine if you want to get technical why is MURDERING a pig alright but murdering an embryo wrong?

Just because something is not "human" doesn't mean that ending it's life would not be murder.

Technically speaking, abortion is murder, but I think it really is a necessary evil.
Murder is the unjustifiable ending of a human life. Abortion is neither unjustifiable, nor the ending of a human life (it's the sure prevention of one begining). As such it's a long way from murder. Shooting someone who's trying to kill you, or as an act of war is much closer.

fine if you want to get technical why is MURDERING a pig alright but murdering an embryo wrong?
"Murdering" an embryo isn't wrong. :headbang:

So, you are a vegetarian, right? Otherwise what you said makes no sense. :rolleyes:
incorrect. vegetables are alive under their definition. therefore only annorexics are innocent.

So, you are a vegetarian, right? Otherwise what you said makes no sense. :rolleyes:

Not all murders are equally bad because not every life is of equal worth.

I can eat a hamburger with no guilt or hit a squirrel on the road and keep driving, but how many people look at humans the same way?

incorrect. vegetables are alive under their definition. therefore only annorexics are innocent.
Good point. My bad. ;)

Human life demands respect whether it can "think" or not. If we start validating existence based on "thought" right to life becomes completely arbitrary. You might want to look up the case of the brain-damaged, comatose man who suddenly recovered after he'd been crushed by a burning building ten years ago. He's fine now. And I'm sure he's grateful that no one decided he didn't get to live just because he couldn't think.

I saw an ad for WSPA today. I find it ironic that people are willing to save animals when they won't even save their own futures. Quite sad.

Comparing a human embryo to a pig is apples and oranges. Of course, comparing a human embryo to a living breathing person is apples and oranges as well. Either way, regardless of any of that...

So long as it's not being used as a form of contraception, abortion is necessary. It would be better to kill an embryo before it becomes a baby, than to have one brought into a world where its parents don't love it or can't care for it.

Where is everybody?! :headbang: :headbang:

Comparing a human embryo to a pig is apples and oranges. Of course, comparing a human embryo to a living breathing person is apples and oranges as well. Either way, regardless of any of that...

So long as it's not being used as a form of contraception, abortion is necessary. It would be better to kill an embryo before it becomes a baby, than to have one brought into a world where its parents don't love it or can't care for it.
True...

Where is everybody?! :headbang: :headbang:

All steering clear of 'another abortion thread' like I am :)

All steering clear of 'another abortion thread' like I am :)
lol

Human life demands respect whether it can "think" or not. If we start validating existence based on "thought" right to life becomes completely arbitrary. You might want to look up the case of the brain-damaged, comatose man who suddenly recovered after he'd been crushed by a burning building ten years ago. He's fine now. And I'm sure he's grateful that no one decided he didn't get to live just because he couldn't think.

I saw an ad for WSPA today. I find it ironic that people are willing to save animals when they won't even save their own futures. Quite sad.
clearly the man was not brain dead and your point is thus irrelevant. im talking no brain in existence. its not arbitrary at all, why would you say someone who is recently undeniably brain dead is still alive. there skin cells divide and their finger nails grow but never the less, they are dead

clearly the man was not brain dead and your point is thus irrelevant. im talking no brain in existence. its not arbitrary at all, why would you say someone who is recently undeniably brain dead is still alive. there skin cells divide and their finger nails grow but never the less, they are dead
Club House is right.

I know this is kind of off subject, but since we're working by association here, if you ask me, brain-dead people should be... um... aborted too. I know I'm gonna catch flack for this, but unless your family or your own private fortune are supporting you, if you're not capable of contributing to society at least minimally, then you have no reason to live.

Is anyone here against abortion? You can't have arguments with like-minded individuals... :D

Not all murders are equally bad because not every life is of equal worth.

I can eat a hamburger with no guilt or hit a squirrel on the road and keep driving, but how many people look at humans the same way?
*raises hand* I do!

Or, I mean, I did. I would. I mean, if I could eat meat, I would. I once did. I may again.....

I know this is kind of off subject, but since we're working by association here, if you ask me, brain-dead people should be... um... aborted too.
True! Finally, someone who agrees with me on thatt...

maugham seems to be the only one dissenting

Is anyone here against abortion? You can't have arguments with like-minded individuals...
Yeah, I've forgotten which side I'm against.

clearly the man was not brain dead and your point is thus irrelevant. im talking no brain in existence. its not arbitrary at all, why would you say someone who is recently undeniably brain dead is still alive. there skin cells divide and their finger nails grow but never the less, they are dead

I really don't want to get involved but if I can help make the debate a little more informed, I will.

A person can be 'undeniably' brain dead and comatose and recover like this guy apparantly did. Modern medicine doesn't know enough about the brain and its functions to explain why at this point.

Simonist']*raises hand* I do!

Or, I mean, I did. I would. I mean, if I could eat meat, I would. I once did. I may again.....
What does that even mean? :confused:

for the sake of argument, i'm now dissenting from both sides...

abortions should be mandatory

boy, that would cause problems, huh??

I know this is kind of off subject, but since we're working by association here, if you ask me, brain-dead people should be... um... aborted too. I know I'm gonna catch flack for this, but unless your family or your own private fortune are supporting you, if you're not capable of contributing to society at least minimally, then you have no reason to live.
that was a very communist statement. whether or not you think thats a good or bad thing
i am against murdering the unemployed, homeless, elderly, handicapped, etc. im sorry, thats just how i feel. if someone does not wish to contribute to society by getting a job then that is their choice. this is a free country.
my point has nothing to do with whether or not they contribute to society it is that they are not a living human being.

I know this is kind of off subject, but since we're working by association here, if you ask me, brain-dead people should be... um... aborted too. I know I'm gonna catch flack for this, but unless your family or your own private fortune are supporting you, if you're not capable of contributing to society at least minimally, then you have no reason to live.

I agree, actually.

Yeah, I'm with the anti-lifers here (;)). At first, I didn't believe in abortion -- I thought it was sick. Now, however, after seeing numerous facts and figures, and after seeing the excellent arguements made by nice people like you, I'm completely swayed.

Even if you think abortion is wrong you should NOT hope it becomes illegal. Who are YOU to tell someone else what to do? You have no right to make decisions for another human being. If someone wants to terminate something inhuman that they know they can't handle, you should respect their decision.

Oh, also, because if it becomes illegal females will start sticking hangars in their vaginas up into their uterus and they'll give themselves homemade abortions. Kill the fetus AND the woman. Hm.

that was a very communist statement. whether or not you think thats a good or bad thing
i am against murdering the unemployed, homeless, elderly, handicapped, etc. im sorry, thats just how i feel. if someone does not wish to contribute to society by getting a job then that is their choice. this is a free country.
my point has nothing to do with whether or not they contribute to society it is that they are not a living human being.
NEWSFLASH:::::Communist has not been synonomous with bad since Mcarthy, or however the fuck that's spelled...

I really don't want to get involved but if I can help make the debate a little more informed, I will.

A person can be 'undeniably' brain dead and comatose and recover like this guy apparantly did. Modern medicine doesn't know enough about the brain and its functions to explain why at this point.
"clearly the man was not brain dead and your point is thus irrelevant." why must i repeat myself?
it is possible to be brain dead beyond all recovery. google it. im not talking about being in a coma, persistive vegitative state, or anything else. i mean REALLY REALLY brain dead.

Yeah, I'm with the anti-lifers here (;)). At first, I didn't believe in abortion -- I thought it was sick. Now, however, after seeing numerous facts and figures, and after seeing the excellent arguements made by nice people like you, I'm completely swayed.

Even if you think abortion is wrong you should NOT hope it becomes illegal. Who are YOU to tell someone else what to do? You have no right to make decisions for another human being. If someone wants to terminate something inhuman that they know they can't handle, you should respect their decision.

Oh, also, because if it becomes illegal females will start sticking hangars in their vaginas up into their uterus and they'll give themselves homemade abortions. Kill the fetus AND the woman. Hm.

True, it's up to each individual to choose, there shouldn't be a law.

How is it that expelling an embryo from your body (which is little more than a clot of cells at this point) any different from birth control or having never had sex in the first place?

that was a very communist statement. whether or not you think thats a good or bad thing
i am against murdering the unemployed, homeless, elderly, handicapped, etc. im sorry, thats just how i feel. if someone does not wish to contribute to society by getting a job then that is their choice. this is a free country.
my point has nothing to do with whether or not they contribute to society it is that they are not a living human being.


Well, I wasn't going to come right out and throw it all on the line, but the homeless, and handicapped would fall into that category to me as well, assuming that the handicapped people are too handicapped to contribute somewhat. I don't think it's fair that since someone wanted to keep their legless half retarded kid, I should be paying to support him. If his family can do it, power to them.

Please note, however, that I didn't advocate euthanizing the elderly. Working on the assumption that handicapped/braindead people aren't supported by society, if they've lived to be elderly, they've made their contribution.

The statement has zero to do with Communism.

It's actually more reminiscent of Hitlerian fascism (I still agree with it, though), where people deemed as a burden on society were eliminated.

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily. It is wrong in my opinion but lets just look at my first point. Any woman can go out and have irresponsible, unprotected, and anonymous sex with any guy she chooses. This, as well as being immoral, is very unsafe healthwise. I believe that giving women and society in general this easy out is very wrong. Teenage girls now-a-days are very irresponsible sexually and abortion is a very big part of this. Story time.....Several months ago a girl got her boyfriend to kill, or dispose of however you like to name it, the embryo that was growing inside of her. He struck her several time in the stomach with a baseball bat, hitting her over and over until she could no longer take the pain. These two teenagers then went to their parents and told them what they had done. The parents then proceeded to bury the fetus/embryo/child in the backyard inside of a coffee can. No one in this case was charged with any sort of crime. This to me is an outrage. The parents, I believe, knew, subconciously at least, that what came out of the young girl was human enough to deserve a proper burial, even though the fetus/embryo/child was still in the 1st trimester. Any one thinking that the teenagers should be charged with a crime, congratulations, you are now against abortion. What is the difference between a girl consenting to an abortion from her boyfriend and a girl going to the doctor and paying for that doctor to give her an abortion? Please, enlighten me.

It's good to know that there's others who agree with me.

Is anyone here against abortion? You can't have arguments with like-minded individuals... :D

I'm fairly pro-choice and think the whole issue is mute and we shouldbe focusing more on better sex education and protection thus negating the need for so many abortions anyway.....but I can argue the pro-life side pretty good if I want :)

NEWSFLASH:::::Communist has not been synonomous with bad since Mcarthy, or however the fuck that's spelled...
alright. i want you to smash your head against the keyboard with such force that it causes you to bleed with a single hit. now reapeat. when you can no longer feel pain, come back.
i never said communist was synonomous with bad. im saying that killing those who are unproductive is synonomous with communism. and hey, hitler did it too. so hes like hitler, believe it or not this is a rare occasion when the hitler comparison is valid. you know why? not because they are both bad, but because they share common beliefs.

I know this is kind of off subject, but since we're working by association here, if you ask me, brain-dead people should be... um... aborted too. I know I'm gonna catch flack for this, but unless your family or your own private fortune are supporting you, if you're not capable of contributing to society at least minimally, then you have no reason to live.
Not a communist statement... True communists would support this nice man. :)

Anywho! I believe it should be your choice. Everyone should sign a little document stating "If I am put into a state where I am legally brain-dead, wait x amount of time or until x happens, at which point you may end my life".

Honestly, I would tell my family to kill me off. Why keep me around if I can't hear you, see you, touch you, feel your love? No, keeping me alive would be too painful for THEM. Kill me off and make it hurt!

The statement has zero to do with Communism.

It's actually more reminiscent of Hitlerian fascism (I still agree with it, though), where people deemed as a burden on society were eliminated.
not zero.

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily. It is wrong in my opinion but lets just look at my first point. Any woman can go out and have irresponsible, unprotected, and anonymous sex with any guy she chooses. This, as well as being immoral, is very unsafe healthwise. I believe that giving women and society in general this easy out is very wrong. Teenage girls now-a-days are very irresponsible sexually and abortion is a very big part of this. Story time.....Several months ago a girl got her boyfriend to kill, or dispose of however you like to name it, the embryo that was growing inside of her. He struck her several time in the stomach with a baseball bat, hitting her over and over until she could no longer take the pain. These two teenagers then went to their parents and told them what they had done. The parents then proceeded to bury the fetus/embryo/child in the backyard inside of a coffee can. No one in this case was charged with any sort of crime. This to me is an outrage. The parents, I believe, knew, subconciously at least, that what came out of the young girl was human enough to deserve a proper burial, even though the fetus/embryo/child was still in the 1st trimester. Any one thinking that the teenagers should be charged with a crime, congratulations, you are now against abortion. What is the difference between a girl consenting to an abortion from her boyfriend and a girl going to the doctor and paying for that doctor to give her an abortion? Please, enlighten me.
The difference is that it doesn't cause pain to the girl involved. That's why the guy should have gone to jail for hitting the girl, not the abortion part.

Ozzbekistan, just to clarify, having irresposible, unprotected sex, then getting an abortion because you don't want a baby isn't what I was saying I supported. In fact, I'd have to say it falls under the "using it as birth control" that I mention I was against earlier. I don't think anyone in that scenario should have been charged with a crime, other than being totally retarded. That the boyfriend would actually hit his girlfriend in the stomach with a bat, and that she would let him are a simple testimony to the fact that it is better that they DIDN'T bring a child into this world, because the stupidity inherent in the offspring of those two would be devastating to the world's gene pool.

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily...

Who cares if that's is how some women view it?

Would you rather have these "irresponsible women" popping out welfare brats for you to take care of with your taxes?

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily. It is wrong in my opinion but lets just look at my first point. Any woman can go out and have irresponsible, unprotected, and anonymous sex with any guy she chooses. This, as well as being immoral, is very unsafe healthwise. I believe that giving women and society in general this easy out is very wrong. Teenage girls now-a-days are very irresponsible sexually and abortion is a very big part of this. Story time.....Several months ago a girl got her boyfriend to kill, or dispose of however you like to name it, the embryo that was growing inside of her. He struck her several time in the stomach with a baseball bat, hitting her over and over until she could no longer take the pain. These two teenagers then went to their parents and told them what they had done. The parents then proceeded to bury the fetus/embryo/child in the backyard inside of a coffee can. No one in this case was charged with any sort of crime. This to me is an outrage. The parents, I believe, knew, subconciously at least, that what came out of the young girl was human enough to deserve a proper burial, even though the fetus/embryo/child was still in the 1st trimester. Any one thinking that the teenagers should be charged with a crime, congratulations, you are now against abortion. What is the difference between a girl consenting to an abortion from her boyfriend and a girl going to the doctor and paying for that doctor to give her an abortion? Please, enlighten me.
When you go to the doctor to get an abortion, you're having the procedure done safely. The story you told was an example of dangerous amateur abortion. That's the difference.

I'm fairly pro-choice and think the whole issue is mute and we shouldbe focusing more on better sex education and protection thus negating the need for so many abortions anyway.....but I can argue the pro-life side pretty good if I want :)YES! Exactly! We should keep abortion a safe and legal thing to do, BUT at the same time make it so that it never HAS to be an option. Sex education and cheaper, easier to get contraceptives are the answer. Teenagers need to be encouraged to use birth control and continue using it.

not zero.

Care to explain why (assuming you even know what true Communism is)?

YES! Exactly! We should keep abortion a safe and legal thing to do, BUT at the same time make it so that it never HAS to be an option. Sex education and cheaper, easier to get contraceptives are the answer. Teenagers need to be encouraged to use birth control and continue using it.
Yes. Sex education needs desperately to be vastly improved in the public system, and introduced at a much, much earlier age.

I take offense to the comparison of myself and Hitler. Hitler was a tyrannical madman bent on world domination. He wanted to rid the world of what he felt to be "inferior races". He was a bigot, a racist and a hypocrite. What I'm saying is that we should eliminate the people who are purely and simply a burden on society.

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily. It is wrong in my opinion but lets just look at my first point. Any woman can go out and have irresponsible, unprotected, and anonymous sex with any guy she chooses. This, as well as being immoral, is very unsafe healthwise. I believe that giving women and society in general this easy out is very wrong. Teenage girls now-a-days are very irresponsible sexually and abortion is a very big part of this. Story time.....Several months ago a girl got her boyfriend to kill, or dispose of however you like to name it, the embryo that was growing inside of her. He struck her several time in the stomach with a baseball bat, hitting her over and over until she could no longer take the pain. These two teenagers then went to their parents and told them what they had done. The parents then proceeded to bury the fetus/embryo/child in the backyard inside of a coffee can. No one in this case was charged with any sort of crime. This to me is an outrage. The parents, I believe, knew, subconciously at least, that what came out of the young girl was human enough to deserve a proper burial, even though the fetus/embryo/child was still in the 1st trimester. Any one thinking that the teenagers should be charged with a crime, congratulations, you are now against abortion. What is the difference between a girl consenting to an abortion from her boyfriend and a girl going to the doctor and paying for that doctor to give her an abortion? Please, enlighten me.
??? if its an embryo its not murdering a living human being. its killing an embryo. i would rather see her go to a doctor and have this done rather than trying tohave someone injure her with a baseball bat but thats not my decision its hers.
heres the important bit: you can't legislate morality. if she chooses to do something immoral its her choice. if your religion, concious, philosophy, etc. says you shouldn't do something, that doesnt make it your right to turn it into a law. but then you say "why can't we go around stealing and killing if we think its moral" because your infringing on peoples rights. an embryo is not a person and thus can not have rights to be infringed

Yes. Sex education needs desperately to be vastky improved in the public system, and introduced at a much, much early age.
Thank you! This is what needs to happen, NOW! :headbang:

I take offense to the comparison of myself and Hitler. Hitler was a tyrannical madman bent on world domination. He wanted to rid the world of what he felt to be "inferior races". He was a bigot, a racist and a hypocrite. What I'm saying is that we should eliminate the people who are purely and simply a burden on society.
Which would, of course, be a simple matter of opinion. So who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

YES! Exactly! We should keep abortion a safe and legal thing to do, BUT at the same time make it so that it never HAS to be an option. Sex education and cheaper, easier to get contraceptives are the answer. Teenagers need to be encouraged to use birth control and continue using it.


I completely agree.

The problem with most current "sex ed" programs is that they aren't sex ed at all, but simply "abstinence programs" that don't prepare teens to protect themselves during sexual encounters (which they are likely to have).

Which would, of course, be a simple matter of opinion. So who gets to decide who lives and who dies?
Uhhhhh.........put it to a vote? :confused:

Yes. Sex education needs desperately to be vastky improved in the public system, and introduced at a much, much early age.
Absolutely. Puberty is starting at a younger age now, and the sex education programs need to change with it. We need LESS abstinence-only programs (which have been statistically proven that they aren't working) and more contraceptive education. By the time you're age 10 you should know how to get your hands on some "rubber".

Now, I'm not saying 10-year-olds should run off and have sex, however, they should know that if they ARE going to do it, they should be reponsible.
STIs, pregnacy, contraception. All at the beginning of middle school.

And with that I have to take a shower. :-P See you all later.

I think - I feel - I know it is wrong to kill those who cannot defend themselves. A person should be permitted to survive in his/her environment. Therefore, an embryo should get to live safely in a womb; a homeless person should have a coat; a dead person should be left to rest in peace. I simply don't think anyone has the right to determine whether any other human is permitted to live or die.

Ask science whether an embryo is human. It has all the genes necessary. It is just as likely to become a baby as a baby is to become an adult if it is cared for. Check out brain science. A baby's brain is not fully developed. NOT FULLY DEVELOPED? Then it must not count as a person! Wait - adults with ADHD have underdeveloped areas in their brains - OH NO! THEY DON'T COUNT EITHER!

A woman has the choice whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to protect herself. An embryo does not have a choice. A caring, responsible person would seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A society must be judged by how it treats its worst off members. Who's worse off than someone who cannot defend him/herself?

Care to explain why (assuming you even know what true Communism is)?
if it makes you happy, ill say marxist instead of communist. every person must work. in return everyone gets food, shelter, etc. you don't work, you get no food. you cant buy food because your not living in a capitalist society. there you go.

In a perfect world, readily available contraception and sex education would eliminate the need for abortions altogether. However, we don't live in a perfect world, nor will we ever. It's been proven that people are becoming sexually active at younger ages... while I don't think we need to be passing out condoms to 5th graders, I do think that we need to teach children as early as possible about having safer sex and using contraceptives properly and every time. Until the stigma associated with purchasing/acquiring contraceptives and information is worn away, abortions will regrettably be necessary.

Has anyone ever noticed how these forum threads turn into conversations that have nothing to do with the initial subject? :rolleyes:

I take offense to the comparison of myself and Hitler. Hitler was a tyrannical madman bent on world domination. He wanted to rid the world of what he felt to be "inferior races". He was a bigot, a racist and a hypocrite. What I'm saying is that we should eliminate the people who are purely and simply a burden on society.


Sharing a similar idea with a bad man doesn't mean that you're a bad person also; it can actually mean that you're very smart.

Hitler wasn't simply a "racist", he was also a very clever man with some brilliant ideas (aside from the Aryan propaganda, of course).

I take offense to the comparison of myself and Hitler. Hitler was a tyrannical madman bent on world domination. He wanted to rid the world of what he felt to be "inferior races". He was a bigot, a racist and a hypocrite. What I'm saying is that we should eliminate the people who are purely and simply a burden on society.
which would be consistent with hitlers views. im sorry, but you agree with hitler. i know you've been trained to hate hitler since birth, but the fact remains: you and hitler share this view

if it makes you happy, ill say marxist instead of communist. every person must work. in return everyone gets food, shelter, etc. you don't work, you get no food. you cant buy food because your not living in a capitalist society. there you go.


Oh, Lord. :confused:
What are they teaching in history classes these days?

"clearly the man was not brain dead and your point is thus irrelevant." why must i repeat myself?
it is possible to be brain dead beyond all recovery. google it. im not talking about being in a coma, persistive vegitative state, or anything else. i mean REALLY REALLY brain dead.

Well, when a person is brain dead, they are basically medically dead and do have NO chance whatsoever for recovery. However, a fetus is not brain dead as they do have a chance at recovery. You can't kill a person in a coma because there is a possibility they will recover. If you let a fetus continue to develop, it will in a sense recover, as it will develop brain function in the majority of cases. So you can't really use the same definition of brain death for brain dead patients as well as a fetus.

Which would, of course, be a simple matter of opinion. So who gets to decide who lives and who dies?

Four words decide who lives and who dies...

"Survival of the fittest."

Or, we could take it one step further and use only two...

"Self preservation."

If you can't live on your own, you just wouldn't live.

Well, when a person is brain dead, they are basically medically dead and do have NO chance whatsoever for recovery. However, a fetus is not brain dead as they do have a chance at recovery. You can't kill a person in a coma because there is a possibility they will recover. If you let a fetus continue to develop, it will in a sense recover, as it will develop brain function in the majority of cases. So you can't really use the same definition of brain death for brain dead patients as well as a fetus.

THANK YOU FOR THAT!!!!!

Oh, Lord. :confused:
What are they teaching in history classes these days?
im talking the intermediate period between revolution and "true communism"

[QUOTE=Maugham
A woman has the choice whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to protect herself. An embryo does not have a choice. A caring, responsible person would seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.[/QUOTE]
WTF? Why is this always blamed on women? Guess what?! The guys fuck too!
Also, what if the girl is raped? What then?

Well, when a person is brain dead, they are basically medically dead and do have NO chance whatsoever for recovery. However, a fetus is not brain dead as they do have a chance at recovery. You can't kill a person in a coma because there is a possibility they will recover. If you let a fetus continue to develop, it will in a sense recover, as it will develop brain function in the majority of cases. So you can't really use the same definition of brain death for brain dead patients as well as a fetus.
if you are capable of recovery you never died and are not dead. you still have a functioning brain and are alive. you are in a coma. there is a difference.
an embryo (not a fetus) has no brain. no thought, no brain function, no capability. it is a glob of cells no different from fungus.
it has potential for humanity, but again potential=/=actual

ABORTION IS WRONG!

Abortion is the ending of a life! Tue that it cannot yet survive out of the womb as an embryo, but it is growing to be able to be. It doesn't matter that it cannot live outside the womb, it is still living and growing like you and me. Do you go and put a rose seed in the ground and then before it sprouts above ground take it out of the soil? HELL NO! Its living and growing!

How would you fell if your parents told you that they almost had an abortion on you? Wouldn;t that make you feel really low and unloved? :(

Killing an embryo is like killing anything that cannot support itself. Almost everyone in hospitals aren't in good enough condition to support themselves, but you know what, I bet you would have a harder time killing them just bescause they are loved since they got out of the womb.

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!

Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

which would be consistent with hitlers views. im sorry, but you agree with hitler. i know you've been trained to hate hitler since birth, but the fact remains: you and hitler share this view

If you consider "able-bodied and mentally capable people" to be one race, and "severely physically/mentally handicapped people" to be a seperate race, then yes, I could see how one would relate my opinion to the same as Hitler's desire for a master race.

WTF? Why is this always blamed on women? Guess what?! The guys fuck too!
Also, what if the girl is raped? What then?

A woman has to take care of her own body, right? If she's going to let someone put his penis inside her, SHE is going to get pregnant. The man should be responsible for caring for the baby, but if the woman is unwilling to carry it, she shouldn't allow it to be conceived.

As for rape, how is killing an innocent human life going to make the woman un-raped? Why don't people consider adoption? You can take an act of evil and turn it into an opportunity for love - for the unwanted child and the adoptive parents who want him/her. Suddenly, the raped woman realizes she has done GOOD; the baby has LOVE; the new parents have LOVE and FAMILY. Wow. Where's the bad here? I think I just un-victimized everybody, except the rapist who should rot in jail.

im talking the intermediate period between revolution and "true communism"

Marx actually believed that after the "working man's revolution" (pretty funny, that this didn't occur the way he thought it would), there would be a dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in a classless society.
While he based his entire ideology on class antagonism, he said nothing about the elimination of those who do not wish to work.

I could discuss it at length, but I think it's best not to because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. (And I'm too lazy to keep arguing).

ABORTION IS WRONG!

Abortion is the ending of a life! Tue that it cannot yet survive out of the womb as an embryo, but it is growing to be able to be. It doesn't matter that it cannot live outside the womb, it is still living and growing like you and me. Do you go and put a rose seed in the ground and then before it sprouts above ground take it out of the soil? HELL NO! Its living and growing!

How would you fell if your parents told you that they almost had an abortion on you? Wouldn;t that make you feel really low and unloved? :(

Killing an embryo is like killing anything that cannot support itself. Almost everyone in hospitals aren't in good enough condition to support themselves, but you know what, I bet you would have a harder time killing them just bescause they are loved since they got out of the womb.

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!

Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
YES! Finally an ignorant pro-lifer has found its way into the midst of our thread! Pro-choicers, ATTACK! :p

ABORTION IS WRONG!



Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Hon, your emoticons sort of damage the cause ... I thought we were supposed to be pro-life, not merely anti-abortion.

PS this forum thing is fun. I wish I'd discovered this a long time ago.

ABORTION IS WRONG!

Abortion is the ending of a life! Tue that it cannot yet survive out of the womb as an embryo, but it is growing to be able to be. It doesn't matter that it cannot live outside the womb, it is still living and growing like you and me. Do you go and put a rose seed in the ground and then before it sprouts above ground take it out of the soil? HELL NO! Its living and growing!

How would you fell if your parents told you that they almost had an abortion on you? Wouldn;t that make you feel really low and unloved? :(

Killing an embryo is like killing anything that cannot support itself. Almost everyone in hospitals aren't in good enough condition to support themselves, but you know what, I bet you would have a harder time killing them just bescause they are loved since they got out of the womb.

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!

Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
Could you please define life, just so we can be on the same page?

YES! Finally an ignorant pro-lifer has found it's way into the midst of our thread! Pro-choicers, ATTACK! :p

Right, again, the battle, anti-life mentality. You're a fine example too. What happened to reasonable debate? Oh no, everything's got to be a war. Do let's be civil.

Until then, it's = it is. its = it(possesive). Grade school anyone?

Right, I'm calling a ceasefire on pettiness.

Right, again, the battle, anti-life mentality. You're a fine example too. What happened to reasonable debate? Oh no, everything's got to be a war. Do let's be civil.

Until then, it's = it is. its = it(possesive). Grade school anyone?

Right, I'm calling a ceasefire on pettiness.
Sorry, I missed that, but grammar doesn't really matter for a joke post, does it? I'm sorry if I offended you; I thought it was obvious I wasn't really serious by the smilie I had at the end of the post.

It's so ridiculous to use the "DON'T HAVE SEX!" nonsense, Gabrones.

Why should a woman be forced to forgoe sex simply for fear of getting knocked up?

People are going to have sex, and accidents happen. Accept it.

I think - I feel - I know it is wrong to kill those who cannot defend themselves. A person should be permitted to survive in his/her environment. Therefore, an embryo should get to live safely in a womb; a homeless person should have a coat; a dead person should be left to rest in peace. I simply don't think anyone has the right to determine whether any other human is permitted to live or die.

Ask science whether an embryo is human. It has all the genes necessary. It is just as likely to become a baby as a baby is to become an adult if it is cared for. Check out brain science. A baby's brain is not fully developed. NOT FULLY DEVELOPED? Then it must not count as a person! Wait - adults with ADHD have underdeveloped areas in their brains - OH NO! THEY DON'T COUNT EITHER!

A woman has the choice whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to protect herself. An embryo does not have a choice. A caring, responsible person would seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A society must be judged by how it treats its worst off members. Who's worse off than someone who cannot defend him/herself?
did you even read my posts?
1. so killing a defenceless fungus is wrong?
2. an embryo is not a person. if you think it is, prove it
3. i dont think anyone has the right to determine whether any other human is permitted to live or die either. an embryo is not a human.
4. ok. it says no. a headless corpse on the ground has all the genes necessary too.
5. yes its likely to become a baby...so what?
6. check out brain science? an embryo has no brain. the science is irrelevant
7. no, a baby counts as a person even with an underdeveloped brain. why? because it can think, feel, and is a human. an embryo has NO brain. no capacity for thought or emotion.
8. a fungus does not have a choice either
9. "those" implies people. prove an embryo is a person.
10. an embryo is not a member of society, it is not a who, it is a what.

if you are capable of recovery you never died and are not dead. you still have a functioning brain and are alive. you are in a coma. there is a difference.
an embryo (not a fetus) has no brain. no thought, no brain function, no capability. it is a glob of cells no different from fungus.
it has potential for humanity, but again potential=/=actual

So would you limit abortions to embryos which have not yet developed brain activity only?

YES! Finally an ignorant pro-lifer has found it's way into the midst of our thread! Pro-choicers, ATTACK! :p
Why? It's a free internet, he should embarrass himself if he wants to. Why would anyone want to discourage him from displaying the full flower of his accumulated wisdom, and keen insight?

Sorry, I missed that, but grammar doesn't matter for a joke post, does it?

AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grammar always matters. When grammar stops mattering, we'll be using Newspeak and worshipping Big Brother. Is it really that difficult to spell "its"? You're talking to an English teacher here ... it drives me up the wall ... up the wall ... oh Lordy ...

Right, I'm going to watch Dr Who now, and I'm quitting.

Abortion is wrong, and so is euthanasia. Right to life for all forms of human life!

AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grammar always matters. When grammar stops mattering, we'll be using Newspeak and worshipping Big Brother. Is it really that difficult to spell "its"? You're talking to an English teacher here ... it drives me up the wall ... up the wall ... oh Lordy ...

Right, I'm going to watch Dr Who now, and I'm quitting.

Abortion is wrong, and so is euthanasia. Right to life for all forms of human life!
MWAHAHAHA!!!

I seem to have run him off.

Run, scrawny English teacher! RUN! :D

Has anyone ever noticed how these forum threads turn into conversations that have nothing to do with the initial subject? :rolleyes:

that's the way it is on all message boards.

my personal stance on abortion is as follows;
1) If the female's life herself is in any serious danger (due to age, malnutrition, etc.) then an abortion should be legal. Chances are if the mother's life is in danger, then so is the child's. It is better to ensure one life's survival, then putting two in serious risk

2) If the female is impregnated against her will (rape/sexual assault), then abortion should be legal. This tends to be a very hot sub-issue within abortion as a whole. It would would be completely immoral and wrong to force a woman to have a baby that she did not want. Everytime she would look at the child, it would remind her of the horror of how it came to be.

3) This is the hardest one for me to decide on. If a female is sexually active and becomes pregnant then abortions should still be offered, but at a high cost. Sex is something to be shared between two consenting respsonsible individuals, but it is a major risk. Even with all the precautions, there is still that small percent. My reason for supporting this is that many females aren't suit to be mothers at times they become pregnant (mostly teenagers), and the child could suffer serious emotional, physical, and psychiological damage by a neglectfull parent (parents, if the male stays around). However, there should be some punishment for the parent(s). I think a higher cost of the surgery and a educational course should be mandatory for these situations.

a rebuttle i have encountered before about the third issue is that "if the mom can't afford to have/raise the child, how can she expect to pay for the abortion?" this is a good question, but looking at the costs; abortion surgery is a one time thing. raising a child is a long running event that has continuous stacking expenses.

besides, a woman's body is her own. the government has no right to tell a woman or any other person what to do with their body.

ABORTION IS WRONG!

Abortion is the ending of a life! Tue that it cannot yet survive out of the womb as an embryo, but it is growing to be able to be. It doesn't matter that it cannot live outside the womb, it is still living and growing like you and me. Do you go and put a rose seed in the ground and then before it sprouts above ground take it out of the soil? HELL NO! Its living and growing!

How would you fell if your parents told you that they almost had an abortion on you? Wouldn;t that make you feel really low and unloved? :(

Killing an embryo is like killing anything that cannot support itself. Almost everyone in hospitals aren't in good enough condition to support themselves, but you know what, I bet you would have a harder time killing them just bescause they are loved since they got out of the womb.

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!

Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
1. so killing fungus is wrong?
2. prove potential=actual
3. you have a brain, an embryo does not
4. i would respect my mothers right to abort me as an embryo. i would not feel unloved or really low
5. i never said killing someone who cant support themself was acceptable
6. love has nothing to do with anything
7. if you dont want to have kids you could also get an abortion, as there is nothing wrong with it.

So would you limit abortions to embryos which have not yet developed brain activity only?
Sure. Why not. It'd only cover 100% of them.

If you consider "able-bodied and mentally capable people" to be one race, and "severely physically/mentally handicapped people" to be a seperate race, then yes, I could see how one would relate my opinion to the same as Hitler's desire for a master race.
incorrect. hitler killed off invalids and handicapped people before genocide based on race even began. google it.

A woman has to take care of her own body, right? If she's going to let someone put his penis inside her, SHE is going to get pregnant. The man should be responsible for caring for the baby, but if the woman is unwilling to carry it, she shouldn't allow it to be conceived.

As for rape, how is killing an innocent human life going to make the woman un-raped? Why don't people consider adoption? You can take an act of evil and turn it into an opportunity for love - for the unwanted child and the adoptive parents who want him/her. Suddenly, the raped woman realizes she has done GOOD; the baby has LOVE; the new parents have LOVE and FAMILY. Wow. Where's the bad here? I think I just un-victimized everybody, except the rapist who should rot in jail.
prove there is something wrong with abortion rather than saying "why not just give birth" birth is painful and a woman has every right to not accept that pain. there are a number of reasons not to want to give birth. if there is nothing wrong with abortion then why go through birth? if you disagree, prove abortion is wrong.

Marx actually believed that after the "working man's revolution" (pretty funny, that this didn't occur the way he thought it would), there would be a dictatorship of the proletariat that would eventually result in a classless society.
While he based his entire ideology on class antagonism, he said nothing about the elimination of those who do not wish to work.

I could discuss it at length, but I think it's best not to because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. (And I'm too lazy to keep arguing).
extremely vague defence.
there is an intermediate period whether you like it or not. the government whether it is a dictatorship of the proletariat or not still decides who gets food and who doesnt. in an intermediate communist state who doesnt get food you ask? those who dont work.

Hon, your emoticons sort of damage the cause ... I thought we were supposed to be pro-life, not merely anti-abortion.

PS this forum thing is fun. I wish I'd discovered this a long time ago.
same here, i find this alot better than any structured debate. it alows everyone there own computer to bring up facts give links and things like that. it also has more accountability for BS.

ABORTION IS WRONG!

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!
:

chances are if a woman is being raped, she wont have time to tell the bastard, "ok hold up, you can rape me, just slap on a cap, you know what? i have one right here!". i doubt he would listen anyway, many times women are drugged then raped so they wouldn't be awake anyway.

So would you limit abortions to embryos which have not yet developed brain activity only?
unless the mothers life was in danger.

AUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Grammar always matters. When grammar stops mattering, we'll be using Newspeak and worshipping Big Brother. Is it really that difficult to spell "its"? You're talking to an English teacher here ... it drives me up the wall ... up the wall ... oh Lordy ...

Right, I'm going to watch Dr Who now, and I'm quitting.

Abortion is wrong, and so is euthanasia. Right to life for all forms of human life!
prove an embryo is human life

Stop trying to make yourself look intelligent, Club House. The faulty reasoning is enough, but your laughable spelling mistakes are even worse.

It'd be one thing if you understood what you were saying, but you don't.
You know nothing about Marx (ever read Das Kapital? It's obvious you haven't), and only misinterpret what people are saying.

I'm not saying it to be mean, and I'm not flaming you. I'm just being honest.
Please. Stop. Now.

Sure. Why not. It'd only cover 100% of them.

Errr.....brain activity, weather it's functional or more likely random, can be detected within the first 10 weeks.

incorrect. hitler killed off invalids and handicapped people before genocide based on race even began. google it.

He killed them off to purify them from his race before engaging on his campaign of genocide to remove "inferior" races from the earth. He did so because he felt that he would present a poor image if his race that he planned to rule the world with was not comprised of "perfect" examples of humanity.

I was not denying that Hitler killed invalids and the handicapped, I'm saying that his view on it is so radically different than mine that they cannot be compared and found to be the same.

As for rape, how is killing an innocent human life going to make the woman un-raped? Why don't people consider adoption? You can take an act of evil and turn it into an opportunity for love - for the unwanted child and the adoptive parents who want him/her. Suddenly, the raped woman realizes she has done GOOD; the baby has LOVE; the new parents have LOVE and FAMILY. Wow.

have you ever seen adoption homes? they are already overcrowded with unwanted children. and how do you explain to the child that their mother didn't want them because everytime she looked at them she was reminded of being raped.

I think - I feel - I know it is wrong to kill those who cannot defend themselves. A person should be permitted to survive in his/her environment. Therefore, an embryo should get to live safely in a womb; a homeless person should have a coat; a dead person should be left to rest in peace. I simply don't think anyone has the right to determine whether any other human is permitted to live or die.

Ask science whether an embryo is human. It has all the genes necessary. It is just as likely to become a baby as a baby is to become an adult if it is cared for. Check out brain science. A baby's brain is not fully developed. NOT FULLY DEVELOPED? Then it must not count as a person! Wait - adults with ADHD have underdeveloped areas in their brains - OH NO! THEY DON'T COUNT EITHER!

A woman has the choice whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to protect herself. An embryo does not have a choice. A caring, responsible person would seek to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A society must be judged by how it treats its worst off members. Who's worse off than someone who cannot defend him/herself?
Amen to that !!

A lot of the time, it isn't about becoming "unraped."

Having a baby completely changes your life, whether you put it up for adoption or not.
Some woman are not ready for that change and do not want it forced upon them.

Errr.....brain activity, weather it's functional or more likely random, can be detected within the first 10 weeks.

If you could show me where you got this tidbit from, I'd really like to see it, since I was lead to believe that ten weeks is well before there's anything resembling a brain... much less IS a brain that can and does function.

Stop trying to make yourself look intelligent, Club House. The faulty reasoning is enough, but your laughable spelling mistakes are even worse.

It'd be one thing if you understood what you were saying, but you don't.
You know nothing about Marx (ever read Das Kapital? It's obvious you haven't), and only misinterpret what people are saying.

I'm not saying it to be mean, and I'm not flaming you. I'm just being honest.
Please. Stop. Now.
a typo is laughable? strange sense of humor.
no, i wont stop.

unless the mothers life was in danger.

Well, ok then. In the spirit of continuing ht eonversatino though, why should an embryo be denied the chance to develop brain functions? I know you will say that potential != actual, could you explain that to me? Why shouldn'y we take into account what something is capable of becoming if we don't interfer with it?

a typo is laughable? strange sense of humor.
no, i wont stop.
Yes, typos are funny. Especially in popular, best-selling novels and the like.

Well, ok then. In the spirit of continuing ht eonversatino though, why should an embryo be denied the chance to develop brain functions? I know you will say that potential != actual, could you explain that to me? Why shouldn'y we take into account what something is capable of becoming if we don't interfer with it?

When a young child diplays qualities and traits that have been confirmed to be associated with sociopathic/psychopatic behavior (e.g.,torturing animals, sexually abusing neighborhood children, and being victims of physical/emotional/mental/sexual abuse themselves) we don't sentence them to life in prison because they've got the potential to become serial killers... in the same sense, it would be wrong to consider an embryo a human just because it has the potential to kill one.

I agree with Clubhouse and Ashmoria

It essentialy boils down the question "what is a person?" and a fetus is not one until six months.

Why? Read Roe vs. Wade for a full detail.

Human life demands respect whether it can "think" or not. If we start validating existence based on "thought" right to life becomes completely arbitrary. You might want to look up the case of the brain-damaged, comatose man who suddenly recovered after he'd been crushed by a burning building ten years ago. He's fine now. And I'm sure he's grateful that no one decided he didn't get to live just because he couldn't think.
What the fuck are you smoking and where do I get some? That guy wasn't comatose, by any stretch of the imagination. He was mute and in something of a stupor for ten years. It was probably mostly psychological, brought on by the trauma of having a house fall on him. There wasn't any massive brain damage, and he certainly wasn't comatose.


Ask science whether an embryo is human. It has all the genes necessary. It is just as likely to become a baby as a baby is to become an adult if it is cared for. Check out brain science. A baby's brain is not fully developed. NOT FULLY DEVELOPED? Then it must not count as a person! Wait - adults with ADHD have underdeveloped areas in their brains - OH NO! THEY DON'T COUNT EITHER!
Freakin' hell...
1: DNA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PERSON! DAMNIT!
2: Not fully developed is a far reach from non-existant.
3: ADHD has nothing to do with underdevelopment. Trust me, I have ADD, and my brain's plenty developed.

If you consider "able-bodied and mentally capable people" to be one race, and "severely physically/mentally handicapped people" to be a seperate race, then yes, I could see how one would relate my opinion to the same as Hitler's desire for a master race.

I'm afraid you're wrong here. Hitler was more than a rascist, he was also against the disabled. The Nazi party burned Helen Keller's books (among many others) because she was blind and deaf. Often, disabled people were placed in the concentration camps with the jews and the political dissidents and the protestants. They didn't often last long.

Well, ok then. In the spirit of continuing ht eonversatino though, why should an embryo be denied the chance to develop brain functions? I know you will say that potential != actual, could you explain that to me? Why shouldn'y we take into account what something is capable of becoming if we don't interfer with it?
humans have rights. embryos do not. why should we take it into account? because our morals tell us too? because our religion tells us too?

... why should an embryo be denied the chance to develop brain functions?

The embryo is attached to the mother; its life influences the mother's well-being, and -in my opinion- the present well-being of the life of the mother is more important than that of the possible life of the embryo.

1: DNA DOES NOT MAKE YOU A PERSON! DAMNIT!


I agree with this point one hundred percent. A sperm has DNA, so does an egg... so by the logic of DNA making for a human, I'm guilty of murder every time I spank off into a hanky.

If you could show me where you got this tidbit from, I'd really like to see it, since I was lead to believe that ten weeks is well before there's anything resembling a brain... much less IS a brain that can and does function.

Gah, do you know how hard it is to find non-biased [either pro-life or pro-choice] information of fetal development on google, these are the best I could find.

http://www.ovulite.com/Pregnancy_Guide.htm That's just a basic run through of week-by-week fetus development though it isn't from a medical site.

http://www.answers.com/fetus&r=67 That just a definition of fetus and a quick dictionary blurb about it. Basically though, all the major organs have begun to develop, while others function more than others.

... I'm guilty of murder every time I spank off into a hanky.

Whoa..Surprising.
For some reason, I thought you were a girl until now. :confused:

Gah, do you know how hard it is to find non-biased [either pro-life or pro-choice] information of fetal development on google, these are the best I could find.

http://www.ovulite.com/Pregnancy_Guide.htm That's just a basic run through of week-by-week fetus development though it isn't from a medical site.

http://www.answers.com/fetus&r=67 That just a definition of fetus and a quick dictionary blurb about it. Basically though, all the major organs have begun to develop, while others function more than others.

Thank you, always good to learn new things.

Whoa..Surprising.
For some reason, I thought you were a girl until now. :confused:

LMAO!! Oh man, that's great. Nope, all male over here. Or at least, last time I checked.

::checks again::

That's affirmative.

O.K., me and my penis just killed the conversation. Or is it my lack of breasts??

Either, or.

humans have rights. embryos do not. why should we take it into account? because our morals tell us too? because our religion tells us too?

The embryo is attached to the mother; its life influences the mother's well-being, and -in my opinion- the present well-being of the life of the mother is more important than that of the possible life of the embryo.

First off, don't worry I'm not about to start using morals as an arguement, that just reeks of ignorance.

Anyway, both of these comments really boil down to weather or not an embryo [and a fetus in the overall abortion debate] is entitled to rights or not. Obviously, as of current legislation they don't but we are discussing weather they should or not.

If the embryo is entitled to rights, then while the mother still has rights, her well-being does not trump the right to life of another unless her life is in danger or she is at risk of being seriously injured. A healthy pregnancy does not endanger her enough to warrant infringing upon the right to life of another.

Now, the woman is obviously entitled to rights. Why is an embryo not? Also, is the rule for a fetus different, why or why not?

On legislating morality:

I think a society needs to decide whether or not abortion is killing of a human. Its not really an opinion thing. I mean, if nation X thinks it isn't murder, then they can be pro-choice. But, if nation Y thinks it is murder, then they are more-or-less obligated to be pro-life. Don't you think? I mean, nations legislate on all other sorts of things; why be ambiguous on such an issue?

This really has nothing to do with my stance on the actual issue of abortion. Just my two cents, is all. ((Besides, who has EVER changed their veiws on similarly heated topics due to an internet chat on the nationstates forum??? lol))

i really dont see any reasons why it should. if you have any please share

Thank you, always good to learn new things.
The best part is how they call fetal movement fetal quickening. Like they are powering up to the next level or something.

Haha, my level 48 Fetus will beat you're level 20 Rouge!

On legislating morality:

I think a society needs to decide whether or not abortion is killing of a human. Its not really an opinion thing. I mean, if nation X thinks it isn't murder, then they can be pro-choice. But, if nation Y thinks it is murder, then they are more-or-less obligated to be pro-life. Don't you think? I mean, nations legislate on all other sorts of things; why be ambiguous on such an issue?

This really has nothing to do with my stance on the actual issue of abortion. Just my two cents, is all. ((Besides, who has EVER changed their veiws on similarly heated topics due to an internet chat on the nationstates forum??? lol))
Our constitution says that we cant legislate morality. the reason the supreme court decided on abortion is that someones constitutional rights were being violated. and as for society deciding, its not up to society. our constitution specifically limits the power of the legislative branch for situations like this.

Our constitution says that we cant legislate morality. the reason the supreme court decided on abortion is that someones constitutional rights were being violated. and as for society deciding, its not up to society. our constitution specifically limits the power of the legislative branch for situations like this.

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't legislate morality. :P

Besides, nations do that all the time. Hence the 'you can't steal' laws. :P
And before you say an embryo isn't a person to steal from, or kill, a nation could say it was, by, you guessed it... LEGISLATING MORALITY.

On the flip side, a nation could (and should) have the option to say an embryo ISN'T a person. That's all I'm saying. It's my opinion. And I think I'm gonna stick by it. :)

The best part is how they call fetal movement fetal quickening. Like they are powering up to the next level or something.

Haha, my level 48 Fetus will beat you're level 20 Rouge!


bwahahahahahaha. that made my day, thank you.

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't legislate morality. :P

Besides, nations do that all the time. Hence the 'you can't steal' laws. :P
And before you say an embryo isn't a person to steal from, or kill, a nation could say it was, by, you guessed it... LEGISLATING MORALITY.

On the flip side, a nation could (and should) have the option to say an embryo ISN'T a person. That's all I'm saying. It's my opinion. And I think I'm gonna stick by it. :)
it shouldnt legislate morality because it would be imposing your beliefs on another person. just because you do it through a legislative body doesnt mean your rights arent being violated. i think sodomy is immoral and wrong for whatever reason. i get my state to pass a law making sodomy illegal. why is it the governments right to say whether or not you can perform sodomy?

Just because something is not "human" doesn't mean that ending it's life would not be murder.

Technically speaking, abortion is murder, but I think it really is a necessary evil.
Yes it does currently there is no way to “murder” anything but a human being
Murder being the act of ILLIGALY taking a human life

If it is not human it is not murder
If it is legal it is not murder
Simple as that

can we please stop getting caught up in the technical definition of "murder"

can we please stop getting caught up in the technical definition of "murder"
Nope if they are claiming it is something that it is not it defiantly stands arguing again.

The arguement is about weather it is right/wrong [in the sense of rights not morals] not about weather it is legal or not. The legalisation aspect is just a by product from people's views. I.e. pro-choice=legal, pro-lifers=illegal.

ABORTION IS WRONG!

No. Depending on when it occurs it is not.

But let's see if you can justify your assertion ....

Abortion is the ending of a life!

So?

So is picking a flower, creating hamburger, killing a bacteria, using a pesticide ...

Tue that it cannot yet survive out of the womb as an embryo, but it is growing to be able to be. It doesn't matter that it cannot live outside the womb, it is still living and growing like you and me. Do you go and put a rose seed in the ground and then before it sprouts above ground take it out of the soil? HELL NO! Its living and growing!

LOL.

You just proved my point. I can destroy roses that belong to me anytime I want. It isn't wrong and it isn't "murder."

Moreover, an embryo does not equal a person anymore than a seed equals a rose bush.

How would you fell if your parents told you that they almost had an abortion on you? Wouldn;t that make you feel really low and unloved? :(

Irrelevant appeal to emotion.

Regardless, your argument backfires. If you mother actually aborted you, you don't exist so there is no problem. If, however, abortion is illegal, how would you feel if your mother told you she had wanted to abort you but was forced to give birth to you against her will?

Killing an embryo is like killing anything that cannot support itself. Almost everyone in hospitals aren't in good enough condition to support themselves, but you know what, I bet you would have a harder time killing them just bescause they are loved since they got out of the womb.

False comparison & slippery slope fallacy.

A woman has a right to control her own body. No one in a hospital other than a zygote-embryo-fetus must live inside someone else in order to survive.

An unborn child has no right to take over a woman's body. If it can survive outside the womb, good for it.

The ONLY reason why I can see anyone would want to get an abortion is if they were raped, but it still isnt even right then. Wear a raincoat or pop a pill if you dont want kids, or even better, DON'T HAVE SEX!

That you cannot understand why women seek abortions only emphasize why you should not pontificate on the issue.

You should learn a little respect for women. They are not mindless sex machines or walking wombs. Responsible, adult women choose abortion for a variety of reasons.

59% of women who have abortions were using birth control when they became public.

61% of women who have abortions already have one or more children.

Here is what I think of EVERYONE who gets an abortion
--> :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

About half of all women in the United States has abortion by age 45.

So, you hate an awful large portion of the population.

Abortion is a way for irresponsible women to end their troubles easily. It is wrong in my opinion but lets just look at my first point. Any woman can go out and have irresponsible, unprotected, and anonymous sex with any guy she chooses. This, as well as being immoral, is very unsafe healthwise. I believe that giving women and society in general this easy out is very wrong.

My, what a low opinion you have of the female population.

Contrary to your opinions it is not some small group of irresponsible teen "sluts" that seek abortion.

About half of all women in the US will have an abortion by age 45.

61% of women who have an abortion have already had one or more children.

About 20% of women who have an abortion are married.

Your misogynist stereotypes don't match reality.

Teenage girls now-a-days are very irresponsible sexually and abortion is a very big part of this.

Bullshit.

It requires a real ignorance of historical sexual norms to make such a statement.

Even if you only go back as far as the 1950s, you find a much higher teen pregnancy rate than today.

The total number of teen pregnancies is also much lower now than it was in 1970-72, before abortion became widely legalized.

Moreover, teenagers obtain only about 19% of abortions in the US.


Story time.....Several months ago a girl got her boyfriend to kill, or dispose of however you like to name it, the embryo that was growing inside of her. He struck her several time in the stomach with a baseball bat, hitting her over and over until she could no longer take the pain. These two teenagers then went to their parents and told them what they had done. The parents then proceeded to bury the fetus/embryo/child in the backyard inside of a coffee can. No one in this case was charged with any sort of crime. This to me is an outrage. The parents, I believe, knew, subconciously at least, that what came out of the young girl was human enough to deserve a proper burial, even though the fetus/embryo/child was still in the 1st trimester. Any one thinking that the teenagers should be charged with a crime, congratulations, you are now against abortion. What is the difference between a girl consenting to an abortion from her boyfriend and a girl going to the doctor and paying for that doctor to give her an abortion? Please, enlighten me.

1. Do you have any evidence of this "story" from a real source?

2. If all this activity was consensual and the pregnancy was in the first trimester, then no harm-no foul-no crime. Sorry, but the inflammatory facts don't impress me.

The arguement is about weather it is right/wrong [in the sense of rights not morals] not about weather it is legal or not. The legalisation aspect is just a by product from people's views. I.e. pro-choice=legal, pro-lifers=illegal.

Sort of.

One can firmly believe abortion is wrong, but have sufficient regard for the rights and/or moral autonomy of women to believe it should be legal.

Many who are pro-choice believe abortion is immoral.

Sort of.

One can firmly believe abortion is wrong, but have sufficient regard for the rights and/or moral autonomy of women to believe it should be legal.

Many who are pro-choice believe abortion is immoral.
I am one of those could not do it myself (if I was female) types that is still pro choice

I need some proof that it has achieved “personhood” in order to overrule the already established rights of the mother over her body

On legislating morality:

I think a society needs to decide whether or not abortion is killing of a human. Its not really an opinion thing. I mean, if nation X thinks it isn't murder, then they can be pro-choice. But, if nation Y thinks it is murder, then they are more-or-less obligated to be pro-life. Don't you think? I mean, nations legislate on all other sorts of things; why be ambiguous on such an issue?

This really has nothing to do with my stance on the actual issue of abortion. Just my two cents, is all. ((Besides, who has EVER changed their veiws on similarly heated topics due to an internet chat on the nationstates forum??? lol))

What you (and much of this debate) ignore is the WOMAN and her rights.

There is one undeniably living, human, person with inalienable rights in the equation -- the mother. She has rights including to self-ownership, to control over her own body, to privacy, to reproductive freedom, etc.

Even if you make the far-fetched assumption that a zygote-embryo-fetus has a right to life, that does not end the matter! The unborn child still does not have a superceding right to the woman's body!

Calling abortion murder is ridiculous both semantically and morally. But it does not really matter -- a woman retains her rights to her own body.

If someone tried to invade your bodily integrity for even a few moments, you would have a right to self-defense. How then can you deny a right to repel an unwanted take-over of one's body that lasts nine months?

What you (and much of this debate) ignore is the WOMAN and her rights.

There is one undeniably living, human, person with inalienable rights in the equation -- the mother. She has rights including to self-ownership, to control over her own body, to privacy, to reproductive freedom, etc.

Even if you make the far-fetched assumption that a zygote-embryo-fetus has a right to life, that does not end the matter! The unborn child still does not have a superceding right to the woman's body!

Calling abortion murder is ridiculous both semantically and morally. But it does not really matter -- a woman retains her rights to her own body.

If someone tried to invade your bodily integrity for even a few moments, you would have a right to self-defense. How then can you deny a right to repel an unwanted take-over of one's body that lasts nine months?

You know, if Cat-Tribe and I agree on something, it's got to be right.
;)

You know, if Cat-Tribe and I agree on something, it's got to be right. ;)
I thought that was one of the signs for the end of the world as we know it! :p

I hope not! :eek:

I hope not! :eek:
And me and you agree as well .... :eek: this is a sure sign of the end!

Well, ok then. In the spirit of continuing the conversation though, why should an embryo be denied the chance to develop brain functions? I know you will say that potential != actual, could you explain that to me? Why shouldn'y we take into account what something is capable of becoming if we don't interfer with it?
Why should any one of a million sperm be denied the opportunity to be a human being? Any egg? Why does infant moratlity have to be so high in agrarian cultures? Why does a good and all powerful God permit evil to exist? The world can be a tough place. The only rights anyone has, are the ones the powerful guarantee. The universe does not care if you, or anyone, is happy.

An embryo obviously isn't a human, and lives at the whim of a lot of enviromental factors, not the least of which is the mothers choice to end that possibility (intentionally, or otherwise). So let's compare it to a scratch off game piece at some fast food joint. We won't consider the odds of conception and implantation (which are pretty long). So we'll pretend there's a relatively high probablity of the embryo winning and realizing it's potential of being a human, or the equivalent of winning any prize (food included). As the game piece is unscratched and the embryo is just forming, the odds are ok all things considered, but in all probability it's a loser. As more elements of the game piece are revealed, and as the embryo develops the odds change, for the better or worse depending on how it develops. But in either case, it's not a winner until everything is revealed and the prize is delivered. In the case of the embryo all kinds of things influence those odds, and from the perspective of the embryo, NONE of them are fair. It's a very rare child that's born into a middle class or better life in a post-industrial country. And even then, they don't get the best chance available, just what their mothers consider good enough.

But why does this matter? Just like not every game piece is a winner, neither is every embryo (NOTHING will ever change that). The real differences between fast food promotional games and life is promotional games are made to run as fair as practicable. More over, if we "didn't interfere", like so many agrarian societies, infant mortality would skyrocket. All in all, mothers handeling their medical care with the assistance of experts has been a big win for babies. The rub with free will, is we get to take the bad with the good. Once they have the means to manage their reproduction thoughtfully, that's what they're going to do. Even if disinterested third parties would like to live the lives of other people differently.

If "moral" people really gave any kind of a crap about the sacredness of life, they'd be promoting and subsidizing contraception, in a variety of forms, in the most poverty stricken famine prone regions of the world. But they don't. Almost none of them do. So it can only lead a reasonable person to conclude that what they really want are a lot of poor souls to endure unspeakable suffering before they die a horrible death at an early age.

PS -- On Google-fu. A search that looks like this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=embryo+%22human+development%22+site%3Aedu&btnG=Search) can get one to a pretty authoritative and bias free site like this (http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html). Notice the use of "site:edu." It can be a powerful aid in seperating all kinds of wheat from all kinds of chaff.

PPS -- Do you have a wireless keyboard too?

Errr.....brain activity, weather it's functional or more likely random, can be detected within the first 10 weeks.

Depending on what you mean by "brain activity" and "detected," your statement is untrue, misleading, or both.

And it is "whether."

I guess my simple answer to the problem would be this: what else besides a human embryo has a chance to become human one day? And who are we to deny it that chance? Humans are the only creatures on this planet with souls, with the ability to think logically, to reason. Once such a thing has been created, who are we to think that we can morally and ethically justify the murder of such a thing? The riposte that I expect to this is that an embryo is in essence brain-dead, and we end the lives of brain-dead people every day, and people generally do not make an uproar about it. Without passing judgement on that issue, I would give the difference between this and killing an unborn child. The unborn child is growing into the world, it has not been taken from it. Whereas a person who has been declared to be in a vegetative state will not likely rise from such a state, an unborn child will, if not killed, grow into a thinking human being. As I said, how can you justify the ending of a chance for this child to think, to reason, to exist?

All I wnat to say is taht the lot of you are undermining your argumenats by spelling 'whether' as 'weather'!

That is all.

~~V (and smilies = stupid, I'm afraid, I cannot take you seriously...)

I guess my simple answer to the problem would be this: what else besides a human embryo has a chance to become human one day? And who are we to deny it that chance?

If you look two posts above yours you will find an excellent answer to that question.

And now my question to you and all other pro-lifers:

Why do you assume such a chance is per definition something good ?

I guess my simple answer to the problem would be this: what else besides a human embryo has a chance to become human one day? And who are we to deny it that chance? Humans are the only creatures on this planet with souls, with the ability to think logically, to reason. Once such a thing has been created, who are we to think that we can morally and ethically justify the murder of such a thing? The riposte that I expect to this is that an embryo is in essence brain-dead, and we end the lives of brain-dead people every day, and people generally do not make an uproar about it. Without passing judgement on that issue, I would give the difference between this and killing an unborn child. The unborn child is growing into the world, it has not been taken from it. Whereas a person who has been declared to be in a vegetative state will not likely rise from such a state, an unborn child will, if not killed, grow into a thinking human being. As I said, how can you justify the ending of a chance for this child to think, to reason, to exist?
1. sperm and eggs
2. we are no one, the woman is the only one
3. souls are subjective, religous, etc. as a result they have no baring on a leagal discussion. embryo's dont have theability to think logically or reason. there you go
4. if i grow a fungus then i feel morally and ethically justified in killing it.
5. so what?
6. how do you justify masterbation? why does it matter if their is a chance for this embryo (not child) to think reason and exist? if you think that your embryo should be allowed to become a human being, then go ahead. you can not impose what you consider to be moral on other people.

ok i still really haven't gotten a good answer from the pro-lifers. heres what my position is based on so far.
an embryo (not fetus) is not a living human being so it is not murder or immoral in any way.
people say life begins at conception. true enough, but not human life
an embryo is no different from someone who is clinically brain dead (not persistive vegitative state, i mean really completely brain dead) cells continue to form, finger nails grow etc.
but then you say, "but it has the potential to become a human being"
but potential to be human =/= actual human.
how do you retort?

How do you know it's not human life? Better safe than sorry.

How do you know it's not human life? Better safe than sorry.
reread my original post. if you still dont get it bash your head against the keyboard until you cant feel the pain anymore. then reread again if you haven't comprehended yet, repeat 5 times. if you still dont get it cancel your internet account and format your hard drive just to be safe.

I still think men shouldn't comment on it, since well... it's quite unlikely that they'll ever be in a situation like this.

And I still think that nobody, especially not a man, has the right to tell me I'm not allowed to abort if I'd ever be in a situation that would bring up that possibility.

Also, even if abortion is illegal, that won't mean that nobody aborts...

I’ve been lurking, but now I feel I should speak up.

My girlfriend and I have been together for a few years. Last year she called me in a panic because she found out that she was pregnant. We’re both adults and college students and could not even hope to start to support a child well. We both talked about it a lot to make this decision. We finally decided that we could not support this child, as much as we wanted to and that bringing the child to term wasn’t going to be possible.

Our university doesn’t allow women to drop the semester for pregnancy without it affecting their grades. Also, since my girlfriend is in the US on a student visa, she HAS to be taking classes to stay in the US. With no chance to carry the child to term without causing a larger set of problems, we decided to abort.

The doctor thought she was, maybe, three weeks pregnant, probably closer to two weeks though. I drove her down to the clinic and stayed with her the whole time till she went in the backroom and was there for her when she came out.

By the way, abortion clinics are not nice places; this is not happy fun land. You know damn well why you’re there and what it means.

After it was over, she said it was an easy procedure and done quickly. But it took us 6 months to heal, if you can say we did. My girlfriend was shaken badly; she thought that I would run, because that’s what she had heard guys did. She thought that this meant she won’t be a good mother in the future and that this could cause her to never be able to have children again. It took a lot of work and talking and some therapy before she could start to recover. I have to live with the knowledge that I did this to the woman I love, I hurt her badly.

Why am I baring my soul like this? Because after reading the replies here I wanted you to see what this is like. This is not, was not, an easy decision. We didn’t do this on a lark, we didn’t wake up and decide to abort one day, and we didn’t just get over it and then go on like nothing happened. It hurts, it still hurts.

It was a terrible thing, but would we do it again? Yeah, because if and when we are ready, we want to be able to provide the best home for our children, without having being bitter at a child for something that was not his or her fault.
So until you are in this situation, I really don’t think you have any idea WHAT is going through these peoples’ heads and hearts and their reasons. You don’t know and you can’t know. I’d thank you to keep quiet then.

Feel free to call me a murder, monster or whatever floats your boat. I’m going back to lurking and won’t respond. But remember this, that there is real pain and real heartbreak behind these stories, and real people who will be living with this. That’s why I am pro-choice though, I’ve been there and understand far better than any of you (hopefully) ever will, unless you’ve sat in those waiting rooms too.