NationStates Jolt Archive

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate. It's an expliantion about a viewpoint to make it clearer to some people

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate. It's an expliantion about a viewpoint to make it clearer to some people

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.
So you want a soapbox to preach from without discussion on the topic … sorry that’s not how the forums work

So you want a soapbox to preach from without discussion on the topic … sorry that’s not how the forums work

No, I want an understanding from people. So many pro-choicers dont understand the point pro-lifers are making. I thought I'd make the point. I dont want making the point to lead to a debate, just to make some understanding about it.

ok

so what would YOU consider to be the right tack to take when debating with a pro-lifer?

ok

so what would YOU consider to be the right tack to take when debating with a pro-lifer?

Discuss the charaterstics of life of the fetus, the logic of wheather or not sex leads to birth etc things like that. The idea of murder being reletive is just stupid.

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate.
Hmmmm.... it WILL.

Are you one of those pro-lifers who supports the death-penalty :rolleyes:

No, I want an understanding from people. So many pro-choicers dont understand the point pro-lifers are making. I thought I'd make the point. I dont want making the point to lead to a debate, just to make some understanding about it.
And we don’t believe (most of us) that at an early stage that it is a “person” as such there is no reason to override woman’s right to her own body

Who of us is right? (I am sure you think you are) but the lovely part of pro-choice is that … it is a choice for the mother and is not forcing any contestable un proven wishes on the mothers right to her body

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate. It's an expliantion about a viewpoint to make it clearer to some people

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

Difference is, most people think stealing is wrong. Pro-lifers do not have such a majority, so no democratic country is going to listen to them. Until they do have the majority, they can't force anyone to do anything.

And besides, isn't it better to have it done as a proper medical pocedure than to have it done as a bodge job? Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Difference is, most people think stealing is wrong. Pro-lifers do not have such a majority, so no democratic country is going to listen to them. Until they do have the majority, they can't force anyone to do anything.

No, majority decisions do not make something "right" ever. Suppose a majority of people actually did think steeling was right. Then what would happen.

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

The argument of the pro choice lobby is that abortion is not murder. You can not co-opt a disputed point and take it to be agreed upon. The relative argument is not about murder, it is about life.

Are you one of those pro-lifers who supports the death-penalty :rolleyes:

No

Pro-choicers believe that abortion is not murder. Do you seek to enforce your belief upon them?

No, majority decisions do not make something "right" ever. Suppose a majority of people actually did think steeling was right. Then what would happen.

What do you have against steeling?

Far better then iron :p

Though if lots of people thought stealing was right, not much would change. I mean, the government steals all the time ;)

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate. It's an expliantion about a viewpoint to make it clearer to some people

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

exactly the same thing happends arguing about totalitarianism! it's really annoying when people say "that's your opinion, i don't have to believe it" cause that's the point of totalitarianism! that everyone has to believe the same opinions! grr... :headbang:

The argument hinges upon when an embryo or fetus can be considered a human being. We can all agree that it's alive in much the same way as a kidney is alive, but one can have his kidney removed and not be called a murderer. I don't think that a lump of cells incapable of thought or emotion can be considered a human being, therefore I don't see abortion in the early stages as murder.

The argument hinges upon when an embryo or fetus can be considered a human being. We can all agree that it's alive in much the same way as a kidney is alive, but one can have his kidney removed and not be called a murderer. I don't think that a lump of cells incapable of thought or emotion can be considered a human being, therefore I don't see abortion in the early stages as murder.
The idea here is that the serpent intentionally tried to make a chasm between man and God that would be impossible to bridge. The serpent never understood how God might be able to bridge it himself, because the serpent understood that God cannot be in the presence of evil and thus, sin.

No, majority decisions do not make something "right" ever. Suppose a majority of people actually did think steeling was right. Then what would happen.

Stealing would be renamed tax?!?

And where exactly did anyone suggest stealing would become something the majority of people thouhgt was right? The point is, no one will change the law to support sanctimonious prolife campaigners unless they are in the majority.

No, I want an understanding from people. So many pro-choicers dont understand the point pro-lifers are making. I thought I'd make the point. I dont want making the point to lead to a debate, just to make some understanding about it.

Incorrect. Those of us who are pro-choice completely understand the point you are trying to make.

The problem is that no anti-choice person has yet been able to provide an objective reasoning for their belief. In the end, it generally boils down to a religious viewpoint.

Many of us that are pro-choice are opposed to abortion. We find it distasteful or think that it is wrong. However, we recognize that our reasons for believing this are, themselves, inherently subjective. In truth, the only reasons for believing this way are inherently subjective, just like the belief or non-belief in a God. As such, we don't attempt to force them upon others. We may attempt to convince others that we are correct, but we don't force them.

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

Have you even listened to their message?

Sorry but you are trying to force people to your way of thinking. To follow your "morality" codes.

You seek to eliminate the choice part. Especially in matters where the child has unfortunatly received a terminal disease. Why should a family be forced to deliver a child that will die in the matter of a few days at most a couple weeks. Why should a family be ladened with the medical costs that will devistate the family. Especially after the good Christian shrub passed legislation that practically eliminates the bankruptsy option.

If the prolifers are willing to take these children and the costs then prolife is the way to go.

You are not God so don't speak for him. We have free will and that includes bad choices.

God is a big boy. If people make the wrong choices, then let God do his job and punish them when their time comes.

Try looking into the reasons why people choose an abortion. It's not as simple as you think. Many people usually have regrets even though they knew it was the right thing to do.

Don't bother me with the adoption crap. How many downs children would sit in the system for the rest of their lives?

Ah well.....

Incorrect. Those of us who are pro-choice completely understand the point you are trying to make.

The problem is that no anti-choice person has yet been able to provide an objective reasoning for their belief. In the end, it generally boils down to a religious viewpoint.

Many of us that are pro-choice are opposed to abortion. We find it distasteful or think that it is wrong. However, we recognize that our reasons for believing this are, themselves, inherently subjective. In truth, the only reasons for believe this way are inherently subjective, just like the belief or non-belief in a God. As such, we don't attempt to force them upon others. We may attempt to convince others that we are correct, but we don't force them.
Thank you love ... well said :fluffle:

Are you one of those pro-lifers who supports the death-penalty :rolleyes:


LMMFAO :D

Incorrect. Those of us who are pro-choice completely understand the point you are trying to make.

The problem is that no anti-choice person has yet been able to provide an objective reasoning for their belief. In the end, it generally boils down to a religious viewpoint.

Many of us that are pro-choice are opposed to abortion. We find it distasteful or think that it is wrong. However, we recognize that our reasons for believing this are, themselves, inherently subjective. In truth, the only reasons for believe this way are inherently subjective, just like the belief or non-belief in a God. As such, we don't attempt to force them upon others. We may attempt to convince others that we are correct, but we don't force them.
Perfect.

Pro-choicers believe that abortion is not murder. Do you seek to enforce your belief upon them?

How isn't it murder, you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess, they should face that fact and then try to build their life around their child.

How isn't it murder, you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess, they should face that fact and then try to build their life around their child.

If the fetus isn't alive, it can't be murdered. If the killing is lawful, it's not murder. There's two ways for you.

How isn't it murder, you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess, they should face that fact and then try to build their life around their child.
Look at the definition of murder

Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human

If it is not considered human (fully) or if it is NOT illegal it is NOT murder

Abortion is legal therefor it is absolutly by deffinition not murder

How isn't it murder, you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess, they should face that fact and then try to build their life around their child.

It's one thing if it's a healthy child and it's another if it's terminal or serverly debilitated. Do you know anybody who "build their life around such a child."

There life ends especially if it requires 24/7 attention. Other children tend to fall by the wayside or the family even divorses. I know of three that have done that.

Look at the definition of murder

Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of a human

If it is not considered human (fully) or if it is NOT illegal it is NOT murder

Abortion is legal therefor it is absolutly by deffinition not murder


Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.

Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.
It is potential life
Just because it has potential to become a person does not mean it is

It is potential life
Just because it has potential to become a person does not mean it is

it has more than potential, it will have its whole life ahead of it and the chances of it dying before birth are at that stage very slim, so it has a bit more than potential, unless something happens, it is gonna come out.

Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.

Is male masturbation murder?

Is male masturbation murder?

Is sperm a living, breathing member of society. no.n exactly, can we keep to the point of abortion here.

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.

Well, I am a pro-lifer who thinks abortion should be legal. As someone else already said, better to be legal and safe, than illegal and dangerous.

Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.

Fetuses are rarely aborted.

Embryos are.

And we can't class an embryo as legally human because that would turn women into nothing but baby-makers if they dared to be sexually active. A miscarriage would have to be investigated and if anything about the woman's lifestyle (even something as simple as having a stressful job) might have caused it, she could be charged with murder (or manslaughter).

A police officer could never use force against a woman, even if she was attacking him. If he did, he might cause a miscarriage, thus committing murder.

A doctor would not be able to perform any medical treatment on any woman without first doing a pregnancy test. If she did provide medical treatment, and anything happened to the embryo, she could be prosecuted for that.

There are all sorts of examples that I could go on with. What it basically boils down to is the fact that declaring an embryo as a human life takes all legal rights away from a woman.

Then, on top of that, there is the fact that there is no objective way to define an embryo as a human being that does not either include organs and individual skin cells, or rely on potentiality. If we call an embryo a human just because it might possibly eventually develop into one, then we must call a child an adult because it might become one. And I should be able to get social security because I might one day be of retirement age.

Is male masturbation murder?

Yes.:p :rolleyes: ;)

Is sperm a living, breathing member of society. no.n exactly, can we keep to the point of abortion here.

Is an embryo a living, breathing member of society? Not exactly, can we keep to the point here?

Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.


Ok. The killing of human embryos is now Illegal.

Start lobbying for the arrest of the 80% of women that have spontaneous abortions. Involuntary manslaughter! Oh, and the arrest of most people that work in fertility clinics; They generally fertilize lots of eggs, but they only plant one inside the female uteros.


Please! Yes, if development continues, it WILL be a human being, it is NOT a human being.


Edit: shit, Dempublicents1 writes faster and better than i. I'm feeling jealous :(

That is like saying a car chassis in the assembly line is a full car o.o

Its not.

Its cells, multiplying. If you think its alive, take it out of a womb and see it grow.

it has more than potential, it will have its whole life ahead of it and the chances of it dying before birth are at that stage very slim, so it has a bit more than potential, unless something happens, it is gonna come out.

Incorrect.

At that stage, its chances of dying before birth are about 50%. I would hardlly call that "slim".

you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess

You demonstrate complete ignorance in this single statement. Perhaps you should look into the reasons that people have abortions. Perhaps you should talk to someone who has had to make that choice.

Is sperm a living, breathing member of society. no.n exactly, can we keep to the point of abortion here.

So why are sperm not alive when a fetus is? In nine months, those sperm could've been people.

Is sperm a living, breathing member of society. no.n exactly, can we keep to the point of abortion here.

Shifting the goalpost Blu-tac?

You claimed that a foetus had the potential to be a living breathing member of society (even though it isn't breathing, possibly not living and certainly not a member of society).

Yet you get cross for me claiming a sperm cell can also be considered to be a potential living, breathing member of society.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

If it's an unwanted child, and the parents would resent it, is that good for anyone, including the child? Of course not.

If it's an unwanted child, and the parents would resent it, is that good for anyone, including the child? Of course not.

But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place, and their are other options, such as putting thechild up for adoption, at least give the child a chance in life.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.


No. I wouldnt like to be terminated from the first moment that my body got able to live without the help of my mother's body (4 months if i am not incorrect). Before that, i wasnt born. "I" was a bunch of multiplying cells.

Your question makes so much sence has asking me if i wanted to be born in a different age.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

I don't think Bottle is in here, so I think you will have a hard time finding people who are "for" abortion.

Now, if you are asking about people who are pro-choice, that is a different matter.

Befor I say what I want to say I want to make a point clear. This thread is NOT to turn into a pro-live vs pro-choice debate. It's an expliantion about a viewpoint to make it clearer to some people

Now I myself am pro-life. Many pro-choicers I know say to me, when I talk about abortion being wrong etc say something to the effect of "Ok, thats fine, thats YOUR way of thinking. But it isn't fair to force everyone else to conform to it". And by saying that it show's they have completely missed the point of pro-life. Pro-life basicly says that aborition is murder and thus saying its somehow reletive and people who dont believe its wrong should be allowed to do it is like saying that those who dont believe steeling is wrong should be allowed to do it, from the pro life perspective. The pro-life perspective doesnt allow for that kind of reletive nature when it comes to murder, so try and consider that if you are having a discussion with them.
Well, you said it perfectly, with the exception of a few spelling mistakes. Now, the question becomes, is murder always nessecarily wrong?

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated,

Suicide rates are suprisingly high...

Though this is irrelevent. Simply being thankful that you weren't aborted doesn't make a foetus anymore a "living, breathing human being."

I fact I am thankful that my parents didn't abort me though they had the choice, since it means they wanted me to be born and were willing and ready to on the responsibilities that come with bringing up a child. I'd it be far worse to know I was born becuase my parents weren't allowed an abortion and weren't ready to bring up a child.

without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

More than banning abortions will be needed for this to happen...

No. I wouldnt like to be terminated from the first moment that my body got able to live without the help of my mother's body (4 months if i am not incorrect). Before that, i wasnt born. "I" was a bunch of multiplying cells.

Your question makes so much sence has asking me if i wanted to be born in a different age.

If you were them cells, would you want to have a chance, or would you want to be disposed of, just another wasted life, who had the possibilty to do anything, discover a cure for some so far uncurable disease, eliminate poverty, but no, you just want to terminate the cells then and there, without any chance.

Suicide rates are suprisingly high...

Though this is irrelevent. Simply being thankful that you weren't aborted doesn't make a foetus anymore a "living, breathing human being."

I fact I am thankful that my parents didn't abort me though they had the choice, since it means they wanted me to be born and were willing and ready to on the responsibilities that come with bringing up a child. I'd it be far worse to know I was born becuase my parents weren't allowed an abortion and weren't ready to bring up a child.



More than banning abortions will be needed for this to happen...

I agree, but banning abortions is the first step.

But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place, and their are other options, such as putting thechild up for adoption, at least give the child a chance in life.

Yep, because Adoption homes are roller-coasters of fun, excitement and love, right?

And your thing about "But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place"

You make it sound so easy :rolleyes:

If you were them cells, would you want to have a chance, or would you want to be disposed of, just another wasted life, who had the possibilty to do anything, discover a cure for some so far uncurable disease, eliminate poverty, but no, you just want to terminate the cells then and there, without any chance.


When i was a bunch of cells, i had no "wants". No desires. I was not alive.

Your counter-argument to mine also leads you back to "masturbation is murder". Every time you masturbate, think if don't want to give those sperms of yours a chance to fertilize an egg and blablablabla.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

Entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is still their decision.

And for that matter, what life are these "babies" losing if they're never born?

I agree, but banning abortions is the first step.

Why? Surely we should get all the stuff in place first?


It's like agreeing to recieve 1 million refugees but not bothering to make sure you have housing etc to accomadate them.

But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place, and their are other options, such as putting thechild up for adoption, at least give the child a chance in life.


Oh, adoption, with the surplus of families and...no, wait... that's not right.

So what you mean is: lets put the kid in a care home. Good plan, you humanitarian you.

And what about a rape victim who gets pregnant? What say you then?

Yep, because Adoption homes are roller-coasters of fun, excitement and love, right?

And your thing about "But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place"

You make it sound so easy :rolleyes:

well put it this way, i'd prefer to spend my childhood in an adoption home than be dead. I've seen an adoption home, I've been in one, I've visited one, and they ain't as bad as you think, the kids there get food, shelter and education, everything they could possibly need, of course they don't get luxuries, but they can get them themselves when they turn 18.

If the fetus isn't alive, it can't be murdered. If the killing is lawful, it's not murder. There's two ways for you.

Yes, but "isnt alive" would equal dead, and we can safely say the fetus is not dead. It does not just suddenly "come to life" and since we can't idenfity when exactly it is alive, we shouldnt really play God with its existance.

Oh, adoption, with the surplus of families and...no, wait... that's not right.

So what you mean is: lets put the kid in a care home. Good plan, you humanitarian you.

And what about a rape victim who gets pregnant? What say you then?

I said, "of course in some very rare cases abortion is justified, but only in very rare cases, casual abortion is just plain wrong" and I use the word casual very loosely, i understand its a hard decision to make, but i mean abortion that is not justified.

well put it this way, i'd prefer to spend my childhood in an adoption home than be dead. I've seen an adoption home, I've been in one, I've visited one, and they ain't as bad as you think, the kids there get food, shelter and education, everything they could possibly need, of course they don't get luxuries, but they can get them themselves when they turn 18.

It's a shit childhood. They get the bare minimum, woohoo! How great for them.

And if you were never alive, how would you know what you were missing?

well put it this way, i'd prefer to spend my childhood in an adoption home than be dead.

To be dead you have to be fully alive first...

Anyway, the dead tell no one nothing, so maybe you'd prefer being dead. I'm sure there has been at least one suicide (or attempted suicide) in an adoption home.

I've seen an adoption home, I've been in one, I've visited one, and they ain't as bad as you think,

OMG, you;ve been to one and it wasn't too bad.

Surely the rest must all be the same :rolleyes:

I said, "of course in some very rare cases abortion is justified, but only in very rare cases, casual abortion is just plain wrong" and I use the word casual very loosely, i understand its a hard decision to make, but i mean abortion that is not justified.

So you want to play god with the mother instead of the child. Nice.

If you were them cells, would you want to have a chance, or would you want to be disposed of, just another wasted life, who had the possibilty to do anything, discover a cure for some so far uncurable disease, eliminate poverty, but no, you just want to terminate the cells then and there, without any chance.

If I were those cells, I wouldn't want anything, other than nutrients required for my so-called life. I wouldn't notice my "death" because I am not aware of being alive. I would have no opinion one way or the other.

I am sure that if a "person", that has been aborted, was going to cure cancer or eliminate poverty or something, there will be someone else to come along and do it in their place.

It's a shit childhood. They get the bare minimum, woohoo! How great for them.

And if you were never alive, how would you know what you were missing?

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place, and their are other options, such as putting thechild up for adoption, at least give the child a chance in life.
And that’s removing a mothers right to her body
And possibly causing her harm (emotional and physical)
I find putting the mothers freedom of choice and health at risk for your morals to be silly

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.
Seeing as, at that point in time, my brain wouldn't be formed and that I would have no cognitive way to think about your question, the question is moot.

Besides, even if I had a say in the matter, my answer would be something like bluubjajuuub! Gaa! Gaa.

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.


(not that i agree with your original premisse but)..

..that life could also lead the world to its end!

lol

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

That argument is fallacious. What if that person went on to be the next Hitler or Stalin or Charles Manson?

Yes, but "isnt alive" would equal dead, and we can safely say the fetus is not dead. It does not just suddenly "come to life" and since we can't idenfity when exactly it is alive, we shouldnt really play God with its existance.

Rock: alive or dead?

If it's dead, it must have died. When did rock die?

There are biological criteria behind whta is alive and what is "vitally challenged". One of them is the ability to reproduce. Can a fetus reproduce?

Yes, but "isnt alive" would equal dead,

Is a stone dead?

I mean. It isn't alive ;)

and we can safely say the fetus is not dead. It does not just suddenly "come to life"

But it does.

Otherwise everyone would have to have been ever so slightly alive since the beginning of time.

and since we can't idenfity when exactly it is alive, we shouldnt really play God with its existance.

Are you also against IVF?

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

Sorry, but that's a very simplistic and false line of argument.

"Don't lock up that murderer, he migh discover a cure for cancer" :rolleyes:

That argument is fallacious. What if that person went on to be the next Hitler or Stalin or Charles Manson?

well if they did, there would be a just cause for removing their life, then and only then would there be a just cause.

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

Play a lot pf poker Blu-tac? Or indulge in a lot of gambling?

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

First of, yes, I wish my parents had decided that way. Some people just should NEVER EVER have children. My childhood was living hell, I'm still suffering from the memories, I suffer from severe depression and attempted suicide twice. If my parents had decided to abort me, I know I would be A LOT happier now.

That is the reason why I decided never to have children myself. I'm using contraceptives, but should I ever get pregnant despite pill and condoms, I'm sure as hell going to have an abortion.

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

If those things are going to happen, they will happen. Just not "killing" a person because they might do something good does not justify not "killing" them. For all we know, we could be "killing" the next cult leader who is going to take a thousand followers to the grave with him/her, or the next mass murderer, or terrorist. This is just as unlikely, I know.

Does this justify "killing" them, no, but the arguement is...are they alive? Which they aren't.

EDIT: Sorry forgot to finish the end of the sentence

There are biological criteria behind whta is alive and what is "vitally challenged". One of them is the ability to reproduce. Can a fetus reproduce?

Can a one year old reproduce :rolleyes:

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started..

To all you people who are against abstinence, let me ask you a simple question.

Do you wish your parents were abstinent, without even giving you a chance at life, just so that your parents could avoid the guilt of sexual pleasure and wait until they had the resources that they would like to have before having a baby? I accept that abstinence is justified in some cases, such as prepubescent children and people who don't have access to birth control, but abstinence as a means of birth control, that's just wrong, and I don't think you'd have taken much solace in the fact that people were living in accorance with their religious beliefs and their bank accounts in robbing you of your opportunity at life. That's why I'm against abstinence to give these babies a chance with their life and not to let their future parents ruin it before it even started.

If birth was truly the point at which life began then the government would issue birth certificates, not conception certificates. Now, I'll admit that I haven't researched the information in this post very thoroughly, but I figure that research, facts, and intellectual honesty are for them fancy-pants elitist intellectuals. Good, decent, God-fearing people only need faith. [/sarcasm]

How isn't it murder, you are killing something for no reason apart from to get the parents out of a mess, they should face that fact and then try to build their life around their child.

Ah, opposed to killing things. So you're one of those anti-abortion vegans.

To all you people who are against abstinence, let me ask you a simple question.

Do you wish your parents were abstinent, without even giving you a chance at life, just so that your parents could avoid the guilt of sexual pleasure and wait until they had the resources that they would like to have before having a baby? I accept that abstinence is justified in some cases, such as prepubescent children and people who don't have access to birth control, but abstinence as a means of birth control, that's just wrong, and I don't think you'd have taken much solace in the fact that people were living in accorance with their religious beliefs and their bank accounts in robbing you of your opportunity at life. That's why I'm against abstinence to give these babies a chance with their life and not to let their future parents ruin it before it even started.

If birth was truly the point at which life began then the government would issue birth certificates, not conception certificates. Now, I'll admit that I haven't researched the information in this post very thoroughly, but I figure that research, facts, and intellectual honesty are for them fancy-pants elitist intellectuals. Good, decent, God-fearing people only need faith. [/sarcasm]

:D
What he says...

Look, I'm saying it shouldn't be legal, and why can't we class the foetus as human? within a few months it will be a living breathing member of society, so what if its just inside its mother.

So why don't we classify the elderly as dead? In a few years they'll be rotting in their coffins or burning in their crematoria. Who cares if their metabolic systems are still registering some blips on some EKG's or EEG's. It can be a fuzzy line between life and death sometimes, but eventually they'll definitly be on the other side of it, and if we draw the line based on projected outcomes as you suggest then my suggestion will solve the Social Security problem and the pension problems of bankrupt corporations.

Can a one year old reproduce :rolleyes:

Yep. A one year old human female has the ability to reproduce.

pwned ;)

So why are sperm not alive when a fetus is? In nine months, those sperm could've been people.


By that argument, one could argue that menstration is murder. That's more than a lttle silly, IMHO.

Yep. A one year old human female has the ability to reproduce.

pwned ;)

no, not until shes started menstruation does she have the ability to reproduce.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.
No, but only for my mother's sake. My mother was in a suicidal state before she had me. Her responsibility to me is what kept her alive. If I were the only life I'd "abort" with my own abortion, I'd say yes. That's just not the case for me.

no, not until shes started menstruation does she have the ability to reproduce.

No. Wrong, fool. the eggs are there, they just can't be got at very easily.

no, not until shes started menstruation does she have the ability to reproduce.

Technically, the ovaries are fully formed in a one year old, and her ovules are ready and waiting. So, yes, a one year old COULD reproduce.

No. Wrong, fool. the eggs are there, they just can't be got at very easily.

I know the eggs are there but they are not released until she starts puberty.

I know the eggs are there but they are not released until she starts puberty.

So? Know what an ectopic pregnancy is, do you?

So? Know what an ectopic pregnancy is, do you?

yes i do know actually, its where the baby develops somewhere thats not the uterus, ie the fallopian tubes.

Are you one of those pro-lifers who supports the death-penalty :rolleyes:

are you one of those pro-abortioners who is against the death penalty?

because... the double-standard can work against either side

(i, myself, am slightly against abortion -- against it when it's just for convenience, but understanding when it's to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape -- and totally against the death penalty)

By that argument, one could argue that menstration is murder. That's more than a lttle silly, IMHO.
:eek:

The mass murders

well put it this way, i'd prefer to spend my childhood in an adoption home than be dead. I've seen an adoption home, I've been in one, I've visited one, and they ain't as bad as you think, the kids there get food, shelter and education, everything they could possibly need, of course they don't get luxuries, but they can get them themselves when they turn 18.
Newt Gingrich called, he was wondering when you were going to return his copy of Boys Town. Statistically, those kids are at a greatly increased risk of prision, crippling drug addiction, grinding poverty, and early violent death. It's nice to see that you'd keep the would-be children without sin from heaven so they could suffer greatly, and alone on Earth. You really are a Christian. But maybe, just maybe you could bone up on the parts of the Bible where God gifted man with free-will and those involving compassion and charity.

When people commonly celebrate their conception-day, that's when human life begins at conception. Good luck with that, you've only got 20 to 50 millenia of tradition going against you.

are you one of those pro-abortioners who is against the death penalty?

because... the double-standard can work against either side


Good that I'm not a pro-abortioner ;)

Newt Gingrich called, he was wondering when you were going to return his copy of Boys Town. Statistically, those kids are at a greatly increased risk of prision, crippling drug addiction, grinding poverty, and early violent death. It's nice to see that you'd keep the would-be children without sin from heaven so they could suffer greatly, and alone on Earth. You really are a Christian. But maybe, just maybe you could bone up on the parts of the Bible where God gifted man with free-will and those involving compassion and charity.

When people commonly celebrate their conception-day, that's when human life begins at conception. Good luck with that, you've only got 20 to 50 millenia of tradition going against you.

I'm not christian. i find flaws in their beliefs, i find flaws in every set of beliefs, even my own occasionally, so i hange my beliefs slightly, but i am definitly not christian. and by the way, the set of beliefs i've found most flaws in is liberalism, a close second is socialism.

When people commonly celebrate their conception-day, that's when human life begins at conception.

Because if there's one thing I want to celebrate, it's the day my parents fucked and created me.

are you one of those pro-abortioners who is against the death penalty?

because... the double-standard can work against either side

(i, myself, am slightly against abortion -- against it when it's just for convenience, but understanding when it's to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape -- and totally against the death penalty)

Not really - pro-lifers argue that you cannot have an abortion because you would kill a human being, but don't have scruples killing already living adults.
Pro-choicers argue that a feotus is not a living human being, but reject the death penalty as this would in fact end an existing human life.
No double-standart here, one group says you can't kill humans as long as they are in the womb, but you can once they are outside. The other says it's not a human being up to the end of the third month and don't kill human beings.

No it's not the same.

Pro-lifers argue the fetus is alive, like the criminal on death row. They believe killing the fetus is murder. It's a double-standard to say that the "life" of the fetus is worth more than the life of the criminal. That's what you are saying when you say abortion is murder when the death penalty isn't.

Pro-CHOICERS are argueing that the fetus isn't alive. They believe it is NOT murder. No double-standard here, because the fetus isn't alive, therefore no murder, but to kill the criminal is murder because he/she is alive.

Because if there's one thing I want to celebrate, it's the day my parents fucked and created me.

Ever tried counting back nine months?

but its a wasted life, that person could go on to dicover a cure for cancer, or eliminate world famine and hunger, i know its highly unlikely, but its possible.

I realize I've already criticized this idea with a joke, but the more I read, the more I'm convinced that "pro-life" people won't even understand the point, much less appreciate it.

Talking about the children that "would have" been born is pointless and meaningless. Millions of eggs go unfertalized that could have produced wonderful children. The fact that an egg was fertalized before never going to term to term does not make that egg's fate in hypothetical alternate timelines any more meaningful.

The zygote didn't implant, the fetus was aborted, the parents of the not-yet-concieved child used a condom. The potential child doesn't exist, so it doesn't make sense to talk about what would happen if it did and it doesn't make sense to talk about what would happen to you if you didn't.

It may sound like a compelling argument to you, because it has a similar cadence to arguments that appeal to people's sense of sympathy for rape victims, disaster survivors, or anyone else who suffers through a horrible experience, or even murder victims, who are at least able to suffer awareness of their fates. It is impossible to sympathize with the non-existent. They don't exist, and thus have not experience to relate to. Some people find it terrifying to contemplate non-existence, and so this argument works for them. But it's still irrational and meaningless to employ it.

are you one of those pro-abortioners who is against the death penalty?

because... the double-standard can work against either side

(i, myself, am slightly against abortion -- against it when it's just for convenience, but understanding when it's to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape -- and totally against the death penalty)

That is if you assume that abortion is murder... And how can you be somewhat aainst abortion? If abortion is murder, then it's wrong no matter what, even if the mother's life is in danger. Well, admittedly, that is a blurry area, but definitely it would be wrong in the case of rape.

And Kibolonia... if the baby's Catholic and it dies, it won't go to heaven. It goes to limbo with all the unbaptised kiddoes. (God, I love that religion. </sarcasm>)

Ever tried counting back nine months?

Well, yeah, I can land it within a few weeks. But I certainly don't want to celebrate the actual day.

Is male masturbation murder?

no... life starts when sperm and egg join forces.

sperm by itself is but one half of the equation.

also, i get sick hearing the rationalization that abortion isn't murder... in point of fact, a human is being killed. If I kill someone, I am charged with murder.

If a woman kills her fetus -- which is human -- it is not considered human? How is the fetus not human?

for the person who tried to show an analogy of the fetus to a person's kidney -- invalid analogy. The kidney is part of someone... not someone in and of itself. The fetus, at least the vast, vast majority of them, would be viable human beings one day, if their mothers would give them a chance.

What kind of reasoning is that based on, other than a convenient little excuse to look at the fetus as worth nothing more (and entitled to as such rights as...) than a plant, tree or rock?

ALL THAT SAID, I am stubbornly pro-choice because while I don't believe in abortion outside of mother-saving or rape cases, it isn't my place to try to tell anyone else what to do. Someone else said, "let God judge"... that's my stance too. God will judge.

how can you stick up for this;

http://www.gospelbillboard.com/abortion.jpg
http://www.our.homewithgod.com/omahaministrycenter/blue2saltpoisoning.jpg
http://www.fathersonspiritmessages.com/view/uploads/Abortion4.jpg.jpg

how can you stick up for this;

http://www.gospelbillboard.com/abortion.jpg
http://www.our.homewithgod.com/omahaministrycenter/blue2saltpoisoning.jpg
http://www.fathersonspiritmessages.com/view/uploads/Abortion4.jpg.jpg

Oh, how cute... the shock factor.
Nice try, won't work, though. I've seen worse when volutneering as a nurse.

how can you stick up for this;

http://www.gospelbillboard.com/abortion.jpg
http://www.our.homewithgod.com/omahaministrycenter/blue2saltpoisoning.jpg
http://www.fathersonspiritmessages.com/view/uploads/Abortion4.jpg.jpg

You've given up arguing the facts, I see.

Oh, how cute... the shock factor.
Nice try, won't work, though. I've seen worse when volutneering as a nurse.

i'd be pretty damn disturbed for life if i saw that in real life, and i'm pretty damn well disturbed now my seeing pictures of it. and i think it should be banned outright, people have no right to do this to living organisms.

how can you stick up for this;

http://www.gospelbillboard.com/abortion.jpg
http://www.our.homewithgod.com/omah...ltpoisoning.jpg
http://www.fathersonspiritmessages....ortion4.jpg.jpg

Oh, man. I was eating! :mad:

Oh, man. I was eating! :mad:

see, its disgusting isn't it.

how can you stick up for this;

(Links removed, as they are to pictures of abortions.)

I wonder if this board has a policy has of banning users who link to pictures of images such as those...

How can you stand up for this:
Picture of a child in an orphanage (http://www.txvr.com/jn/images/JN0016RIN.jpg)
Please note, image may cause distress.

how can you stick up for this;

http://www.gospelbillboard.com/abortion.jpg
http://www.our.homewithgod.com/omahaministrycenter/blue2saltpoisoning.jpg
http://www.fathersonspiritmessages.com/view/uploads/Abortion4.jpg.jpg

First of all, tyou shouldn't have posted these links...

Technically, that's not what I'm supporting. What I'm supporting is another person's right to choose to do that.

And one more thing...that first picture is illegal, that was terminated after the third month, that's not what I'm supporting either.

i'd be pretty damn disturbed for life if i saw that in real life, and i'm pretty damn well disturbed now my seeing pictures of it. and i think it should be banned outright, people have no right to do this to living organisms.

Living organisms? So you're vegetarian as well, are you? Otherwise I can show you what is being done to living organisms on a daily basis and without any moral problems at all.

The first picture was way beyond 3rd month, so unless there was serious risk for the mother, that abortion should not have been legal. The second link didn't work here, and the third is nothing more than a developing buch of tissue and fluids. Period.

see, its disgusting isn't it.

Disgusting (http://www.alteredesthetics.com/ae/images/wound.jpg)
Vile (http://www.childrens-costumes.com/media/woochie4.jpg)
Horrendous (http://www.heartfall.com/fx/sctx1.jpg)
Sickening (http://westmidlands.ideasfactory.com/art_design/features/images/feature51d.jpg)

I wonder if this board has a policy has of banning users who link to pictures of images such as those...

How can you stand up for this:
Picture of a child in an orphanage (http://www.txvr.com/jn/images/JN0016RIN.jpg)
Please note, image may cause distress.

they can ban me all they want because now i'veseen that i'm not gonna keep quiet about it, i'd never seen a picture of an aborted foetus until 10 minutes ago, and i quite frankly am appaled by it to. but to make myself heard i must tell people about it. so thats the truth, and it shoudln't be allowed to happen.

they can ban me all they want because now i'veseen that i'm not gonna keep quiet about it, i'd never seen a picture of an aborted foetus until 10 minutes ago, and i quite frankly am appaled by it to. but to make myself heard i must tell people about it. so thats the truth, and it shoudln't be allowed to happen.

Have a look around, there's WAY more disgusting things when it come to the medical profession.
Hopefully, after seeing some pictures, you will then make yourself useful and start a campaign against cancer.

see, its disgusting isn't it.

So is anything to do with dismemberment or the inside of human beings. Dang, have some respect for those of us with low gore tolerance thresholds. A little warning maybe. I thought they might be links to articles or something. Sheesh.

they can ban me all they want because now i'veseen that i'm not gonna keep quiet about it, i'd never seen a picture of an aborted foetus until 10 minutes ago, and i quite frankly am appaled by it to. but to make myself heard i must tell people about it. so thats the truth, and it shoudln't be allowed to happen.

The picture you showed can only happen if the mother's health or life is in danger.

The vast majority of abortions look nothing at all like that.

see, its disgusting isn't it.

Yes. And everything that's disgusting to look at should be illegal. I propose legislation against defecation right now. Have you ever seen a fresh log in the toilet? Gross! Does it make you feel any better knowing that there are millions more in toilets all around the world that you can't see?

Join the League Of Anti-Defacators today my friends, and we'll stamp out this distasteful scourge for once and for all.

Living organisms? So you're vegetarian as well, are you? Otherwise I can show you what is being done to living organisms on a daily basis and without any moral problems at all.

That is exactly why I can’t, in good conscience, morally oppose abortion, and still support the slaughter of animals who spent their whole live locked in pens.

But the parents shouldn't have got an unwanted child in the first place, and their are other options, such as putting thechild up for adoption, at least give the child a chance in life.

You ready to adopt a downs child?

they can ban me all they want because now i'veseen that i'm not gonna keep quiet about it, i'd never seen a picture of an aborted foetus until 10 minutes ago, and i quite frankly am appaled by it to. but to make myself heard i must tell people about it. so thats the truth, and it shoudln't be allowed to happen.

Yes, but you're just going for shock value. If you were trying to share information then you'd have told people that the links you provided were links to dead bodies. Do you actually think that no one here has ever heard of Rotten.com or seen pictures on stileproject.com? You must think that people are remarkably irrational if one or three disgusting pictures will turn their world upsidedown.

Have a look around, there's WAY more disgusting things when it come to the medical profession.
Hopefully, after seeing some pictures, you will then make yourself useful and start a campaign against cancer.

Heck, just stick the word "tumor" into Google and search for images.

That is exactly why I can’t, in good conscience, morally oppose abortion, and still support the slaughter of animals who spent their whole live locked in pens.

A bit like the dilemma of the Brit opposing foxhunt while eating a nice bit of chicken, is it?

Not really - pro-lifers argue that you cannot have an abortion because you would kill a human being, but don't have scruples killing already living adults.
Pro-choicers argue that a feotus is not a living human being, but reject the death penalty as this would in fact end an existing human life.
No double-standart here, one group says you can't kill humans as long as they are in the womb, but you can once they are outside. The other says it's not a human being up to the end of the third month and don't kill human beings.

i see... so an innocent fetus is fair game, but a convicted murderer isn't?

interesting basis for the pro-abortion/anti-DP stance.

why not just simplify things by either

a)respecting all human life

or

b)condemning human life as insignificant

hehe

i see... so an innocent fetus is fair game, but a convicted murderer isn't?

interesting basis for the pro-abortion/anti-DP stance.

why not just simplify things by either

a)respecting all human life

or

b)condemning human life as insignificant

hehe

Up to the 3rd month IT IS NOT human life.
The life of the murderer is human life.

edit : I respect ALL human life. A feotus isn't human life any more than a tumor is

A bit like the dilemma of the Brit opposing foxhunt while eating a nice bit of chicken, is it?

Yep. Keep in mind that I am in Texas, the pinnacle of hypocrisy on this matter. People here get all hot and bothered about whaling, but then go out and shoot a deer.

I'm not christian. i find flaws in their beliefs, i find flaws in every set of beliefs, even my own occasionally, so i hange my beliefs slightly, but i am definitly not christian. and by the way, the set of beliefs i've found most flaws in is liberalism, a close second is socialism.

Then you might want to take a couple of classes on logic. You might be a dab hand at proclaiming flaws in beliefs, but you don't seem to have a clue about finding flaws in the reasoning behind them. That will leave you poorly armed to find flaws in any belief that are worth mentioning. That's why you think that "what if your parents had an abortion" is sterling logic, and that if something is gross that must mean it's morally wrong rather than just "squishy."

Up to the 3rd month IT IS NOT human life.
The life of the murderer is human life.

It is also worth noting that many liberals don't really have anything against executing actual murderers, but even duly convicted murderers turn out to be innocent an unacceptable amount of the time (ever). The reason they oppose the institution of capital punishment is because it will lead to the execution of the innocent, even if it also includes those who "had it coming."

You ready to adopt a downs child?

Of course. What does the profession of the forsaken child have to do with the child itself? Circus folk make a lousy living, and what sort of life could they be expected to have drifting from town to town, a professional object of ridicule. Of course they're fit for adoption.

EDIT: Oh. You didn't say clowns child. Sorry, low res monitor.

Up to the 3rd month IT IS NOT human life.
The life of the murderer is human life.

edit : I respect ALL human life. A feotus isn't human life any more than a tumor is

really?

what's its species, then, if not homo sapiens? is it a hummingbird, a jaguar, a buffalo, a rock, a type of plant? because it's certainly showing signs of life through growth...

it is human. to think otherwise is a way to desensitize people to killing it, so for that the argument that it isn't human life is useful.

And Kibolonia... if the baby's Catholic and it dies, it won't go to heaven. It goes to limbo with all the unbaptised kiddoes. (God, I love that religion. </sarcasm>)
Not strictly true. That's just an opinion that was derived out of the aether by a guy known to have practically drunk and fucked his way across Europe. Isn't it ironic how it's always the people who've had their fun who want to take a giant crap on everyone else's. Even if his writings were gosple, the babies are *born* with the Original Sin. I could quite logically take a literal reading of that opinion, which was written in an era when death in childbirth and miscarriges were common and conception was understood well enough, to mean that those that die before they're born are burdened by that original sin and ascend quite happily to heaven. Never mind that his opinion practically necessitates a rewirting of the New Testiment to make it the least bit plausible. I find his attempt to game God to be the uninformed musings of a savage, but I'm an Atheist. So what do I know.

You ready to adopt a downs child?
Who cares if he's ready? He doesn't care if a mother is ready to birth and support a baby. Load him up.

Yep. Keep in mind that I am in Texas, the pinnacle of hypocrisy on this matter. People here get all hot and bothered about whaling, but then go out and shoot a deer.
Deer are the deadliest animals in North America. They'll kill you as soon as look at you, it's us or them.

what's its species, then, if not homo sapiens? is it a hummingbird, a jaguar, a buffalo, a rock, a type of plant? because it's certainly showing signs of life through growth...

it is human. to think otherwise is a way to desensitize people to killing it, so for that the argument that it isn't human life is useful.
Taxonomically speaking it is a part of a human. The as yet unrealized possibility of one, along with some DNA and some building blocks. Much in the same way as blueprints and a load of building materials isn't a house, it isn't a human. The fact that we celebrate Birthdays is realization of the fact that despite our best intentions and highly developed understanding, not all babies that might be born will be born, in fact most won't, and depending on where one wants to start the clock on opportunity the vast majority won't. Until, a baby is born alive it's all just what might be, however likely or unlikely.

Mothers being able to manage their repoduction has been a huge win for babies. Look at infant mortality in the undeveloped world, or what it used to be, that's what mothers not being able to make reproductive choices looks like. And it's not something that's part and parcell unless one thinks freedom was illconsered. Ultimately, this is good, because we all think war, strife, starvation, poverty and disease are bad.

People who want to make abortion illegal should do it right. Make miscarriges, and high risk pregnancies illegal too. If a baby dies in childbirth, charge the mother with manslaughter. Why should the unreasoning choices of a person's mercurial body be given more deference than carefully considered descision (with the advice of medical experts), a talent for which was procured at great cost through 3.5 billion years of evolution. Did those dauntless trillions of ancestors die for nothing?

It is also worth noting that many liberals don't really have anything against executing actual murderers, but even duly convicted murderers turn out to be innocent an unacceptable amount of the time (ever). The reason they oppose the institution of capital punishment is because it will lead to the execution of the innocent, even if it also includes those who "had it coming."
Erm... nope.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that (IMHO) it's wrong. Plain and simple. No-one can say that any one life has a greater value than another, nor can anyone say 'it's wrong for you to kill, but if you do it's okay for us to kill you as punishment.'

And almost everyone I know who agrees with me does so for these same reasons.

EDIT: and to address the original post, it really is a bit silly to start a new thread on an internet *discussion* board saying 'nobody can disagree with me because my point of view doesn't support conflicting points of view' - that kind of thing is a sure-fire way of not winning any friends.

Edited for spelling

Erm... nope.

I oppose the death penalty on the grounds that (IMHO) it's wrong. Plain and simple. No-one can say that any one life has a greater value than another, nor can anyone say 'it's wrong for you to kill, but if you do it's okay for us to kill you as punishment.'

And almost everyone I know who agrees with me does so for these same reasons.

You and your friends don't believe that. For what it's worth, I don't just believe that either. But some people do. And if you're going to enter into discussion with people who disagree with you on any fundamental topic then you have to demonstrate to them why their position is wrong using their system of ethics, and so all the arguments against positions you disagree with are worth considering.

So if someone is so stingy that they think that it's not worth the pennies that they pay in taxes to support a prisoner then we should just kill them to save money, well then it doesn't make sense to argue that they ought not be so cheap, you argue that it costs more tax dollars to execute them, not that a human life is worth more than a few pennies from each tax payer.

If someone thinks that it's wrong for murderers not to be killed in turn, then it makes sense to argue that there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty who's guilty and who isn't. The unjustly imprisoned can be released, the unjustly executed can't be resurected. Unless of course they're ready to send the judge, jury, prosecutor, the executioner, and all police personel involved in the case to the electric chair for murder by neglicence. Oh, and all the people who voted for the DA, and the Sherrif where applicable.

really?

what's its species, then, if not homo sapiens? is it a hummingbird, a jaguar, a buffalo, a rock, a type of plant? because it's certainly showing signs of life through growth...

it is human. to think otherwise is a way to desensitize people to killing it, so for that the argument that it isn't human life is useful.

So, a fertilised egg is a complete, fully functional human being?

Btw., I never doubted it's species. I it's a cell of homo sapiens. But no idividual, no person yet. It's chances of actually becoming a human being are maybe 40:60, if not even lower. Would you demand that every fertilised egg is to be protected and given full medical treatment in order to give it the possibility to reach its full capacity?

It's a cell, and up to the 3rd month it will be nothing more than a bunch of cells, just like any other lump of cells in a humans body. You might just as well oppose the operative removal of a cancer tumor...

People shouldn't be forced to adopt a absolutist and narrow-minded point view just because they are talking with a pro-life. That fact that you defend your views with a closed mind is one of the main reasons people object to your way of thinking. Also, calling abortion murder is as obscenely rhetorycal as it is irresponsible.

Also, calling abortion murder is as obscenely rhetorycal as it is irresponsible.

Care to explain why you think that?

Care to explain why you think that?

It's like flashing those pictures of aborted babies and foetuses and shouting "It's disgusting, don't make that legal"
Abortion is not murder, because you can only murder a human being. It doesn't legally become a human being until the 3rd month, therefore you cannot murder it before that date.
Using the term "murder" out of context is trying to get others react emotionally rather than rationally, and in a rational discussion, that's VERY bad style. It renders you incredible.

Care to explain why you think that?
It is a non correct usage of the term an attempt at emotional appeal (which is fine but still wrong if you incorrectly use words just for their emotional weight rather then accuracy)

It's like flashing those pictures of aborted babies and foetuses and shouting "It's disgusting, don't make that legal"
Abortion is not murder, because you can only murder a human being. It doesn't legally become a human being until the 3rd month, therefore you cannot murder it before that date.
Using the term "murder" out of context is trying to get others react emotionally rather than rationally, and in a rational discussion, that's VERY bad style. It renders you incredible.
Even the pictures are more accurate then his incorrect usage

They both are emotional appeal and detract from a discussion yes … but one is just emotional appeal (though they try to do that with the age of the fetuses shown)
One is incorrectly using the language in an attempt to mislead others

It's like flashing those pictures of aborted babies and foetuses and shouting "It's disgusting, don't make that legal"
Abortion is not murder, because you can only murder a human being. It doesn't legally become a human being until the 3rd month, therefore you cannot murder it before that date.
Using the term "murder" out of context is trying to get others react emotionally rather than rationally, and in a rational discussion, that's VERY bad style. It renders you incredible.

I think the point pro-lifers make (me being one) is that they are debating the point at which it is human. They argue its human from the point of a sucessful conception, so its murder to kill it.

I think the point pro-lifers make (me being one) is that they are debating the point at which it is human. They argue its human from the point of a sucessful conception, so its murder to kill it.

So, execive exercise during pregnancy can constitute manslaughter???

I think the point pro-lifers make (me being one) is that they are debating the point at which it is human. They argue its human from the point of a sucessful conception, so its murder to kill it.
No its not … for it to be murder it has to be human (which from your point of view it is)
AND it has to be ILLIGAL
It is legal right now so it IS not and CAN not be murder at this point

Which reminds me, there were AT LEAST 20 propagandist billboards on the way to orlando, about 15 being in florida (florida LOVES billboards, no shit). One of them had an aborted fetus on it. Can't the damn pro-lifers make an argument without going "OMG LOOK A FETUS to try and prove some asinine point like "we are right, LOOK A FETUS!" So pro-lifers say pro-choice is evil why? Because they want to kill babies (OMG LOOK A FETUS!). So supporting the ability of women to PERSONALLY choose what they want to do is supporting murder? Well pro-lifers support oppression of women.

I win.

Ihatevacations']Which reminds me, there were AT LEAST 20 propagandist billboards on the way to orlando, about 15 being in florida (florida LOVES billboards, no shit). One of them had an aborted fetus on it. Can't the damn pro-lifers make an argument without going "OMG LOOK A FETUS to try and prove some asinine point like "we are right, LOOK A FETUS!" So pro-lifers say pro-choice is evil why? Because they want to kill babies (OMG LOOK A FETUS!). So supporting the ability of women to PERSONALLY choose what they want to do is supporting murder? Well pro-lifers support oppression of women.

I win.
Lol that made me giggle … the random OMG LOOK A FETUS! In there lol
Quality

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

Ah, the common pro-life argument.

At the point of legal abortion in the US (except for terminal late stage cases), there is no possible chance of cerebral function, ergo thoughts/consciousness. There is no cosmic rewind button that allows you to sample life, say you like it, then go back to when you were a single celled organism undergoing mitosis. Your scenario is moot.

Furthermore, if we use the potientiality argument, I can move that all African Americans living in suburban poor zones be incarcerated for life as they have the potentiality of becoming gang members. Additionally, all Caucasian people would also be arrested on the grounds that they have the potentiality of becoming murderous drug junkies. Also, all people of Mexican lineage should be arrested and deported as they are potentially all illegal immigrants.

Oh, and all Christians should be jailed on the grounds that they are potentially fundamentalist domestic terrorists bent on firebombing any establishment they don't agree with.

When you use the potientiality argument, you also open the doors to pre-emptive arrests and judgments.

I recommend you use another argument.

Oh, and the use of shock factor by using graphic depictions is pointless. Commonly used pictures by pro-lifers are late term pictures, which are illegal save life threatening cases. Since the legal issue is prior to that, you fail as you are using incorrect pictures to argue a specific case. A lawyer could try to get away with that, but any defence team on its toes would tear that apart easily for "false advertising"

As for the let god judge argument. Isn't it interesting that you want god to judge, but at the same time, you are judging in advance? Perhaps you are actually a diety in disguise? Or perhaps you just want to have your cake and eat it too?

http://www.gaiaonline.com/gaia/redirect.php?r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overopinionated.com%2Fprochoice.htm


I hate to admit that I exist on GaiaOnline, but this link was posted in one of their forums. It seems to shed a little light on the situation.

I oppose the method of flaunting dead fetuses to make people choose "right". To show a living healthy newlyborn or a baby may be effective, but to try to scare people into choosing what they do not want to are horribly wrong, to force someone to risk their life is vile.

I do not want the dead fetus in me, it is a corpse and endangers my life, why show something like that? Isn't there regular pictures on developing fetuses within the womb to show instead?

And I would abort any fetus or embryo which has been exposed to alkohol during the first month of development, because I have the choice, I choose to do my best to bring forth healthy, happy and hale babies.
And to do that I must have the choice to abort the damaged and the unwanted, unplanned for.

Every child has the right to live a good life, with lots of love and a reasonable amount of economy in the family.

If they make abortions illegal there is three choices, pay for it and place my life in the hands of a could-be incompetent sugeon, hurt myself to provoke a miscarriage or kill myself.
I do not have the right to hurt a child by giving birth to it when I am incapable of caring for it, therefore I choose to abort it as a fetus or embryo.
And I will not allow anyone to force my children into slavery, which is what will happen if they happen to become pregnant and they are forced to give birth.

It is a life and death-issue for me, it is about free will and freedom.

Oh, and all Christians should be jailed on the grounds that they are potentially fundamentalist domestic terrorists bent on firebombing any establishment they don't agree with. No, I've always been like that.

I really hate it when people say we want to take away womens' rights. Surely the question is to whether you have a right to take anothers' life, and around the whole "right to life" thing - so pro-choicers are guilty of judgementalism as well.

Aren't we all.

And I would abort any fetus or embryo which has been exposed to alkohol during the first month of development, because I have the choice, I choose to do my best to bring forth healthy, happy and hale babies. Um… tread carefully. That could be taken as meaning that less healthy ones don't "deserve" to live. Stunted/disabled people have the same right to life as the rest of us.

No, I've always been like that.

I really hate it when people say we want to take away womens' rights. Surely the question is to whether you have a right to take anothers' life, and around the whole "right to life" thing - so pro-choicers are guilty of judgementalism as well.

Aren't we all.

So according to the quote and your statement, you are admitting to being a Christian Fundamentlist Domestic Terrorist who has committed acts of arson? Hmm let me get that all down. The police will be with you in a moment. ^^

But would it surprise you if I said I find nothing wrong with providing the choice to mothers and nothing wrong with the death penalty?

So according to the quote and your statement, you are admitting to being a Christian Fundamentlist Domestic Terrorist who has committed acts of arson? Hmm let me get that all down. The police will be with you in a moment. ^^

But would it surprise you if I said I find nothing wrong with providing the choice to mothers and nothing wrong with the death penalty? No, I mean I've always verged towards the violent revolutionary. ;)

When I said "state assisted murder" I didn't mean the death penalty, I meant actual murder. My point was that just because something still happens if it is illegal is not good reason not to illegalise it, as many places have huge crime levels and still have laws.

Um… tread carefully. That could be taken as meaning that less healthy ones don't "deserve" to live. Stunted/disabled people have the same right to life as the rest of us.

No, I am not healthy myself, but I see the tragedy in causing lifelong harm to another human being by introducing toxic waste into the system during the development.

Children should be given every opportunity to be healthy and not genetically or physically deformed. That is not the same as saying that those who are have less value, it is just my way of insuring as happy a life as possible.

Nobody should be convicted to life without hope and love.

No, I mean I've always verged towards the violent revolutionary. ;)

Ooh, a revolutionary hmm? I'm sure I can get you on that with the patriot act ;)


When I said "state assisted murder" I didn't mean the death penalty, I meant actual murder. My point was that just because something still happens if it is illegal is not good reason not to illegalise it, as many places have huge crime levels and still have laws.

The problem with that usually lies within enforcement and adequate prosecution rather than the laws itself. Not to mention knowledge of the specific laws in place.

Ooh, a revolutionary hmm? I'm sure I can get you on that with the patriot act ;)



The problem with that usually lies within enforcement and adequate prosecution rather than the laws itself. Not to mention knowledge of the specific laws in place.

Can't. I'm in the UK.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating women who have abortions be charged with murder (anyway, murder can be justified sometimes). But how many successful prosecutions for rape do we have, hmm?

Can't. I'm in the UK.


Just you wait. It will come get you sooner or later. ^^


Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating women who have abortions be charged with murder (anyway, murder can be justified sometimes).

I assume you speak of self defence in the terms of murder justification? As far as I know, thats the only one that is justified. Or do you have some other scenario in mind?


But how many successful prosecutions for rape do we have, hmm?

Hence my statement of the problem being due to insufficient enforcement and prosecution rather than the laws. Any law requires enforcement and prosecution for those who break it. Otherwise its just so much waste paper.

To all you people who are for abortion, let me ask you a simple question;

Do you wish you were terminated, without even having a chance in life, just so that your parents could carry on livingtheir lifestyle and not having to care for a baby. I accept that abortion is justified in cases where someones life is in danger, but casual abortion, that is wrong, and I don't think that you would want your life to be taken away from you, you wouldn't be here now, you'd have no chance. That is why I am against abortion, to give these babies a chance with their life, and not to let their parents ruin it before its even started.

...casual abortion? who enters into something like abortion casually?

...casual abortion? who enters into something like abortion casually?
"casual abortion"? Is that something they do in Europe?

I think the point pro-lifers make (me being one) is that they are debating the point at which it is human. They argue its human from the point of a sucessful conception, so its murder to kill it.

I highlighted the key words here.

When they can successfully demonstrate that they are correct beyond any reasonable doubt, they can legislate that view. Problem is, they can't. They have no reason at all to believe that the view that something is a human life from conception is any more valid than the view that it is a human life from the point of brain function.

Ihatevacations']"casual abortion"? Is that something they do in Europe?

...i don't know, i'd never heard of "casual abortion" 'til i read this post either. is it anything like "recreational abortion"? because that also doesn't exist. here's what i've learned from this post:

1) Anti-Lifers and Anti-Choicers (because if we accept pro, we accept that the other is anti, right?) are equally likely to make sweeping generalizations about one another.

2) Pro-Women and Pro-Baby people (i'm mixing it up with the group names. is that a problem?) are both occasionally capable of civil disagreement, which frankly warms my heart.

3) a picture of a fetus doesn't make me change my mind about abortion, it just makes me pissed off at the person who showed it to me.

You and your friends don't believe that. For what it's worth, I don't just believe that either. But some people do. And if you're going to enter into discussion with people who disagree with you on any fundamental topic then you have to demonstrate to them why their position is wrong using their system of ethics, and so all the arguments against positions you disagree with are worth considering.

So if someone is so stingy that they think that it's not worth the pennies that they pay in taxes to support a prisoner then we should just kill them to save money, well then it doesn't make sense to argue that they ought not be so cheap, you argue that it costs more tax dollars to execute them, not that a human life is worth more than a few pennies from each tax payer.

If someone thinks that it's wrong for murderers not to be killed in turn, then it makes sense to argue that there's no way of knowing with absolute certainty who's guilty and who isn't. The unjustly imprisoned can be released, the unjustly executed can't be resurected. Unless of course they're ready to send the judge, jury, prosecutor, the executioner, and all police personel involved in the case to the electric chair for murder by neglicence. Oh, and all the people who voted for the DA, and the Sherrif where applicable.
OK a couple of things:

1. I'm not from the US so a large amount of your third paragraph doesn't apply to me. But no biggy.

2. You make a very good point about arguing the point from the 'opponent's' system of ethics. However I believe that my views are so far distant from the views of someone who supports the death penalty that I could not argue from their perspective and still remain credible. Secondly, it seems that you assume that I want to somehow 'convert' people to my point of view. This is not true. My post was merely a case of 'here is my point of view, here are my reasons for holding said POV'. I do not seek to convert others, partially because I know it is largely futile and partially because one group of people trying to convert the other group rarely makes for a good discussion.

3. My views are exactly as I expressed them in my post. I cannot speak with 100% truth about the views of my friends, but I do know my own mind. Please do not presume to tell what I do and do not believe.

Fetuses are rarely aborted.

Embryos are.

And we can't class an embryo as legally human because that would turn women into nothing but baby-makers if they dared to be sexually active. A miscarriage would have to be investigated and if anything about the woman's lifestyle (even something as simple as having a stressful job) might have caused it, she could be charged with murder (or manslaughter).

A police officer could never use force against a woman, even if she was attacking him. If he did, he might cause a miscarriage, thus committing murder.

A doctor would not be able to perform any medical treatment on any woman without first doing a pregnancy test. If she did provide medical treatment, and anything happened to the embryo, she could be prosecuted for that.

There are all sorts of examples that I could go on with. What it basically boils down to is the fact that declaring an embryo as a human life takes all legal rights away from a woman.

Then, on top of that, there is the fact that there is no objective way to define an embryo as a human being that does not either include organs and individual skin cells, or rely on potentiality. If we call an embryo a human just because it might possibly eventually develop into one, then we must call a child an adult because it might become one. And I should be able to get social security because I might one day be of retirement age.


I second this view.

So what would happen if abortion was criminalised?

People would go to get them in unsafe conditions, like was done during the 1800's. Or people would throw their unwanted children away, or flush them in the toilet, or leave them in a alley somewhere. Or they would put them in a orphanage. Would that really be what you'd want the children to grow up with? Or would you want people throwing kids away? Tossing them in the trash?

People can use birth-control, but sometimes it doesn't work.

So then what? Have a kid you hate? Abuse your kids because you don't like having them?