NationStates Jolt Archive

No one could possibly argue that an unborn child is a person, but even if it were:

The women does not need to be forced to rent out her womb for its services. She is not a breeding factroy. If it dies, so be it, her right to sovereignty over her body must not be infringed.

So her right to soveirnty is superior to its right to life? Forgive me but would you rather I killed you or left you debillitated, inconvienced and pysicologically altered for a period of 9 months. Right to control of body IS NOT SUPERIOR to right to life. You do not have the right to kill something because it is causing you temporary physiological change.

There is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contreception so thus by having sex she is accepting a very small possibilty of having a child.
Nope. Abortion ensures that there is a 100% means that she will never have a child.

If I have to infringe on a womens right to control of her body to protect right to life of an embryo then so be it. I know which one is more important. The Embryo's right to exist IS the more important right. The embryo did not ask to be put in the postion it is. However a woman (by having sex) does accept that she can loose control of her body. There is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contreception so thus by having sex she is accepting a very small possibilty of having a child. If she is unwilling to accept that posibility then she shouldnt have sex. The possibility naturally is lowered by contreception so thus becomes more paletable (A 10% chance of becoming pregnant being more acceptable than a 50% I mean). The point is also that we do not have a right to play god. We cannot objectivley decide when the embryo is a human life or not. We do not have that kind of right to decide if it is alive or if it isnt or if aborting it at a cetian time is killing it or not. We just dont know, and we dont have the right to decide it. The woman doesnt have the right to play God.

Are you saying even in the case of rape: all women are sluts?
They shouldn't have allowed it to happen? They should of used protection!??

Who determines natural states? If a parasite bites and gets inside you: you can you remove it?

Can one say that parasite is in its natural state?

A parasite exists as a seperate entity not attached beforehand. An embryo is created attached to its mother. It doesnt


When does a fetus (a collection of cells at best till viability) gain the counting of personhood by your beliefs?


Conception.

if it helps keep the filthy irish from overbreeding - maby killing them in the womb will help keep their numbers down. oh , wait now that the IRA and other factions put down their arms , maby they will be making love instead of war...

So her right to soveirnty is superior to its right to life? Forgive me but would you rather I killed you or left you debillitated, inconvienced and pysicologically altered for a period of 9 months. Right to control of body IS NOT SUPERIOR to right to life. You do not have the right to kill something because it is causing you temporary physiological change.

Firstly, you have not yet demonstrated it has a right to life, since it's a non-person.

Secondly, I don't have the right to infringe on your civil liberties, ever. Especially not on such a fundamental issue as sovereignty of the individual.

Conception.
I'd like to imagine there is a little more to being a human then a simple biological process common to so many of even the most primitive of animals.

Are you saying even in the case of rape: all women are sluts?
They shouldn't have allowed it to happen? They should of used protection!??

Rape is a diffrent matter

In the case of rape its a matter of two wrongs not making a right. I agree that arguement only works with consensual sex.

The other point however still stands. We dont know wheter or not an embryo is alive or not so to abort it would be to assume it isnt when we just dont know. We cant play God like that.

Nope. Abortion ensures that there is a 100% means that she will never have a child.

"Preventative" contreception. Abortion is reactive contreception, along with the morning after pill.

"Preventative" contreception. Abortion is reactive contreception, along with the morning after pill.

But it still demolishes your premise that she recognises there is even the smallest chance that she must have a child. It also necessarily destroys your argument that she therefore "takes responsibility for that fact", which was non sequitor anyway but I digress.

Rape is a diffrent matter

In the case of rape its a matter of two wrongs not making a right. I agree that arguement only works with consensual sex.

The other point however still stands. We dont know wheter or not an embryo is alive or not so to abort it would be to assume it isnt when we just dont know. We cant play God like that.
So, you're saying that if we find out tomorrow that for a fact an embryo is not alive, then abortions would be fine?

But it still demolishes your premise that she recognises there is even the smallest chance that she must have a child. It also necessarily destroys your argument that she therefore "takes responsibility for that fact", which was non sequitor anyway but I digress.

She has a child when it is conceived. It is a human life then, and thus destroying it is wrong.

And even if it isnt a human life then, you cant prove when it becomes one, nor can the woman, nor can anyone else. All we do know is that at some point it does become one. We dont have the right to play God with its life and deny its existance when and where we please.

She has a child when it is conceived. It is a human life then, and thus destroying it is wrong.

And even if it isnt a human life then, you cant prove when it becomes one, nor can the woman, nor can anyone else. All we do know is that at some point it does become one. We dont have the right to play God with its life and deny its existance when and where we please.

What utter hypocrisy. You do exactly that, "play god" as you put it, when you blatantly walk all over a woman's civil rights because you think an embryo might be "human life".

I'm sorry, but you can't remove perhaps the most fundamental of all rights based on that kind of nonesense.

There are no logical reasons to think that an unborn child is a person, the only arguments are fundamentalist religious ones.

I'm not wading through 34 pages of "Is too murder!" "Isn't murder!", but this thread has been lurking at the back of my awareness for a while now, so, pro embryo murder arguments:

Every time you get over an illness you're wiping out a lifeform that can't exist outside of your body (the same goes for some parasites as well, but I doubt anybody on the board has tapeworms or a liver fluke...). If that's acceptable, then why should foetuses be teated with more consideration?

I'd suspect dying before birth is possibly going to be preferable to the start to life a child is going to get from parents who were not allowed an abortion.

The same elements of the religious right who are constantly protesting women's right to have control of their own body are (as a rule) the same nutcases who are rabidly opposed to sex education in schools and most forms of contraception (certainly almost all of the ones that work). This is an either/or situation, I'm afraid: if some halfwitted chemist with a bible stuffed up their arse refuses to fill a scrip for birth control pills or sell prophylactics (which is happening with increasing frequency in parts of the bible belt, it appears) then the only option left is to go to the nearest community that's ungodly enough to harbour a family planning clinic. I have no idea why some people find this concept so hard to grasp.

In the event of being banned, abortions won't stop, they will merely start killing a few mothers as well as the kids. This is fairly well documented. I'd assume that you'd rather see somebody who knows what they're doing performing an abortion than somebody who doesn't trying to induce a miscarriage with a bottle of gin and a coat hanger. Unless you're more than usually vindictive, of course.

If religious arguments re the child's soul are being used as justification, perhaps somebody could the sources that detail when the soul makes it's appearance? I think Plato argued that there was no evidence of any such thing until quite a way into childhood.

What utter hypocrisy. You do exactly that, "play god" as you put it, when you blatantly walk all over a woman's civil rights because you think an embryo might be "human life"

There are no logical reasons to think that an unborn child is a person, the only arguments are fundamentalist religious ones.

There are no arguements against it either. Ultimately, a womens right to control her body is less important than the childs right to life. We do not know when the embryo is "alive" or "human" or "a person" etc so we dont know when we are killing it if we abort it. We cant play God on that level. At least we know what we are doing to the womans body. We dont know what we are doing to the child. The woman does not have the right to kill. Seeing as we dont know when it is a life to kill and when its not, she cant have the right to abort.

I thought my reasons were interesting, why no replies? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9893256&postcount=495)

The same elements of the religious right who are constantly protesting women's right to have control of their own body are (as a rule) the same nutcases who are rabidly opposed to sex education in schools and most forms of contraception (certainly almost all of the ones that work). This is an either/or situation, I'm afraid: if some halfwitted chemist with a bible stuffed up their arse refuses to fill a scrip for birth control pills or sell prophylactics (which is happening with increasing frequency in parts of the bible belt, it appears) then the only option left is to go to the nearest community that's ungodly enough to harbour a family planning clinic. I have no idea why some people find this concept so hard to grasp.

I am pro-life and I dont support absenince only sex education, nor do I oppose family planning clinics.


In the event of being banned, abortions won't stop, they will merely start killing a few mothers as well as the kids. This is fairly well documented. I'd assume that you'd rather see somebody who knows what they're doing performing an abortion than somebody who doesn't trying to induce a miscarriage with a bottle of gin and a coat hanger. Unless you're more than usually vindictive, of course.

Oh great. The "banning it wont stop it so lets allow it anyway" arguement. I suppose that also stands up for robbery? And burglary? And a massive load of other crimes I can think of.


If religious arguments re the child's soul are being used as justification, perhaps somebody could the sources that detail when the soul makes it's appearance? I think Plato argued that there was no evidence of any such thing until quite a way into childhood.

We dont know when it becomes a person/gets a soul/can be classed as human etc. What we do know is that eventually it will become a human. Till that time, we dont have the right to play God with its life.

I am pro-choice because:

1. I think that the current illegality of abortion in Ireland, where I live, is responsible for the large number of welfare mothers we have. They are forced to have this child who has a crap upbringing because his mother lives on welfare and they stagnate. It's really damaging to society, as well as a waste of state money. If the woman was allowed to abort the child, then she could make something of herself and not be a sponge on welfare.

And of course, the mothers economic state is more important than the childs life.

If I have to infringe on a womens right to control of her body to protect right to life of an embryo then so be it. I know which one is more important. The Embryo's right to exist IS the more important right. The embryo did not ask to be put in the postion it is. However a woman (by having sex) does accept that she can loose control of her body. There is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contreception so thus by having sex she is accepting a very small possibilty of having a child. If she is unwilling to accept that posibility then she shouldnt have sex. The possibility naturally is lowered by contreception so thus becomes more paletable (A 10% chance of becoming pregnant being more acceptable than a 50% I mean). The point is also that we do not have a right to play god. We cannot objectivley decide when the embryo is a human life or not. We do not have that kind of right to decide if it is alive or if it isnt or if aborting it at a cetian time is killing it or not. We just dont know, and we dont have the right to decide it. The woman doesnt have the right to play God.

A few points on this post. Firstly you sit back and argue that its okay to infringe upon others rights. Who are you to say what a person can or can not do with their body. You have NO RIGHT to tell a person what they can or can't do with their own body. Secondly the embryo is not a person so it has no such rights. It has the capability to become a person but that does not make it one. Also on the concept of a woman accepting the possibility of a child that really has no bearing. Sure she can accept that possibility and from that make any number of decisions. She can keep the child, put it up for adoption, or have an abortion. Accepting the probability to have a child does not mean one has to have said child.

Lets also get on to the most important point here. Avalon says we have no right to play god. We "play god" all the time. We take organs from one body and move them to another, we manipulate the very genes we are made of, we execute prisoners all the time, and doctors have to make choices about patients lives every day. Show me where it says we have no right to play god. Also the fact of the matter is that not everyone believes in god let alone your concept of it. To say we can't play god may mean nothing to other people. Hell some people may say what you call "playing god" is nothing more then humans making decisions effecting others.

Finally lets look at why abortions are legal right now specifically in the case of the USA. You sit here saying we can't figure out wheter or not a embryo is a person or non person. That is one of the prevalant reasons why its legal right now. In a secular society where human rights are put first in a situation where a womans rights are going up against something that we can not determine objectively if it is human or not we must side with the womans rights. We can not say well it may or may not be something so to hell with women's rights. Unless you can objectively prove that it is a human being you can not justifiy removing someones rights. That is why SCOTUS said we aren't going to look at wheter or not it's human or not but rather look at a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.

Oh great. The "banning it wont stop it so lets allow it anyway" arguement. I suppose that also stands up for robbery? And burglary? And a massive load of other crimes I can think of.

No. If murder and robbery were legalised, then that would prevent the system from punishing and removing from society murderers and robbers.

I thought my reasons were interesting, why no replies? (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9893256&postcount=495)

Because your logic is flawless. When someone posts a water-tight argument, often no one who disagrees with it will reply because they can form no rebutal and those that do agree don't want to spam a thread with "I agree" posts. :)

Personally I think the civil rights argument for abortion is more powerful then the practical arguments for it, but that's just me.

The rights of the non person (if it is indeed a non person) in this case are being more greatly infringed upon than the life of the person. The right to exist is superior than the right to your body. Besides, as far as I am aware there is no such right as 'right to control body' in the American Constution.

This has not previously been a legal argument. I suggest you not make it one for three reasons.

1. The legal issue is seperate frm the moral one and you may not wish to divert the thread into the nuances of the US Constitution.

2. You clearly are not knowledgeable about the US Constitution. You may be unaware of such provisions in the US Constitution, but that is merely an argument from ignorance. The same provisions of the Constitution that refer to a right to life also refer to the right to liberty (5th & 14th Amendments). Liberty includes the right to control one's own body -- otherwise it is a meaningless term. Furthermore the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.

3. You will lose. SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the right to abortion is protected by the US Constitution -- not just in Roe v. Wade, but in dozens of other cases.

There are no arguements against it either. Ultimately, a womens right to control her body is less important than the childs right to life. We do not know when the embryo is "alive" or "human" or "a person" etc so we dont know when we are killing it if we abort it. We cant play God on that level. At least we know what we are doing to the womans body. We dont know what we are doing to the child. The woman does not have the right to kill. Seeing as we dont know when it is a life to kill and when its not, she cant have the right to abort.

Nice attempt at an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

You refuse to recognize that women have rights. Your misogny and prudish attitudes towards sex are obvious. As is the religious basis for your beliefs.

On the one hand, we have an undeniably living, human person with inalienable rights. Such rights include control over one's own body, self-ownership, privacy, control over medical decision, and a host of related liberties.

On the other hand, we have what you admit we do not know "is 'alive' or 'human' or 'a person' etc." You thereby admit that we do not know such a thing has a right to life. You give no reason to presume that such a thing has any rights. You certainly give no reason why such a thing should have rights that override the most basic liberties of the only known person in the equation.

And of course, the mothers economic state is more important than the childs life.

1. You ignore SP's many other points.

2. The "child's" economic state is likely dependent on the mother's economic state. If giving birth to the child is detrimental to the one, it is likely detrimental to the other. Thus, the "rights" of the "child" itself are at stake.

3. Yes. The mother's economic state is more important than the fate of a clump of cells. One is a living, breathing, human being -- a person -- and one is not.

I'm coming into this late and don't have time to read through 35 pages, so apologies to all:

I fall squarely into the civil rights/human rights camp in favor of legal abortion.

A living woman is an actual person. A fetus is a potential person (there is no guarantee in nature that any pregnancy will result in a live birth; therefore, the fetus does not become an actual person until it is born). Society exists to serve the people who live in it. It seems perfectly clear to me that society's first responsibility must be to the people who actually live in it, not those who might live in it some day if they're lucky. Therefore, the woman's civil and human rights trump any rights that might some day be claimed by the fetus, after it stops being a fetus and becomes a person.

If you decide to assign personhood to a fetus and outlaw abortion based on the fetus's "right to life" then you are necessarily giving fetuses the right to use the bodies of women as a tool with which to exercise said right -- i.e. as tools for gestation and birth -- even if the woman is not willing or healthy enough to do so, thus putting women at risk (women die in pregnancy and childbirth every year in the US). This would necessarily turn pregnancy into a form of temporary slavery, in which the woman is made the property of the fetus, to be used for its purposes even at the risk of her life. The only way for women to avoid this enslavement would be to refuse ever to become pregnant under any circumstances.

I actually think the debate over when and whether the fetus can be considered a person is irrelevant. Let us say, for the sake of this debate, that abortion is the killing of a person. Even in such a case, I believe women must still keep the right to decide whether to abort a pregnancy because they must maintain and keep the right to determine how their own bodies will be used and by whom. Otherwise, they are being treated like tools or cattle, not human beings.

Let us say, for the sake of this debate, that abortion is the killing of a person. Even in such a case, I believe women must still keep the right to decide whether to abort a pregnancy because they must maintain and keep the right to determine how their own bodies will be used and by whom. Otherwise, they are being treated like tools or cattle, not human beings.
I agree with this statement completely. The fetus, which is a human being (there is no denying that, in my opinion) is nevertheless a parasite (in the SCIENTIFIC sense, mind you) -- it entirely depends on the mother for survival and its successful birth is also dependent on the behavior and decisions of the mother. The food the mother eats, the way that she physically behaves, and so forth are the only direct factors impacting the well-being of the child. In every other area of the pregnancy, each choice made is all up to her; her husband or significant other may have a large say as well, but in the end, the final decision is hers. Therefore, the mother has the right to decide whether or not she wishes to carry the pregnancy to term or not, as the direct outcome of the child's life is, in the end, up to her and no one else.

Footnote: I'm morally opposed to abortion myself; I understand why pro-life advocates feel so strongly about their point of view. However, while I would most likely never condone a woman having an abortion, I believe it is her civil right to make that decision.

You refuse to recognize that women have rights. Your misogny and prudish attitudes towards sex are obvious. As is the religious basis for your beliefs.

I accept the women has rights. But I do not accept that a right to control her body superseedes the right to existance of the embryo. You must remember that (as far as consensual sex goes) a women freely accepts that there is a possibility that she will have to waver her right to control her own body when she has sex. If a women is unwilling at all to accept the possibility of a pregnancy then she shouldnt have sex. While there are preventative contreceptions, they do not 100% elimintate the chance of pregnancy (with the exception of medical sterilsation), thus by having consentual sex, a women must accept a posibility that she is giving up control of her own body. The fact that she accepts that means that she cannot suddenly react negatively to the consequences by abortion. Two wrongs do not make a right. As for in the case of rape, I would say again that despite what was done to her was terrible, two wrongs do not make a right. She should give the child up for adoption (and as a part of that, the adoption process needs to be better funded - organised etc)


On the one hand, we have an undeniably living, human person with inalienable rights. Such rights include control over one's own body, self-ownership, privacy, control over medical decision, and a host of related liberties..

And you refuse to grant the most basic one of these to the embryo. The right to existance. Despite the fact that it is a life and it is a person. And what is more you have no way of proving objecitively when and where it becomes a person.


On the other hand, we have what you admit we do not know "is 'alive' or 'human' or 'a person' etc." You thereby admit that we do not know such a thing has a right to life. You give no reason to presume that such a thing has any rights. You certainly give no reason why such a thing should have rights that override the most basic liberties of the only known person in the equation.

We cannot prove objectively it is alive, but as I see it (and I believe it makes the most sense to agree with this position) we cannot define a moment when it becomes alive specificly outside of this, also all the time it is developing towards having this. To say that killing the embryo is less than killing the near fully formed baby is to say that killing a child is less morally outrageous than killing a 20 year old. Unless you believe you can objectively define what a person is. But you cant. No one can. Since we know that will become a person at some point, we must outlaw abortion becasue we dont have the right to say when it is and isnt a person. We should not have the right to give and take life like that.

I accept the women has rights. But I do not accept that a right to control her body superseedes the right to existance of the embryo

There is no right to existence and you've admitted you can't show that it's a person. Non-persons do not have rights that allow us to enslave women.

And you refuse to grant the most basic one of these to the embryo. The right to existance. Despite the fact that it is a life and it is a person. And what is more you have no way of proving objecitively when and where it becomes a person.

Can you show the court cases that have recognized the right to existence please? Now you state that 'it is a person' and in the following sentence you admit you don't know and can't show that it is a person.

We cannot prove objectively it is alive, but as I see it (and I believe it makes the most sense to agree with this position) we cannot define a moment when it becomes alive specificly outside of this, also all the time it is developing towards having this. To say that killing the embryo is less than killing the near fully formed baby is to say that killing a child is less morally outrageous than killing a 20 year old. Unless you believe you can objectively define what a person is. But you cant. No one can. Since we know that will become a person at some point, we must outlaw abortion becasue we dont have the right to say when it is and isnt a person. We should not have the right to give and take life like that.
Your argument is specious. By the same argument to say the embryo should have the same rights as the baby is to say that sperm should have the same rights as the embryo.

Unless you believe you can objectively define what a person is. But you cant. No one can. Since we know that will become a person at some point, we must outlaw abortion becasue we dont have the right to say when it is and isnt a person.

You can objectively define a human: A human is that which has a human brain. We can determine this by anylizing brain waves. You might not agree with me, but we can objectively define this. There is no evidence that each overy does not have a soul, just because it needs a sperm to devolope doesn't mean it is not a "person".

I accept the women has rights. But I do not accept that a right to control her body superseedes the right to existance of the embryo.

Does the right of a person to have money superceed the rights of others to exist? If not, why don't we force people like us to do without computers and donate the money to buy food for the poor?

I accept the women has rights. But I do not accept that a right to control her body superseedes the right to existance of the embryo.

Why?

Why does the embryo have rights at all?

Why does it have a right to existence?

Why does that right superseed the right of a woman to her own body?

Merely repeating normative statements does not make them true.

You must remember that (as far as consensual sex goes) a women freely accepts that there is a possibility that she will have to waver her right to control her own body when she has sex. If a women is unwilling at all to accept the possibility of a pregnancy then she shouldnt have sex. While there are preventative contreceptions, they do not 100% elimintate the chance of pregnancy (with the exception of medical sterilsation), thus by having consentual sex, a women must accept a posibility that she is giving up control of her own body. The fact that she accepts that means that she cannot suddenly react negatively to the consequences by abortion. Two wrongs do not make a right. As for in the case of rape, I would say again that despite what was done to her was terrible, two wrongs do not make a right. She should give the child up for adoption (and as a part of that, the adoption process needs to be better funded - organised etc)[QUOTE]

Again, your position on rape makes your consent argument meaningless (and is inherently repugnant).

Moreoever, when a person has sex, they consent to the possibility of pregnancy. They do not consent to carry a child to birth. You confuse consent to one possibility with consent to only possible outcome.

We've already explained at length why your argument about consent is faulty because people do not consent to all possible outcomes everytime they do something.



[QUOTE=Avalon II]And you refuse to grant the most basic one of these to the embryo. The right to existance. Despite the fact that it is a life and it is a person. And what is more you have no way of proving objecitively when and where it becomes a person.

We cannot prove objectively it is alive, but as I see it (and I believe it makes the most sense to agree with this position) we cannot define a moment when it becomes alive specificly outside of this, also all the time it is developing towards having this. To say that killing the embryo is less than killing the near fully formed baby is to say that killing a child is less morally outrageous than killing a 20 year old. Unless you believe you can objectively define what a person is. But you cant. No one can. Since we know that will become a person at some point, we must outlaw abortion becasue we dont have the right to say when it is and isnt a person. We should not have the right to give and take life like that.

We do it everyday.

Did you have great moral qualms over eating today? You ate things. They were killed. It was OK, b/c they were not persons.

Here are five objective, necessary, and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

-being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

-being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

-being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

-being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

-being able to have emotions.

We know embryos do not meet most (if not all) of these criteria.

There is no right to existence and you've admitted you can't show that it's a person. Non-persons do not have rights that allow us to enslave women.

I have shown that it can be considered a person in the same way a child can be considered a person. It is developing. By stopping that devolopment you are stopping the growth, in the same way as killing a child.



Can you show the court cases that have recognized the right to existence please? Now you state that 'it is a person' and in the following sentence you admit you don't know and can't show that it is a person.


Court case that recognises right to exist - every single murder case ever tried. If the right to exist is not recognised then the law against murder has no judical backing

No. I said I cant show to you objectively that it is a person. However the fact that it is alive gives it the right to life since rights come from capacity. There would be little point in giving a race of automatons the right to freedom of thought, because they couldn't use it. Simmilarly the reason that we dont give the right to vote to children is because up untill 18 it is said they cannot make a rational choice about a government. And since the government provide for them up till 18 and they do not have to contribute anything till then, they dont really have any say in who governs. The reason we give the right to life to the embryo is that it is alive. It may not be a "person" as you put it but it is alive. The right to life is given to all living humans. Since an embryo is a living human, in its earliest state then it has the right to life.


Your argument is specious. By the same argument to say the embryo should have the same rights as the baby is to say that sperm should have the same rights as the embryo.

The sperm should not have the same rights because the sperm is a cell of the individual human person. It is not of itself a seperate human life. The Embryo is.

And cows don't have all those things? We like to say, we big-brained humans, that all those functions are functions of the neocortex - a structure that only mammalian brains have, but which all mammalian brains have some of. We just have an awful lot of it. Cows have got a relative bunch, compared to animals we think are smarter, like dogs and cats. While their neocortices are present they are smooth; those of ungulates are wrinkled, because they have more surface area than could fit into their skulls neatly. Same with us.

For what it's worth, I fully support the eating of (non-BSE) cows, and I work in a lab that implants sensors into birds' bodies; the location of the sensors will be precisely determined after the bird is killed by an overdose of anaesthetic, its air sacs dissected and its brain sectioned.

Birds certainly have awareness; I couldn't say the rest.

Avalon: I have shown that it can be considered a person in the same way a child can be considered a person. It is developing. By stopping that devolopment you are stopping the growth, in the same way as killing a child.

O rly?

While I am pro-life, I think I should point out to you that potential existence DOES NOT EQUAL existence! This argument fails.

Tell me, do you know any women who have aborted pregnancies? Tell me honestly.

I have shown that it can be considered a person in the same way a child can be considered a person. It is developing. By stopping that devolopment you are stopping the growth, in the same way as killing a child.
You have shown nothing. The arguement that an embryo is developing does not mean it is a person. And an embryo does not develop like a child. There are numerous differences physically and mentally. Also you have admitted numerous times in this thread that we can't know if it is or is not a person. So how is it that you've shown us something that you've admitted that we can't know?




Court case that recognises right to exist - every single murder case ever tried. If the right to exist is not recognised then the law against murder has no judical backing
Grasping at straws here. You can't find any specific court case backing your opinion so you just say that certain cases back your opinion without giving links to direct judge's opinions.

No. I said I cant show to you objectively that it is a person. However the fact that it is alive gives it the right to life since rights come from capacity. There would be little point in giving a race of automatons the right to freedom of thought, because they couldn't use it. Simmilarly the reason that we dont give the right to vote to children is because up untill 18 it is said they cannot make a rational choice about a government. And since the government provide for them up till 18 and they do not have to contribute anything till then, they dont really have any say in who governs. The reason we give the right to life to the embryo is that it is alive. It may not be a "person" as you put it but it is alive. The right to life is given to all living humans. Since an embryo is a living human, in its earliest state then it has the right to life.
First you start off saying that you can't objectively show that its a person and yet you go on to state its a person. Which is it? You can not state one of these opinions and espouse the other.



The sperm should not have the same rights because the sperm is a cell of the individual human person. It is not of itself a seperate human life. The Embryo is.
The embryo is a part of the womans body. It is connected to the woman, it requires food from the woman, and it can not survive without the woman's support. So how is that embryo a seperate thing?

Dempublicents1, do count fetuses as more alive than a virus, same or less?

Viruses are also non-alive according to every test of life processes.

That's a hard question - and it depends on exactly what point of development we are talking (not to mention on who you are talking to). Most likely, up until the rudimentary nervous system is developed (~3 months), they would be considered just as alive as a virus. The embryo/early fetus meets most, but not all of the general requirements for a living organism, as does a virus. After that point, (ie. second trimester and on), the fetus would be every bit as alive as any other organism, although it would be classified as parasitic, as it gains all nourishment from and lives within another organism.

Why?

Why does the embryo have rights at all?

Because it exists and is human and is alive.


Why does it have a right to existence?

See above


Why does that right superseed the right of a woman to her own body??

Are you being stupid. The womans life is not at risk. If it becomes a matter that the life of the child is threatening the life of the mother then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is allowed. But the mothers life is not in danger where as an abortion obviously threatens the life of the embryo

Let me put it to you this way. Would you rather be dead or pregnant?


Again, your position on rape makes your consent argument meaningless (and is inherently repugnant).

Moreoever, when a person has sex, they consent to the possibility of pregnancy. They do not consent to carry a child to birth. You confuse consent to one possibility with consent to only possible outcome.

Yes they do because to not carry the child to birth is to kill it. If I roll a dice I must accept the posibility of a number one to six. If I get a five, I cant get angry with the dice and squash it with a hammer because thats not what I wanted.


We've already explained at length why your argument about consent is faulty because people do not consent to all possible outcomes everytime they do something..

In the case of sex, a women does consent to the outcome for the following reasons
- Sex is the act of reproduction. It has other purposes but reproduction is the primary one.
- By creating a life, you are bound to defend it since to not do so would be to kill it

Obviously you dont consent to all the consequences when you do something but this consequence you have to consent to because if it happens, to deal with it via abortion is a moral outrage (see Killing) and thus unacceptable. Where as dealing with consequences of other actions are not allways morally unacceptable.


We do it everyday.

Did you have great moral qualms over eating today? You ate things. They were killed. It was OK, b/c they were not persons.

Here are five objective, necessary, and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

-being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

-being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

-being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

-being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

-being able to have emotions.

We know embryos do not meet most (if not all) of these criteria.

Yes, but they will develop those criteria if left to themselves in their created in, natural enviroment. One of the criteria for living beings is reproduction, yet babies of a few hours old are incapable of reprodcuing. Does that mean they are not people and thus killing them is not morrally repugnant. Of course not.

No, see, here is the issue.

Until the middle of the third trimester, the foetus is entirely and exclusively dependant on the mother's body. It has a serious and real physiological cost. Cells from the foetus are actually leaving her uterus and implanting themselves wherever they feel like, even within the brain. Sounds dangerous to me, I don't know about you.

A child may be entirely dependant on its parents, but it is not exclusively dependant. The difference is that in the unlikely event I get tired of my child, I can hand him over and say, "Here, you take care of him." And you'd be able to. Do that with a foetus, and of course it doesn't work.

We give people the choice of whether or not to invest money in raising a child, who is by his nature not exclusively dependant on them. All the more so should we give people the choice of whether or not to invest something more important than money (bodily resources and long- and short-term health) in a foetus, which is exclusively dependant on them.

Logic. Cold, hard and not particularly pleasant. Guess that's why I oppose abortion but remain pro-choice. No foetus will ever implant within my body since I am rather too male for that.

I have shown that it can be considered a person in the same way a child can be considered a person. It is developing. By stopping that devolopment you are stopping the growth, in the same way as killing a child.

False. We shown that the child objectively has rights. You've admitted the embryo doesn't objectively have rights since it cannot be objectively shown that an embryo is a person. Next.

Court case that recognises right to exist - every single murder case ever tried. If the right to exist is not recognised then the law against murder has no judical backing

Wrong. Try again. You changed your wording so it would apply to embryos but the term is right to life and an embryo is not objectively alive as a person, something you've admitted. Show me any court case that has recognized the right to existence.

No. I said I cant show to you objectively that it is a person. However the fact that it is alive gives it the right to life since rights come from capacity. There would be little point in giving a race of automatons the right to freedom of thought, because they couldn't use it. Simmilarly the reason that we dont give the right to vote to children is because up untill 18 it is said they cannot make a rational choice about a government. And since the government provide for them up till 18 and they do not have to contribute anything till then, they dont really have any say in who governs. The reason we give the right to life to the embryo is that it is alive. It may not be a "person" as you put it but it is alive. The right to life is given to all living humans. Since an embryo is a living human, in its earliest state then it has the right to life.

Not true. Otherwise we couldn't eat pigs. Unless it is a person it has not the rights that apply to persons and you've admitted it can not be shown to be a person. You are asking the state to enslave the mother to physically and financially support something that is not a person.

I love that destinction. It's a living human but not a person? Amusing, but you can't prove it's a living human anymore than you can show it's a person.

The sperm should not have the same rights because the sperm is a cell of the individual human person. It is not of itself a seperate human life. The Embryo is.
You haven't shown that it is. In fact, you CAN'T show that it is. You've admitted it several times.

If an embryo has the same rights as a baby, then a sperm has the same rights as an embryo, because the comparison between all three stages is similar.

You have shown nothing. The arguement that an embryo is developing does not mean it is a person. And an embryo does not develop like a child. There are numerous differences physically and mentally. Also you have admitted numerous times in this thread that we can't know if it is or is not a person. So how is it that you've shown us something that you've admitted that we can't know?

I have shown you that it is "alive". Your definiton of a "person" is more tricky. But it is a human and is "alive" in the sense that it is a living organism. It is diffrent to skin cells, sperm etc because it is growing and developing. Because it is doing this, and we know it will develop into more than it is, the fact that it is developing and will if left to itself develop into more than it is proves that it is a seprate organism. If it were part of the woman it would develop into a copy of the woman.


Grasping at straws here. You can't find any specific court case backing your opinion so you just say that certain cases back your opinion without giving links to direct judge's opinions.

Ok if right to existance is not a right then what makes it unjustifable for me to kill you now.


First you start off saying that you can't objectively show that its a person and yet you go on to state its a person. Which is it? You can not state one of these opinions and espouse the other.

Its not a "person" according to your idea's but it is "alive" as in a human, developing life. Thus to abort is to kill it, which is murder.


The embryo is a part of the womans body. It is connected to the woman, it requires food from the woman, and it can not survive without the woman's support. So how is that embryo a seperate thing?

A man on a life support machine cannot suvive without it, is connected to it and requires functions from it. Does that mean he is not a seperate entity to the machine? (dont go giving a load of points now that say I think women are just life support machines). The embryo has unique genetic material and is devloping its own uniqe genetic pattern to all of its mothers cells.

Because it exists and is human and is alive.


It exists? Does it cease to exist upon abortion? You claim to be arguing the 'right to existence'. My sister could stab me to death tonight and I would still exist tomorrow.

snip

Your arguments are increasingly repetitive and circular.

I'm done arguing until you say something new.

BTW, under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a unborn child is legally not a person and has no right to life. So, I'd stop arguing the law is on your side without some specific citations.

False. We shown that the child objectively has rights. You've admitted the embryo doesn't objectively have rights since it cannot be objectively shown that an embryo is a person. Next.

You cannot objectively prove it is not a person either. All we do know is that at some point it does become one. The only way to stop it being killed is to stop abortion. You dont have the right to play God with when it is/isnt alive.


Wrong. Try again. You changed your wording so it would apply to embryos but the term is right to life and an embryo is not objectively alive as a person, something you've admitted. Show me any court case that has recognized the right to existence.

Can you show that an embryo is dead? Not alive etc. The embryo is most definitely alive. It may not be a "person" according to your definition but it is alive.


Not true. Otherwise we couldn't eat pigs. Unless it is a person it has not the rights that apply to persons and you've admitted it can not be shown to be a person. You are asking the state to enslave the mother to physically and financially support something that is not a person.

I'm not asking her to support it financally. She can put it up for adoption


I love that destinction. It's a living human but not a person? Amusing, but you can't prove it's a living human anymore than you can show it's a person.

Its human (seperate species to all other animals) and its living (not dead, alive)


If an embryo has the same rights as a baby, then a sperm has the same rights as an embryo, because the comparison between all three stages is similar.

No, the embryo and the baby are developing and growing if left in their natural states. A sperm in its natural state will not turn into anything else but a sperm.

You cannot objectively prove it is not a person either. All we do know is that at some point it does become one. The only way to stop it being killed is to stop abortion. You dont have the right to play God with when it is/isnt alive.

1. I proved that the embryo is not objectively a person and you haven't shown otherwise.

2. You don't have the right to play God with a woman's body.

A man on a life support machine cannot suvive without it, is connected to it and requires functions from it. Does that mean he is not a seperate entity to the machine? (dont go giving a load of points now that say I think women are just life support machines). The embryo has unique genetic material and is devloping its own uniqe genetic pattern to all of its mothers cells.

Again I will bring up the forcing donation of organ and compare it to money. You said people should be required to donate money in order to save a life, shouldn't money be the same? Shouldn't we be required to give up money that we don't need so that other people do not die of starvation?

Your arguments are increasingly repetitive and circular.

I'm done arguing until you say something new.

Your not saying anything new either. You have consistantly failed to refute any of my points to my satisfaction. You have yet to prove that an embryo is dead, or that the right to life is less suprior than the right to bodyily control (see "would you rather be pregnant or dead")


BTW, under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a unborn child is legally not a person and has no right to life. So, I'd stop arguing the law is on your side without some specific citations.

Yes, because America is the only country in the world. And we arent asking for a CHANGE in the law. And murder isnt recognised as the right to life.

1. I proved that the embryo is not objectively a person and you haven't shown otherwise.

Person - maybe not

Human life - It is


2. You don't have the right to play God with a woman's body.

So who wins? Would you rather be dead or pregnant? The embryo's right to life is supeiror to the womans right to body because the woman wont die as a result of the birth. If she is in danger of death then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is justifed.

Because it is doing this, and we know it will develop into more than it is, the fact that it is developing and will if left to itself develop into more than it is proves that it is a seprate organism.


I suggest you buy a medical text book, and look up the word "Cancer".


Its not a "person" according to your idea's but it is "alive" as in a human, developing life. Thus to abort is to kill it, which is murder.


I'd suggest you buy a Law textbook, and look up the word "Murder".


The embryo has unique genetic material and is devloping its own uniqe genetic pattern to all of its mothers cells.

I'd suggest you buy another medical textbook, and look up the word "Chimera".

It exists? Does it cease to exist upon abortion? You claim to be arguing the 'right to existence'. My sister could stab me to death tonight and I would still exist tomorrow.

No, your body would exist. You would be gone.

I have shown you that it is "alive". Your definiton of a "person" is more tricky. But it is a human and is "alive" in the sense that it is a living organism. It is diffrent to skin cells, sperm etc because it is growing and developing. Because it is doing this, and we know it will develop into more than it is, the fact that it is developing and will if left to itself develop into more than it is proves that it is a seprate organism. If it were part of the woman it would develop into a copy of the woman.
1. Just because something is alive does not mean it has rights. You yourself have said that animals have none of the rights we have and yet they are alive.
2. Just because it can develop into a seperate organism does not mean it is infact a seperate organism. In fact it isn't a seperate organism at that stage. The fact that it could develop proves nothing. Its like the arguement the embryo could become the next enstein or voltaire. Just because there is the possibility of it becoming something that does not mean that it is infact that. A catipiller is not refered to as a butterfly because it can become one. It is refered to as a catipiller until it becomes a butterfly.



Ok if right to existance is not a right then what makes it unjustifable for me to kill you now.
I never said it wasn't a right. I said you did not find a single court case that proved an embryo had a right to life.



Its not a "person" according to your idea's but it is "alive" as in a human, developing life. Thus to abort is to kill it, which is murder.
1. We've gone over the its alive part. Pigs are alive but they have no right to life.
2. We've gone over the developing part. Just because it is possible that it could develop into a person does not mean at that moment it is one.
3. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Abortion is not illegal so its not murder and depending on one's definition a embryo is not a person.



A man on a life support machine cannot suvive without it, is connected to it and requires functions from it. Does that mean he is not a seperate entity to the machine? (dont go giving a load of points now that say I think women are just life support machines). The embryo has unique genetic material and is devloping its own uniqe genetic pattern to all of its mothers cells.

A man on a life support machine is a fully developed person. An embryo in a woman is a bunch of cells dependant on the mother for survial.

You cannot objectively prove it is not a person either. All we do know is that at some point it does become one. The only way to stop it being killed is to stop abortion. You dont have the right to play God with when it is/isnt alive.

Don't have to prove it's not. We're not going to enslave an objective person for something that cannot be shown to be a person. "We know at some point an egg and sperm that would have met so long as we don't prevent it at some point becomes a person. The only way to stop it being killed is to stop birth control." How is that argument any different than yours. In both cases we are protecting an eventuality. Your argument that you can say the same about a baby is spurious since a child isn't on its way to being a person; it is already a person.

Can you show that an embryo is dead? Not alive etc. The embryo is most definitely alive. It may not be a "person" according to your definition but it is alive.

So are hands.

I'm not asking her to support it financally. She can put it up for adoption

Pregnancy costs nothing? Interesting. I'll have to inform my brother who is still paying for the birth of his child.

Its human (seperate species to all other animals) and its living (not dead, alive)

So are my hands.

No, the embryo and the baby are developing and growing if left in their natural states. A sperm in its natural state will not turn into anything else but a sperm.

If we don't use birth control a sperm and egg have the potential to become a person just like the embryo does.

No, your body would exist. You would be gone.

Prove it.

Person - maybe not

Human life - It is

My hands are a human life by the same definition.

So who wins? Would you rather be dead or pregnant? The embryo's right to life is supeiror to the womans right to body because the woman wont die as a result of the birth. If she is in danger of death then it becomes a medical operation and abortion is justifed.
Depends on who you ask and you are not in a position to decide this for anyone.

Your not saying anything new either. You have consistantly failed to refute any of my points to my satisfaction. You have yet to prove that an embryo is dead, or that the right to life is less suprior than the right to bodyily control (see "would you rather be pregnant or dead").

1. I have never argued an embryo is dead. I have argued it does not have rights because it is not a person.

2. You do not dispute my criteria of personhood. You do not dispute that an embryo does not meet those criteria. You therefore do not dispute that an embryo is objectively not a person.

3. You "weigh" rights in a ridiculous fashion. I'd like a slave. Would you rather be a slave or dead? A rapist wants to rape you. Would you rather be raped or dead? Does the answer to these questions means you are morally required to be a slave or a rape victim?

Yes, because America is the only country in the world. And we arent asking for a CHANGE in the law. And murder isnt recognised as the right to life.

Um, you are the one that referred to the US Constitution, my friend. You said it included a right to existence. You have yet to show you have any legal basis for arguing an embryo has a right to existence.

Your not saying anything new either. You have consistantly failed to refute any of my points to my satisfaction. You have yet to prove that an embryo is dead, or that the right to life is less suprior than the right to bodyily control (see "would you rather be pregnant or dead")


An individual has a 'right' to own property.

Another individual has a 'right' to own property.

If individual A owns some property, already, when individual B arrives, individual A is NOT compelled to yeild his/her property to individual B.

A pre-existing 'right' has precedence. Individual A has sovereign right to dispose of his or her property as he/she sees fit.

Thus:

Since, a mother has a 'right' to own her own body.

Even IF a foetus has a 'right' to make claims on that body, too...

The pre-existing sovereign ownership of the body, by the woman is UP TO HER to dispose of as she sees fit... i.e. she can CHOOSE to 'yeild control' to a foetus, or she can choose not to.

I suggest you buy a medical text book, and look up the word "Cancer".

If a cancer develops into a human life later on, chances are it isnt a cancer. A cancer is a repeating series of cells that will remain a repeating series of cells and will not develop any of the charterstics of a human life. An embryo will. If the embryo threatens the life of the mother then abortion is a medical operation and thus justified (Kill or be killed)


I'd suggest you buy a Law textbook, and look up the word "Murder".


Question: - if the existance of laws against murder DONT justify the right to life then what do they do?


I'd suggest you buy another medical textbook, and look up the word "Chimera".

If that individual cell then develops into a human life, unless it was dead before hand it is alive. Chimera's do not useally grow into people.

An individual has a 'right' to own property.

Another individual has a 'right' to own property.

If individual A owns some property, already, when individual B arrives, individual A is NOT compelled to yeild his/her property to individual B.

A pre-existing 'right' has precedence. Individual A has sovereign right to dispose of his or her property as he/she sees fit.

Thus:

Since, a mother has a 'right' to own her own body.

Even IF a foetus has a 'right' to make claims on that body, too...

The pre-existing sovereign ownership of the body, by the woman is UP TO HER to dispose of as she sees fit... i.e. she can CHOOSE to 'yeild control' to a foetus, or she can choose not to.

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

Would you rather live in a society where the state controls your body or be dead?

Give me liberty or give me death!

Sure is easy to talk about abortion, especially considering none of us were victims of it. We're talking about potential lives here, yet some of you are speaking as if a fetus is nothing more than a disposable diaper. You, me, everybody here was once a fetus. To try and justify your arguments by speaking of a fetus in a detached tone, as if it's some alien body part, thoroughly sickens me. Life is sacred, and everybody should be given the oppurtunity to experience it. We take it for granted...case in point, abortion. I can only hope one day we come to our senses and outlaw this disgusting display of inhuman cruelty.

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?


Ridiculous,
You are exercising your pre-existing rights right now.
You aren't selling your worldly possesions to feed the hungry, is the right you have to your money more important than the right they have to existance?
Would you rather not have a computer or be dead?

(Maybe I do understand... a person's right to their body is one thing... but you don't mess with a person right to their money)

I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

I am not anti-abortion because I believe a fetus counts as a living being or has a 'soul' (or whatever you choose to call a non-physical manifestation of the self). Rather, I feel that I should simply take responsibility for my actions; if the result of my actions is a child, so be it.

I am pro-choice, though, because I am not anti-abortion for a moral reason, but for a personal reason. As such, I see neither the need nor justification for forcing my personal beliefs on others.

Since I know a large number of anti-abortionists are such for religious reasons, I'll also say this:

When creating mankind, God saw it fit to grant them free will, that they might be able to succeed or fail, to do evil or good, to sin or to repent. If He has granted them free will, who am I to take it away?

The natural response to this would be, "Then how can you support any sort of laws?" Simply put, I believe that laws should exist only to ensure an orderly and peaceful society for people to live in. Abortion in and of itself contributes neither to disorder nor to conflict unless performed improperly, and therefore the only legislation regarding it should be to mandate whatever standards are necessarry to give a relative degree of safety to the person who is having the abortion.

Sure is easy to talk about abortion, especially considering none of us were victims of it. We're talking about potential lives here, yet some of you are speaking as if a fetus is nothing more than a disposable diaper. You, me, everybody here was once a fetus. To try and justify your arguments by speaking of a fetus in a detached tone, as if it's some alien body part, thoroughly sickens me. Life is sacred, and everybody should be given the oppurtunity to experience it. We take it for granted...case in point, abortion. I can only hope one day we come to our senses and outlaw this disgusting display of inhuman cruelty.

Meh.

Meaningless appeal to emotion.

Moreover, most abortions are of embryos, not fetuses, so that is what we are discussing. Embryos are of little value.

Most importantly we are talking about a medical procedure in which about 1/2 of all women in the US will experience during their lifetimes. I guess women are just all "inhuman[ly] cruel."

If a cancer develops into a human life later on, chances are it isnt a cancer. A cancer is a repeating series of cells that will remain a repeating series of cells and will not develop any of the charterstics of a human life. An embryo will. If the embryo threatens the life of the mother then abortion is a medical operation and thus justified (Kill or be killed)


A cancer is a growing series of cells, which will continue to become 'something different', unless theya re interfered with. If you look at your post - that was pretty much your definition of an individual human life... in the form of a foetus.

Thus, by your logic, a cancer is an individual.


Question: - if the existance of laws against murder DONT justify the right to life then what do they do?


Laws against murder define when it is permissible to take life, and when it's not. They say nothing about 'rights to life'.


If that individual cell then develops into a human life, unless it was dead before hand it is alive. Chimera's do not useally grow into people.

You don't know what a Chimera is, do you?

Just by the way, are you aware that every human body has 'different' DNA in them? We all have at least two disparate DNA types....

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.



Do you use this criteria at the other end of the scale, ie for people like Terry Shiparo(sp?)...

Not able to reproduce (by own choice)
Not able to respond to the environment
Not able to adapt to the environment
Not really growing, not developing
Not Obtaining (being given) energy

So - using energy and being made of cells seem to be the only two criteria left... - Should she have been switched off?

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

How is the pre-existing right not more important? The woman has a claim to sovereignty over her own body. There is no other situation in which we would assert that we can CHOOSE to over-rule that sovereignty.

You cannot FORCE a woman to donate a bodily organ, just because another patient needs one. THus - you cannot force a woman to donate her whole body to a foetus, JUST because it needs her.

How is a loss of bodily control better than death? You are obviously not a supporter of the emancipation of slaves then, one assumes?

Meh.

Meaningless appeal to emotion.

Moreover, most abortions are of embryos, not fetuses, so that is what we are discussing. Embryos are of little value.

Most importantly we are talking about a medical procedure in which about 1/2 of all women in the US will experience during their lifetimes. I guess women are just all "inhuman[ly] cruel."

There's nothing meaningless about my "appeal to emotion" as you've called it. I feel it's an important message people need to hear and understand. Why shouldn't emotion be the guiding factor when it comes to the discussion of abortion? The embryo, the fetus, or whatever "meaningless" scientific label you've assigned to it...the result is a human. These are potential human lives...like it or not, that's what it is. People need to be aware of what they're doing, of what's inside of them. Am I trying to stir emotion? Yes...but that's because lives hang in the balance here, and the only way to save them is to change people's minds and inform them that scientific jargon and the stages of a fetus make little difference in the big picture. You can't ignore the fact that you're exterminating what would eventually be like you or me, what would eventually contribute to society in some capacity (limited or not). All your terms, all your bullshit just covers up the REAL facts, and makes you sleep easy at night.

Unfortunately enough, all those women are indeed inhumanly cruel, though sadly enough it's unintentional. People don't stop and think about aborton in terms of life. They try to think of an embryo or a fetus as just that...just a body part, undeveloped....it's not human yet, right? No, you're right. It's not human. But it wold've been. It could've been. If you'd just given it a chance. The fact remains that if you let that embryo grow, it becomes a human. Go ahead and continue to cover that up though.

If that individual cell then develops into a human life, unless it was dead before hand it is alive. Chimera's do not useally grow into people.

You very obviously do not know what a chimera is when referring to human beings. A chimera is a single person who developed from two separate embryos that fused in the womb. These two embryos (before fusing) had completely separate DNA. After fusing, they develop as a single embryo, eventually becoming a fetus and being born as an infant. That infant has two completely separate sets of DNA - as it developed from two completely different zygotes.

This kind of throws a kink in the whole, "It's a person from conception," argument, since a chimera would then be two persons, and monozygotic (identical) twins would be one person instead of two.

There's nothing meaningless about my "appeal to emotion" as you've called it. I feel it's an important message people need to hear and understand. Why shouldn't emotion be the guiding factor when it comes to the discussion of abortion? The embryo, the fetus, or whatever "meaningless" scientific label you've assigned to it...the result is a human. These are potential human lives...like it or not, that's what it is. People need to be aware of what they're doing, of what's inside of them. Am I trying to stir emotion? Yes...but that's because lives hang in the balance here, and the only way to save them is to change people's minds and inform them that scientific jargon and the stages of a fetus make little difference in the big picture. You can't ignore the fact that you're exterminating what would eventually be like you or me, what would eventually contribute to society in some capacity (limited or not). All your terms, all your bullshit just covers up the REAL facts, and makes you sleep easy at night.

Unfortunately enough, all those women are indeed inhumanly cruel, though sadly enough it's unintentional. People don't stop and think about aborton in terms of life. They try to think of an embryo or a fetus as just that...just a body part, undeveloped....it's not human yet, right? No, you're right. It's not human. But it wold've been. It could've been. If you'd just given it a chance. The fact remains that if you let that embryo grow, it becomes a human. Go ahead and continue to cover that up though.

Laws and policy should not be formed based upon what is 'right' or 'wrong'. They should be created based on what is required to keep a society peaceful and orderly. The concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are mutable depending on the moral standpoint of a given individual, and therefore the same law may be percieved both as just and as unjust by different indiviuals. However, laws which are based upon the concept of order and peace (eg; arbitration of conflict by a third party, outlawing of murder on the grounds it creates instability) will create order and peace for all individuals involved.

Laws and policy should not be formed based upon what is 'right' or 'wrong'. They should be created based on what is required to keep a society peaceful and orderly.

I'm sorry, but abortion is not required to keep American society peaceful and orderly.

Why shouldn't emotion be the guiding factor when it comes to the discussion of abortion?

A personal discussion? It can be. A discussion of legality? It has no place.

The embryo, the fetus, or whatever "meaningless" scientific label you've assigned to it...the result is a human. These are potential human lives...like it or not, that's what it is.

Some people (like me, for instance) place an emotional and moral significance on what the embryo can potentially be. However, that is not what it is. It isn't there yet. No one is denying that an embryo is a potential human being.

Unfortunately enough, all those women are indeed inhumanly cruel, though sadly enough it's unintentional. People don't stop and think about aborton in terms of life. They try to think of an embryo or a fetus as just that...just a body part, undeveloped....it's not human yet, right? No, you're right. It's not human. But it wold've been. It could've been. If you'd just given it a chance. The fact remains that if you let that embryo grow, it becomes a human. Go ahead and continue to cover that up though.

It is painfully obvious that you have never met a woman who has had an abortion. Women absolutely do think about abortion in terms of life. Having an abortion isn't something you just go out and do. Just about every single woman I have ever met who has gone through it has had a hard time with it because they do think about that potential. Years down the road, they still think about that potential and "what might have been." Often, it doesn't change their opinion that their decision was the right one....

I'm sorry, but abortion is not required to keep American society peaceful and orderly.

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post? I know abortion is not necessary to keep society peaceful. Any society, not just American society.


Originally Posted by Florida Oranges
Why shouldn't emotion be the guiding factor when it comes to the discussion of abortion?
A personal discussion? It can be. A discussion of legality? It has no place.
A most excellent way to put this into perspective.

you really shouldn't be allowed to debate this if you can't get an abortion. in otherwords, only WOMEN should even be allowed to discuss whats right and wrong about this. i've never agreed or disagreed with abortion. its not my place to because i never had one and never will need one. i dont condone the use of abortion as a form of birth control instead of a condom, spermicide, IUD etc... but i do realize that humanity in general makes mistakes. and that you shouldnt have to be a 16 year old with nothing to look forward to except dropping out of high school and having to throw away your life just because of a drunken night or a rape or any extenuating(sp?) circumstances.

i think the point here is that you can't really decide when life begins because everyone believes that life begins at different times, some say at brith some say at conception, hell i hear people say life begins after college.
religion doesnt make it any less right/wrong. if you believe that abortions are immoral then demonstrate it by not getting one instead of bombing abortion clinics or protesting what others do to their body.

if you disagree with me that is your right. however, it is the right of a mother to choose to terminate(murder if you want to be irrational) a pregnacy. but if you believe it is murder to end a pregnancy in the first trimester, then it should be murder to hunt animals, to use pesticides, to step on insects, or to eat other animals. you can argue that point i know but to me i dont see the difference.

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

Ha, you admit you can't show an embryo is a person, but you insist on arguing as if it is. Amusing.

Ha, you admit you can't show an embryo is a person, but you insist on arguing as if it is. Amusing.

Perhaps you think it's a rabbit? Interesting...

Perhaps you think it's a rabbit? Interesting...

Or perhaps he is just laughing at the inconsistancies in Avalon's statements. :rolleyes:

snip
good, hard, backed up rsnip
oh god anyone else geting horny?

I think its time for me to go make a few knuckle children

you really shouldn't be allowed to debate this if you can't get an abortion. in otherwords, only WOMEN should even be allowed to discuss whats right and wrong about this.
I disagree.

If we pursued the principal you are positing to it's logical conclusion, women would need to get a fertility test to justify taking part in such a discussion and that justification would cease to exist when their fertility came to an end.

I dont see the point of making such exclusions in the case of the above mentioned women (arguably in the case of 'post-fertility' women, the excluded persons might have experiance-derived wisdom that would be valuable either to such a discussion generally, or to 1 or more currently fertile women), but such exclusions are material implications of the principal that you apply in order to exclude non-women from such discussion.

Everyone is going to disagree about something nobody will agree on every subject

me im pro choice its simple its not my body or choice its teh womans choice to make that desiscon,

You all base pro life on catholic ideals
Guess what not everyone belives in jesus and christianity
the catholic church who thought slavery was a good idea a couple hundred years ago, suddenly changes thier mind and wants to help slaves
there are slaves in Africa and Europe and Asia even today
help them

Catholic church who helped Nazis exterminate jews
same Catholics church who knew priests were sexually abusing children yet hid it and covered it up and moved priests around and lied about it till they got caught


ITs a woman body and her choice to end life or give it no one else can make that choice for her even if u make abortion illegal people will still do it on the black market

and while u have the right to create life or deny it illegal
why not erase the ability to do so

Make condoms and the pill and other preventive measures illegal also while we are at it?


its stupid other wise an explosion of humans would occur we would have more people alive than we could mantain

I couldn't bother to read all 38 pages... So here's my 2 cent.

Thanks to abortion and birth control poor countries like China and India might solve their overpopulation problem. Solving that problem would mean more water, food, wood and jobs for the people living in those countries. By taking those "human" lives (I agree that insects and pigs are as much humans as fetuses, and moreso embryos) those countries can get back on their feet, and maybe millions won't have to die. And another thing: are you to tell a billion Indians and Chinese not to have sex?

And another analogy, not sure if it makes more sense: A drunk person decides to sit down by the wheel. Very stupid, I know, but do we deny him the right to help if he crashes? No.

Good thread, BTW.

oh god anyone else geting horny?

I think its time for me to go make a few knuckle children

Oh boy. :rolleyes:

The last 10 pages have basically been the repetitive spurting of the same arguments from both sides. Neither side is willing to concede any points to the other and neither side has been creative enough to think up new arugments. If your oposition will not accept a point you make in the argument (they are not open minded enough when you do make a valid point or your line of argument is poor) then you set it aside and start with a new point and so keep a debate going rather than a shouting match.

Catholic church who helped Nazis exterminate jews
Really? I'm not so sure about this one. I know that Mussolini managed to get on the good side of the Vatican, but it wasn't the Italians that carried out the holocaust.

Guess what not everyone belives in jesus and christianity
I recognize this. This is why I have presented an arguement froma completel non-religious standpoint for the legalization of abortion. Once again, I will repeat it:

Laws exist for the sole purpose of promoting order and peace within a country, so that the citizens thereof may enjoy a life without undue worry to their person. Since abortion does not do anything to prevent order or peace, there is no reason to illegalize it. There may be a need to regulate it, to ensure the safety of the woman undergoing the procedure, but that is all.

If anyone can present an amoralist (which is to say, not regarding a universal 'right' or 'wrong') argument which proves that abortion does cause a detrimental effect to society as a whole, I will change my stance on this issue. I am not so stubborn that I will not yield when faced with a logical and reasonable argument against me.

Rediculous

The pre-exising right is not the same right nor is it more important

If it were the child demanding she be killed you would have a case but you dont

Your arguement is based on the idea that the loss to person B is the same as the loss to person A. It isnt. A loss of bodyly control is far better than death

Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

Dead.

Dead.

And what gives you the right to make that decision for the embryo? What gives anyone that right?

You all base pro life on catholic ideals
Guess what not everyone belives in jesus and christianity

Actually no

See here

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

And what gives you the right to make that decision for the embryo? What gives anyone that right?Conceiving it, I'd assume. Having to carry it around for 9 months mebbe. Or risking injury giving birth.

Conceiving it, I'd assume. Having to carry it around for 9 months mebbe. Or risking injury giving birth.

The only time you have the right to kill someone is when it is trying to kill you (see kill or be killed). Thus the only time abortion should be allowed is when the existance of the unborn child is actually going to kill the mother unless it itself is killed.

Becuase no one should have the ability to decide what anyone else can, or should do with thier uterus.

You simply have no right.

Becuase no one should have the ability to decide what anyone else can, or should do with thier uterus.

You simply have no right.

No one should have any right to say that a human life is not a human life and thus can be destroyed. How is the mother's right to control of body superior to the childs right of life. Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

The only time you have the right to kill someone is when it is trying to kill you (see kill or be killed). Thus the only time abortion should be allowed is when the existance of the unborn child is actually going to kill the mother unless it itself is killed.I take it that's your stance on convicted murderers too?

I take it that's your stance on convicted murderers too?

You mean do I oppose the death penelty. Yes, I do.

You mean do I oppose the death penelty. Yes, I do.That's a plus.
Anyway, the reason it's "right" to allow abortion is that the alternative isn't any better. Abortion may not be good, but overcrowding the orphanages, more dysfunctional families, and "coathanger" abortions are worse. That's what gives people the "right" to abortions, if they do it early enough.

That's a plus.
Anyway, the reason it's "right" to allow abortion is that the alternative isn't any better. Abortion may not be good, but overcrowding the orphanages, more dysfunctional families, and "coathanger" abortions are worse. That's what gives people the "right" to abortions, if they do it early enough.

So all the deaths of hundruds every year are preferable to this? I agree that at present the system for adoption is not good and needs help. The arguement "if its banned it will still happen" does not legimate it in the first place. Of course, because making burlglary illegal was stupid because break ins still happen all the time. We should make it legal so it can be monitered and happen in a stable enviroment.

No one should have any right to say that a human life is not a human life and thus can be destroyed. How is the mother's right to control of body superior to the childs right of life. Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

Hard question. There's a lot of mental stress involved during pregnancy, not to mention afterwards with the possibility of post-partum depression (for both birth and abortion). It's entirely possible that a woman could develop depression and subsequent suicidal tendencies due to an unwanted pregnancy.

Then again, I'm not a psychologist or anything, so it's just guessing.

No one should have any right to say that a human life is not a human life and thus can be destroyed. How is the mother's right to control of body superior to the childs right of life. Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

The only time you have the right to kill someone is when it is trying to kill you (see kill or be killed). Thus the only time abortion should be allowed is when the existance of the unborn child is actually going to kill the mother unless it itself is killed.

Avalon, your statements are confusing me. If on the one hand you say that the mother's right to control her body is not superios to the feotus' right to life, how on the other hand can you say that her life is more valuable than that of the foetus if it is endangering her life? Why, in fact, would you apply any kind of control if it was in fact endangering both the lives of itself and the mother?

You mean do I oppose the death penelty. Yes, I do.

And I guess you've never had an abortion when you've been pregnant yet?

So all the deaths of hundruds every year are preferable to this? I agree that at present the system for adoption is not good and needs help. The arguement "if its banned it will still happen" does not legimate it in the first place. Of course, because making burlglary illegal was stupid because break ins still happen all the time. We should make it legal so it can be monitered and happen in a stable enviroment.Aw, bullshit. Abortion isn't burglary. In fact, being born is more like burglary, since you're profiting from someone else in both cases.

And what gives you the right to make that decision for the embryo? What gives anyone that right?

The fact that it would be in my body? Nothing has the right to live in my body that I don't agree with.

The fact that it would be in my body? Nothing has the right to live in my body that I don't agree with.

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.

So... drinking until your liver gives out automatically disqualifies you for any donor organ, because you agreed with the disease when drinking?
Having sex doesn't imply that you consent on having a child.

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.

Agreement ≠ Acceptance.

So... drinking until your liver gives out automatically disqualifies you for any donor organ, because you agreed with the disease when drinking?

No, becase to have an organ donation you dont have to kill someone. People who are already dead give up organs. You can deal with the consequences here without doing anything wrong. You cant deal with the consequneces of a child by killing them as that is wrong.


Having sex doesn't imply that you consent on having a child.

Yes it does. A child is one consequence of sex. You must accept that consequence because you cannot do anythigng about it once the child has been concieved. Unlike your example you can deal with the consequences without harming anyone. Here you cant.

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.
When a woman has sex with 3 different methods of birth control, I hardly see how she's consenting to pregnancy. :rolleyes:

Agreement ≠ Acceptance.

Elaborate. If a woman has sex she must accept the posibility of a child. She must also accept that the child is a life, thus destroying it is murder which is wrong.

When a woman has sex with 3 different methods of birth control, I hardly see how she's consenting to pregnancy. :rolleyes:

No method of birth control is 100% effective. She must be prepared for a small possibility that she becomes pregnant.

Elaborate. If a woman has sex she must accept the posibility of a child. She must also accept that the child is a life, thus destroying it is murder which is wrong.
Not everyone accepts that a bundle of cells is a life. :rolleyes:

No method of birth control is 100% effective. She must be prepared for a small possibility that she becomes pregnant.
Yes, in which case her extreme last resort might be to have an abortion and then go to the doctor and look into getting on some more efficient birth control.

Not everyone accepts that a bundle of cells is a life. :rolleyes:

And so that means the person has the right to detemine if it is a life or not and thus destroy it. We do not have the right to play God with the embryo like this

Yes, in which case her extreme last resort might be to have an abortion and then go to the doctor and look into getting on some more efficient birth control.

Having an abortion is ending the life, which is wrong. She doesnt have the right to. No one has the right to end that unborn childs life unless it is threatening the life of the mother (kill or be killed) in which case abortion becomes a medical operation to save the life of the mother and is thus justifable

Elaborate. If a woman has sex she must accept the posibility of a child. She must also accept that the child is a life, thus destroying it is murder which is wrong.

First:

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.

You say a woman agrees, because she must accept the possibilty.

You can accept something that you disagree with.

Thus, a woman must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant, but does not need to agree with an embryo (which may be life - but not a human person, as has been pointed out in this thread several times) being inside her body. Since an embryo is not a person, abortion is not murder.

First:



You say a woman agrees, because she must accept the possibilty.

You can accept something that you disagree with.

Thus, a woman must accept the possibility of becoming pregnant, but does not need to agree with an embryo (which may be life - but not a human person, as has been pointed out in this thread several times) being inside her body. Since an embryo is not a person, abortion is not murder.

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

It is alive yes, but dependent, incapable of thought, undifferentiated sexually and utterly without human rights. Unlike the woman who is carrying it.

And so that means the person has the right to detemine if it is a life or not and thus destroy it. We do not have the right to play God with the embryo like this
You don't.

The woman who has become unwillingly pregnant does.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.
Personally, I don't believe a fetus is a person. It is alive and human in nature (as is a sperm, an egg, a human skin cell, etc.), but is not a human person.

However, the issue of fetal personhood doesn't really matter to me in this context. Even if a fetus is a complete human person, I still support a woman's right to end her participation in a pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If the fetus can be removed from her intact then that's fine, so long as it doesn't cause any additional difficulties for the woman, but in almost all cases that is not possible.

I have posted this before, but this is my basic logic on the subject:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I no longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

I see no reason to grant super-human rights to zygotes, embryos, or fetuses.

Having an abortion is ending the life, which is wrong. She doesnt have the right to. No one has the right to end that unborn childs life unless it is threatening the life of the mother (kill or be killed) in which case abortion becomes a medical operation to save the life of the mother and is thus justifable
Eat any steak recently? That contributed to the ending of life, which by your logic is wrong. Hell, you should become a fruitnitarian, as even plants are life. You accept killing and murder every day, you just brush them off as lesser species...

Furthermore, having an abortion is the termination of the potential for a life. Not ending a life.

And yes, somebody does have the right to end that potential, the woman the embryo inhabits.

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm
Stop pointing us to an anti-choice website as though it provides information free of bias.

Stop pointing us to an anti-choice website as though it provides information free of bias.

Have you read it yet? Deal with its arguements, then come back

Yes it does. A child is one consequence of sex.

Wrong. PREGNANCY is one possible consequence of sex. Childbirth is only one possible outcome of a pregnancy.


You must accept that consequence because you cannot do anythigng about it once the child has been concieved. Unlike your example you can deal with the consequences without harming anyone. Here you cant.
Right, just like how if you break your leg skiing you must accept that you will forever walk with a limp because you cannot have the bone set. After all, breaking a leg is one of the possible outcomes from going skiing, and when you decided to go skiing you accepted that you would have to endure all the consequences without taking any action of your own.

Also, every time you get behind the wheel of your car you are consenting to have an accident. See, having an accident is one possible outcome of driving a car, and since it's one possible consequence you cannot do anything to prevent it. You also cannot get medical care after you get in the accident, and must instead bleed to death in the road because you consented to die in a car accident the minute you got behind the wheel.

Shall I continue, or can we all see how stupid this argument is?

No, becase to have an organ donation you dont have to kill someone. People who are already dead give up organs. You can deal with the consequences here without doing anything wrong. You cant deal with the consequneces of a child by killing them as that is wrong.



Yes it does. A child is one consequence of sex. You must accept that consequence because you cannot do anythigng about it once the child has been concieved. Unlike your example you can deal with the consequences without harming anyone. Here you cant.


That would imply that a fertilised cell is a human person, which it isn't...

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm
Of COURSE an embryo is alive. It's called "the Human LIFE Cycle" for a reason! At no point does dead tissue suddenly become alive. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. Zygotes are alive. Embryos are alive. Your liver cells are alive. What's your point? You yourself will shed living human cells by the hundreds and thousands as you type your responses to this thread.

Have you read it yet? Deal with its arguements, then come back

One usually posts a links to check for facts, not opinions. If it has to argue its point, it's expressing an opinion, not fact, and therefore is not a valid source.

I'm surprised that you feel that women should accept the consequences for sex - even when it is something they actively resist, like rape.

Why should a woman carry a child under those circumstances?

Have you read it yet? Deal with its arguements, then come back
Ha!
I'm not going to go point by point through a website you posted and dismantle its arguments, if you want to argue each point in turn then go ahead.

Furthermore, that's just plain lazy on your part, letting a website argue all your points. Should I just start posting links to planned parenthood and tell you to address every point before geting back to me?

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

OK, it's alive. My argument still stands.

OK, it's alive. My argument still stands.

I'm not quite sure about the technical terms here, but I would say it is living, not alive.

Alive would refer to an independant organism, a creature that lives of its own accord and meets all the criteria of "life", such as reaction to stimuli, metabolism, procreation etc. A foetus doesn't meet those requirements, as before the end of the first trimester, it doesn't have a brain, heart or nervous system. It is not capable of reaction, let alone independent life.
Therefore, while it is living tissue we are talking about, it is not alive in the sense of being a living creature yet.

I'm not quite sure about the technical terms here, but I would say it is living, not alive.

Alive would refer to an independant organism, a creature that lives of its own accord and meets all the criteria of "life", such as reaction to stimuli, metabolism, procreation etc. A foetus doesn't meet those requirements, as before the end of the first trimester, it doesn't have a brain, heart or nervous system. It is not capable of reaction, let alone independent life.
Therefore, while it is living tissue we are talking about, it is not alive in the sense of being a living creature yet.

A newborn isn't very independent either. One might imagine a time in the not too distant future when, if you don't want to carry a baby to term in your own body, you could have it extracted and placed in an artificial womb. Research has already been done with sheep in this regard, and very successfully.

It might make your arguments moot. Avalon and the people of his beliefs would pay for the artificial wombs and their use, running centers where women who don't want to carry a baby to term can drop them off for free.

A newborn isn't very independent either. One might imagine a time in the not too distant future when, if you don't want to carry a baby to term in your own body, you could have it extracted and placed in an artificial womb. Research has already been done with sheep in this regard, and very successfully.

It might make your arguments moot. Avalon and the people of his beliefs would pay for the artificial wombs and their use, running centers where women who don't want to carry a baby to term can drop them off for free.
Personaly I would have no problem using that sort of facility

But when it comes right down to it most "pro life" people bluster over the issue but will unlikly commit to that sort of dream (and the financial burden it would entail)

Personaly I would have no problem using that sort of facility

But when it comes right down to it most "pro life" people bluster over the issue but will unlikly commit to that sort of dream (and the financial burden it would entail)

That's why I believe that most pro-life people are more interested in enslaving women than they are in saving lives.

That's why I believe that most pro-life people are more interested in enslaving women than they are in saving lives.
Yeah to an extent I have a feeling control does play a part in it

So many seem to want use the baby as a punishment for the mother having sex

What kind of household would that kid be raised in honestly if the parents viewed the kid as a punishment ...

Yeah to an extent I have a feeling control does play a part in it

So many seem to want use the baby as a punishment for the mother having sex

What kind of household would that kid be raised in honestly if the parents viewed the kid as a punishment ...

I would be interested to know how many children Avalon has adopted. You know, the babies from unwed mothers. Crack babies, etc. - the ones that no one seems to want.

If Avalon truly believes that all babies are precious, and all babies must survive and be given homes, then there should be at least one crack baby at Avalon's house.

I would be interested to know how many children Avalon has adopted. You know, the babies from unwed mothers. Crack babies, etc. - the ones that no one seems to want.

If Avalon truly believes that all babies are precious, and all babies must survive and be given homes, then there should be at least one crack baby at Avalon's house.
Very few actualy put their money where their mouth is ... they are content to wax philisophical as long as it does not impact them

I have spent years voulenteering my time with these kids you speek of ... and I have spent years doing everything from working at the food shelf to working with feed my starving children (and much more then that). I do my best ...

We see very little help down there from the pro-lifers personaly

Shall I continue, or can we all see how stupid this argument is?

We all see how stupid this argument is.

We've been seeing it for 40 pages now.

Avalon keeps using it though. Don't wonder why I stopped posting on this thread around page 25. :headbang:

A newborn isn't very independent either. One might imagine a time in the not too distant future when, if you don't want to carry a baby to term in your own body, you could have it extracted and placed in an artificial womb. Research has already been done with sheep in this regard, and very successfully.

It might make your arguments moot. Avalon and the people of his beliefs would pay for the artificial wombs and their use, running centers where women who don't want to carry a baby to term can drop them off for free.

I'm all for that solution, and I stated it often earlier in the thread.

At least when that happens, we'll get to see if all those pro-lifers will show hypocrisy or honesty. If they really are defending their position for life and the well-being of those potential children, they'll pay for the facilities and adopt the children afterwards. If they don't pay, it means they care less about the foetuses then about the control they're trying to exert over women.

Somehow, I'm not too optmisitic. I can't help but feel it's more likely the second option than the first. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong.

We all see how stupid this argument is.

We've been seeing it for 40 pages now.

Avalon keeps using it though. Don't wonder why I stopped posting on this thread around page 25. :headbang:

Calling your opponent stupid is insulting the debater and a logical falacy.

Calling your opponent stupid is insulting the debater and a logical falacy.
Ad hominim ... and does not really apply to well when they are talking about your arguement not the poster

Debasing an arguement is deffinatly within the debating realm

Calling your opponent stupid is insulting the debater and a logical falacy.
I've just noticed that you'll answer her post about something like that, but not answer a post asking you if you've adopted an unwanted child.

I'm all for that solution, and I stated it often earlier in the thread.

At least when that happens, we'll get to see if all those pro-lifers will show hypocrisy or honesty. If they really are defending their position for life and the well-being of those potential children, they'll pay for the facilities and adopt the children afterwards. If they don't pay, it means they care less about the foetuses then about the control they're trying to exert over women.

Somehow, I'm not too optmisitic. I can't help but feel it's more likely the second option than the first. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong.

or here's a better idea:

those responsible for conception are made to take care of their offspring. you screw and get pregnant, you deal with the consequences.... and not by murdering what you made. (and the fathers should be made to help)

Wrong. PREGNANCY is one possible consequence of sex. Childbirth is only one possible outcome of a pregnancy.

Right, just like how if you break your leg skiing you must accept that you will forever walk with a limp because you cannot have the bone set. After all, breaking a leg is one of the possible outcomes from going skiing, and when you decided to go skiing you accepted that you would have to endure all the consequences without taking any action of your own.

Also, every time you get behind the wheel of your car you are consenting to have an accident. See, having an accident is one possible outcome of driving a car, and since it's one possible consequence you cannot do anything to prevent it. You also cannot get medical care after you get in the accident, and must instead bleed to death in the road because you consented to die in a car accident the minute you got behind the wheel.

Shall I continue, or can we all see how stupid this argument is?

No, because you are wrong. By putting your leg in plaster you arnt doing anything wrong to your leg. Your not killing anyone etc. If you have sex and get pregnant the only way to not be pregnant is to kill someone. Since this is wrong you must accept the consequences of pregnancy as there is nothing you can do which would mean the consequences could be resolved.


It might make your arguments moot. Avalon and the people of his beliefs would pay for the artificial wombs and their use, running centers where women who don't want to carry a baby to term can drop them off for free

I would indeed support the development of artifical womb technology

I've just noticed that you'll answer her post about something like that, but not answer a post asking you if you've adopted an unwanted child.
Suprized?

Suprized?

Nope.

Of COURSE an embryo is alive. It's called "the Human LIFE Cycle" for a reason! At no point does dead tissue suddenly become alive. Sperm are alive. Eggs are alive. Zygotes are alive. Embryos are alive. Your liver cells are alive. What's your point? You yourself will shed living human cells by the hundreds and thousands as you type your responses to this thread.

Yes, but those cells are not individual humans. They are my cells, part of my body. The cells of an embryo are not like that. They are not part of the womens body, they are part of the embryo's body. The embryo is a seperate living enitiy. It is alive like I am alive

or here's a better idea:

those responsible for conception are made to take care of their offspring. you screw and get pregnant, you deal with the consequences.... and not by murdering what you made. (and the fathers should be made to help)
More misuse of the term murder ... its sad that I come to expect petty misuse of the word because of its emotional overtones

One usually posts a links to check for facts, not opinions. If it has to argue its point, it's expressing an opinion, not fact, and therefore is not a valid source.

I'm surprised that you feel that women should accept the consequences for sex - even when it is something they actively resist, like rape.

Why should a woman carry a child under those circumstances?

Two wrongs do not make a right. The rapeist may have done wrong to the woman but that doesnt make it right for the woman to end the life of the child.

Yes, but those cells are not individual humans. They are my cells, part of my body. The cells of an embryo are not like that. They are not part of the womens body, they are part of the embryo's body. The embryo is a seperate living enitiy. It is alive like I am alive
Then it can go out and get its own damn job and living facilities.

Yes, but those cells are not individual humans. They are my cells, part of my body. The cells of an embryo are not like that. They are not part of the womens body, they are part of the embryo's body. The embryo is a seperate living enitiy. It is alive like I am alive

They can't survive without the woman, so in the same sense that your liver is alive, and can't live without your body, it is not a separate living entity.

Once it can survive outside the woman's body, you could make the argument that it is a separate living entity.

Yeah to an extent I have a feeling control does play a part in it

So many seem to want use the baby as a punishment for the mother having sex

What kind of household would that kid be raised in honestly if the parents viewed the kid as a punishment ...

It's been said a dozen pages ago, but I'll repeat myself:

Women have the right to have sex.

Some "pro-lifers" are actually more intent on preventing women having sex than teenage pregnancies. That's archaic, and sexist. You don't hear ANYONE stating that those children's fathers should be enslaved by the state to provide the child and mother for financial and emotionnal support.

No, the weight of the pregnancy, and keeping the child, ALWAYS falls on the woman.

Well, I've got news for Avalon and all the other male pro-life persons reading and/or posting on this thread: it takes two to make a pregnancy.

Stop putting the blame and responsibility and trying to punish the woman for having sex.

Repeat after me:

Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


They are not slaves. They are not breeding machines. They have control over their own body. They are not objects. And there are men such as I who will always stand in your way when you try to enslave them,reduce and dimisish them to the level of an object or a machine.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The rapeist may have done wrong to the woman but that doesnt make it right for the woman to end the life of the child.

You're not answering the question. Why should she have to face the consequences for something she had no intention to do? Are you saying that she should face the consequences for rape?

It's been said a dozen pages ago, but I'll repeat myself:

Women have the right to have sex.

Some "pro-lifers" are actually more intent on preventing women having sex than teenage pregnancies. That's archaic, and sexist. You don't hear ANYONE stating that those children's fathers should be enslaved by the state to provide the child and mother for financial and emotionnal support.

No, the weight of the pregnancy, and keeping the child, ALWAYS falls on the woman.

Well, I've got news for Avalon and all the other male pro-life persons reading and/or posting on this thread: it takes two to make a pregnancy.

Stop putting the blame and responsibility and trying to punish the woman for having sex.

Repeat after me:

Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


They are not slaves. They are not breeding machines. They have control over their own body. They are not objects. And there are men such as I who will always stand in your way when you try to enslave them,reduce and dimisish them to the level of an object or a machine.

Agreed

I would be interested to know how many children Avalon has adopted. You know, the babies from unwed mothers. Crack babies, etc. - the ones that no one seems to want.

If Avalon truly believes that all babies are precious, and all babies must survive and be given homes, then there should be at least one crack baby at Avalon's house.

I am at present unable to adopt, seeing as the British legal system doesnt allow me to under my present provisions. Furthermore, just because I hold these beliefs does not mean I have to adopt or anything like that. I would be willing to adopt at some time in the future.

Stop the inanity!

Calling your opponent stupid is insulting the debater and a logical falacy.

Where have I called you stupid, Avalon? Quote please.

I called your argument stupid, not you. Intelligent poeple are not immune to using stupid arguments.

That particular argument has been thrashed so badly in this thread (and by many different poeple) it's hard to understand how you can still think about using it. Hence, me calling that argument stupid.

But calling my opponent stupid? I never did that.

You're not answering the question. Why should she have to face the consequences for something she had no intention to do? Are you saying that she should face the consequences for rape?

Yes. Because the consequences for the embryo are ultimately worse for the child if she aborts it.

I've just noticed that you'll answer her post about something like that, but not answer a post asking you if you've adopted an unwanted child.

Her? You're not talking about me, are you?

I'm male. :cool: A male feminist, to be sure, but male nonetheless.

It's been said a dozen pages ago, but I'll repeat myself:

Women have the right to have sex.

Some "pro-lifers" are actually more intent on preventing women having sex than teenage pregnancies. That's archaic, and sexist. You don't hear ANYONE stating that those children's fathers should be enslaved by the state to provide the child and mother for financial and emotionnal support.

No, the weight of the pregnancy, and keeping the child, ALWAYS falls on the woman.

Well, I've got news for Avalon and all the other male pro-life persons reading and/or posting on this thread: it takes two to make a pregnancy.

Stop putting the blame and responsibility and trying to punish the woman for having sex.

Repeat after me:

Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


They are not slaves. They are not breeding machines. They have control over their own body. They are not objects. And there are men such as I who will always stand in your way when you try to enslave them,reduce and dimisish them to the level of an object or a machine.

Firstly, I actually do believe that the state should interviene on the childs biological father to make him responsable to the child.

Women however do not have the right to kill to maintain control over their own body. Women are not objects or slaves I agree, but they do not have the right to kill anyone.

I am at present unable to adopt, seeing as the British legal system doesnt allow me to under my present provisions. Furthermore, just because I hold these beliefs does not mean I have to adopt or anything like that. I would be willing to adopt at some time in the future.

Oh, I think it does mean you have to adopt.

If I was a young woman pondering an abortion, and I said, "if you adopt the baby and pay for all the medical costs, I won't have the abortion" then you would be obligated to do so, using your own logic.

Even if you weren't the father.

I've only seen one program like that in the US, and it is very, very, very small.

Put your life where your beliefs are. Make it real.

however (prior post continued)

as much as I'd love to see mothers and fathers bring the children they're responsible for creating into the world... I know that making abortion illegal would not stop abortions from occuring. And if we have to choose between a woman killing her fetus in a healthy manner and killing her fetus in a quack's shop or taking "medicine" detrimental to her health to kill it... we should allow for the former.

that, and rape... if a woman had no choice in the matter, she should not have to be responsible for it.

Put your life where your beliefs are. Make it real.

As opposed to trying to force others to work to make it real on your behalf. Against their own will.

Oh, I think it does mean you have to adopt.

If I was a young woman pondering an abortion, and I said, "if you adopt the baby and pay for all the medical costs, I won't have the abortion" then you would be obligated to do so, using your own logic.

Even if you weren't the father.

I've only seen one program like that in the US, and it is very, very, very small.

Put your life where your beliefs are. Make it real.
Unlikly to happen any time soon ... its always someone to preach when it has no effect on their life

Oh, I think it does mean you have to adopt.

If I was a young woman pondering an abortion, and I said, "if you adopt the baby and pay for all the medical costs, I won't have the abortion" then you would be obligated to do so, using your own logic.

Even if you weren't the father.

I've only seen one program like that in the US, and it is very, very, very small.

Put your life where your beliefs are. Make it real.

I'm obbligaed to support the adoption system with money and/or time and/or effort but it doesnt mean that I have to adopt.

Unlikly to happen any time soon ... its always someone to preach when it has no effect on their life

A small man whines and protests.

A great man takes action.

Firstly, I actually do believe that the state should interviene on the childs biological father to make him responsable to the child.

Women however do not have the right to kill to maintain control over their own body. Women are not objects or slaves I agree, but they do not have the right to kill anyone.

but the fetus isn't human -- it's an inanimate object without rights, like a rock! (or so some anti-lifers would have you believe)

but the fetus isn't human -- it's an inanimate object without rights, like a rock! (or so some anti-lifers would have you believe)
Who here is anti-life? I dont think I have met one of those yet

A small man whines and protests.

A great man takes action.

In that case all the pro-choicers out there are small men, seing as all they do is whine and protest about pro-life views. Pro life activists run programs to sponser the adoption process and support mothers in need.

http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html

I'm obbligaed to support the adoption system with money and/or time and/or effort but it doesnt mean that I have to adopt.

Yes it does.

Perhaps you think it's a rabbit? Interesting...

I didn't realise there were only to choices? Human or rabbit.... learn something new every day.

I think the point is ACTUALLY, more along the lines of:

What constitutes a HUMAN LIFE?

Nobody debates that a foetus is live tissue. Nobody debates that the 'mother' is human... however, does the simple presence of those factors make HUMAN LIFE the automatic result?

A cancer is live tissue, and definitely human tissue... but it is NOT a 'human life'.

A cadaver has human tissue, and came from a live 'mother'... and may even still contain life (just not 'human' life)... but it is not 'human life'.

Feces contain human tissue... indeed, quite possibly LIVE human tissue... but one would not expect to find feces defined as human life.

A placenta contains human tissue, may have different DNA to the 'mother', AND is 'living' tissue... and yet, the placenta is not 'a human life' either.

So - clearly just being living tissue, and living human tissue, is STILL not enough to be considered 'a human life'.

In that case all the pro-choicers out there are small men, seing as all they do is whine and protest about pro-life views. Pro life activists run programs to sponser the adoption process and support mothers in need.

http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html

Where is your name on the donator's list, Avalon? I can't seem to find it... :rolleyes:

And what gives you the right to make that decision for the embryo? What gives anyone that right?

You said "pregnant or dead"... thus, the decision must have related to the 'mother'.

Why do you suddenly change it to the embryo?

In that case all the pro-choicers out there are small men, seing as all they do is whine and protest about pro-life views. Pro life activists run programs to sponser the adoption process and support mothers in need.

http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html
Bullshit I am pro-choice and I spend a great deal of my time (as stated before) working for charities

I work damn hard to try and help others

I didn't realise there were only to choices? Human or rabbit.... learn something new every day.

I think the point is ACTUALLY, more along the lines of:

What constitutes a HUMAN LIFE?

Nobody debates that a foetus is live tissue. Nobody debates that the 'mother' is human... however, does the simple presence of those factors make HUMAN LIFE the automatic result?

A cancer is live tissue, and definitely human tissue... but it is NOT a 'human life'.

A cadaver has human tissue, and came from a live 'mother'... and may even still contain life (just not 'human' life)... but it is not 'human life'.

Feces contain human tissue... indeed, quite possibly LIVE human tissue... but one would not expect to find feces defined as human life.

A placenta contains human tissue, may have different DNA to the 'mother', AND is 'living' tissue... and yet, the placenta is not 'a human life' either.

So - clearly just being living tissue, and living human tissue, is STILL not enough to be considered 'a human life'.

All your examples, if left to themselves will not develop into what the pro-choice people around here define as "a person". The embryo is alive and will develop into a person. Since it is alive it should be granted a right to life.

Bullshit I am pro-choice and I spend a great deal of my time (as stated before) working for charities

I work damn hard to try and help others

Perhaps, but how does holding the pro-choice belief system incline you to help anyone?

In that case all the pro-choicers out there are small men, seing as all they do is whine and protest about pro-life views. Pro life activists run programs to sponser the adoption process and support mothers in need.

http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html

I'm a pro-choicer, and I've let the woman make the choice every time. It so happens she chose to bear the children - so I'm helping to raise them.

I've paid for abortions for my sisters, without my parents' knowledge. I felt they deserved the choice, even if my parents were not going to permit them to make one.

The only time you have the right to kill someone is when it is trying to kill you (see kill or be killed). Thus the only time abortion should be allowed is when the existance of the unborn child is actually going to kill the mother unless it itself is killed.

According to you.

Remember, this is ALL about your opinion.

And, you know what they say about opinions...

Most of us live in societies that have several 'exceptions' to the 'thou shalt not kill' ideal.

You said "pregnant or dead"... thus, the decision must have related to the 'mother'.

Why do you suddenly change it to the embryo?

You missed the point. The point of the "pregnant or dead" arguement was to prove that the right to life is supiror to the right to bodyly control.

No one should have any right to say that a human life is not a human life and thus can be destroyed. How is the mother's right to control of body superior to the childs right of life. Would you rather be pregnant or dead?

And, the problem here is: you have YET to prove that a foetus is 'a human life'.

And - even if we can find a point where it CAN be termed 'a human life', you would STILL have to prove that it was 'a human life' THROUGHOUT the whole pregnancy.

Did you know that the Egyptians didn't consider their children as 'human lives', until they reached puberty?

Did you know that the Christian Church considered the point of human life to be the first breath, for most of the last 20 centuries?

According to you.

Remember, this is ALL about your opinion.

And, you know what they say about opinions...

Most of us live in societies that have several 'exceptions' to the 'thou shalt not kill' ideal.

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced

Perhaps, but how does holding the pro-choice belief system incline you to help anyone?
It doesent that is me personaly ... when did I ever say that being pro life caused you to not?

I was just saying personaly down in the trenches we see very few people on the pro-life side willing to put their lives where their mouth is

You missed the point. The point of the "pregnant or dead" arguement was to prove that the right to life is supiror to the right to bodyly control.

It 'proves' nothing of the sort.

I would rather be dead than pregnant... what with being a man, and all.

But then... if I were a woman, that choice should be mine...

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced

So, if Cindy Sheehan's opinion is put into practice, then thousands of people every year won't be killed (at least by US forces).

And if it isn't, then thousands will be killed.

Therefore, Cindy Sheehan's opinion is morally superior....

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced
Oh really ... objectivly prove your morals

Then obectivly prove ours

Then objectivly show one is greater then the other

(I think we will be waiting for a while)

A woman does agree to it. By having sex. By having consentual sex she must accept the possibility that she will become pregnant and that by being pregnant she has a life inside her and has no right to destroy it.

Every time you eat, you consent to death by choking.

Therefore, we shall not perform the Heimlich maneuver on you. It would be immoral.


Every time you drive, you consent to smash into railings and burn.

Therefore, we shall not call the ambulance or fire brigade, or attempt to rescue you. We don't have the right.


Every time you take a flight, you consent to plummet from the sky from 20,000 feet.

Therefore, you should not be given a parachute. You made your choice.


Consenting to ONE action is NOT equal to consent to all possible ramifications.

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced
Umm... no.
Unless of course you consider it morally wrong to live any different than starving people in Africa, because by living a "luxurious" life, you aren't doing enough to support the poor. If you want to use Utalitarianism in one situation, be prepared to have it applied to others.

Elaborate. If a woman has sex she must accept the posibility of a child. She must also accept that the child is a life, thus destroying it is murder which is wrong.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to prove it.

Why is a foetus a human life?

At what point does that transition tke place?

Why there?

Prove it.

It's been said a dozen pages ago, but I'll repeat myself:

Women have the right to have sex.

Some "pro-lifers" are actually more intent on preventing women having sex than teenage pregnancies. That's archaic, and sexist. You don't hear ANYONE stating that those children's fathers should be enslaved by the state to provide the child and mother for financial and emotionnal support.

No, the weight of the pregnancy, and keeping the child, ALWAYS falls on the woman.

Well, I've got news for Avalon and all the other male pro-life persons reading and/or posting on this thread: it takes two to make a pregnancy.

Stop putting the blame and responsibility and trying to punish the woman for having sex.

Repeat after me:

Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.
Women have the right to have sex.


They are not slaves. They are not breeding machines. They have control over their own body. They are not objects. And there are men such as I who will always stand in your way when you try to enslave them,reduce and dimisish them to the level of an object or a machine.

*cheers*

Thank you, Skaladora, for pinpointing the crux of the argument. I read the topic of this thread a couple of days ago and shied away from it, knowing it would be full of people crapping on about how abortion is wrong, women should be forced to accept the consequences of their actions, blah, blah, blah.

Then I couldn't resist any more so I finally gave in to the urge to see if anyone was saying anything vaguely sensible in here. I read the first page, then skipped to this last page - I was not strong enough to read through the undoubted tons of garbage in the middle.

And here you are, highlighting the crucial issue. For many years I've had the suspicion that right-to-lifers are less concerned about the foetuses they're attempting to have brought into an already overcrowed world than they are about keeping women in their place.

How DARE a woman think that she can have a say in what happens to her? How DARE a woman think that she can sleep with a man and not be considered a slut? How DARE a woman think that she can possibly have a life for herself that does not involve being responsible for the upbringing of another human being? How DARE a woman so much as think for herself in the first place?

I'm very proud to put my hand up and say that I have had an abortion, less than a year ago. I am 38 years old. My husband is 41. Our birth control failed. I had made the decision when I was in my 20's that I was not interested in having children, and until January I had not had cause to put that conviction to the test, since I had never had a pregnancy. But there I was, two months pregnant, well past the age where I could safely have children, and with arthritis in my lower back. It was NOT an easy decision. Many, many tears were shed. But luckily I live in a country that is not yet dominated by misogynistic old men (well, not enough of them to bring in anti-abortion legislation yet, anyway). So with my husband's support (who is thankfully NOT a misogynist) I went to a clinic and had the pregnancy aborted.

If I lived in a country where these "pro-life" people ruled, I would most likely have got very sick trying to bring this impossible baby to term. My quality of life would be considerably worsened, and I'd be in a situation where I'd be trying to raise a small child while unable to move properly due to the strain on my back. Not to mention the gall bladder disease that was diagnosed only in May (which would have been too far into the pregnancy for a safe abortion at that point, if I had not had it done already). No, thanks.

And so that means the person has the right to detemine if it is a life or not and thus destroy it. We do not have the right to play God with the embryo like this

Fully a third of ALL conceptions drop straight out... did you know that?

Our labs are actually BETTER at making life than this 'god' fellow, apparently...

Having an abortion is ending the life...

Appealing to emotion, my friend. It's a logical fallacy.

Plus - still haven't proved it's 'a human life', yet.

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

(a) You seem to think that "not alive" and "dead" are the same thing. They are not. You also seem to think that "alive" and "an oganism" are the same thing. They are not.

(b) Your lack of knowledge on this subject may be due to trying to get your biology from sites like this, which provide no biology credentials and still try to claim that they know what is and is not "biological fact."

(c) Based on your website, just about everything in the world must be alive. Why? Because inanimate matter becomes part of life all the time! When a bacteria eats the nutrients out of soil, those nonliving nutrients become a part of life. When a scavenger eats dead animals, the nonliving components of those animals again become a part of life.

(d) According to your website, monozygotic (identical) twins are a single person, as they became a human person at fertilization and then split. Chimeras are two persons, as two different persons began at fertilization and then fused into a single entity.

First off, I'd like to make a point that not everyone is religious and therefore the 'moral code' of another religion can not legally be forced upon them.

Now, to begin:

What if a woman's life is in danger because of a pregnancy? What if continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother, the child, or both, or burden the mother with a cripplingly retarded child who she will have to pay for and support for the rest of its life? (And as a side note, I believe that if an infant is born severely disabled and/or diseases and/or retarded, the mother should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to support and pay for him/her for the rest of his/her life.) There are herbs that have been known for thousands of years to naturally abort a fetus, as well as medical treatments not involving surgery, so it's not new.

If a woman is pregnant and discovers that remaining so could severely harm her to a potentially lethal extent, say her body is physically unable to cope and would fail trying to support a fetus. So, if she finds out she would slowly die trying to remain pregnant with this collection of cells that is still ATTACHED to her innards, does she have the right to abort it? Similarly, if you have appendicitis, do you have the right to have your appendix taken out? (I stop to remind you that you can't force your religion upon us.)

If a woman is pregnant and discovers that her child would be horribly crippled, or very badly retarded, or have a lifelong disease, does she need to continue to let her body create a new life that is condemned to nothing but pain and no hope at all, possibly even immediate death? How would you like to know that you are solely responsible for making another person who has a meaningless life? (I stop to remind you that you can't force your religion upon us.)

And then there is the case of rape. What if a woman is brutally raped, tortured, and abused, resulting in pregnancy? Even if they were just raped once with no additional abuse, would you really want to bear a child against your will, nonetheless, the child of a man who could be so terrible as to rape another living human being? Is that fair? (I stop to remind you that you can't force your religion upon us.)

Also, there is always the issue that if abortion is made illegal, illegal abortions will still occur, and they are highly dangerous. Botched DIY abortions can be criplpling or potentially lethal. (And I stop here to remind you that no matter what happens this WILL still occur.)

Lastly, I have O- blood, which means that unless I become pregnant from another O- type, my child will have another blood type, and my body will think it's a foreign invasion and kill the fetus itself—hey, my own personal birth control (that is a really really sick joke...), and on top of that I'm a lesbian, so if I ever am pregnant and continue through to give birth, that means I will have been forcefully impregnated AND given RH shots -- twice. In that event, I will have been forced into all of it; does that mean I must have a child and support it for 18 years (and not even being allowed to marry and provide him/her with a proper family no less)?


Oh, and by the way, I LOVE what Skaladora said earlier :)...yes, WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE SEX!

An embryo may not be a "person" according to your definiton but it is alive. At no point in its development can it be considered dead. See this page for more info

http://www.all.org/issues/argue01.htm

Again, my friend... your logic is faulty.

A rock is not 'dead'... because it has never been alive.

Thus - there are not two binary states of existence 'living' and 'dead'... there are AT LEAST three states: 'living', 'dead' and simply 'not alive'.

or here's a better idea:

those responsible for conception are made to take care of their offspring. you screw and get pregnant, you deal with the consequences.... and not by murdering what you made. (and the fathers should be made to help)

Wonderful idea! Punishment for sex by baby! Let's use infants as punishment instead of treating them like the gifts they are! After all, an infant is nothing more than a way to punish a woman for having sex, right?

Yes, but those cells are not individual humans. They are my cells, part of my body. The cells of an embryo are not like that. They are not part of the womens body, they are part of the embryo's body. The embryo is a seperate living enitiy. It is alive like I am alive

Simply repeating it will not make it magically true.

PROVE it is alive.

Also - unless you are being fed through a membrane, defecating inside your mother, and incapable of breathing on your own... it is most CERTAINLY not 'alive like' you are alive.

All your examples, if left to themselves will not develop into what the pro-choice people around here define as "a person". The embryo is alive and will develop into a person.

"Will" is a very strong word for something that only has, at best, about a 50% chance of occurring.


Did you know that the Egyptians didn't consider their children as 'human lives', until they reached puberty?

Did you know that the Christian Church considered the point of human life to be the first breath, for most of the last 20 centuries?

Indeed. And English common law and US law up until medical abortions were possible (ie. not going to a midwife) held that a embryo/fetus received no protection under the law up until the quickening. Our law now actually affords some protection before that point, in that 2nd trimester abortions can be heavily regulated.

You must remember that (as far as consensual sex goes) a women freely accepts that there is a possibility that she will have to waver her right to control her own body when she has sex.
Where is this expressed in law? Because this seems to be an opinion of yours that I and numerous others do not agree with. Acknowledging the possibility of something happening does not mean that one consents to it.


My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced
This is the most repugnant arguement I've seen so far. Words fail me at this point.

*cheers*

Thank you, Skaladora, for pinpointing the crux of the argument. <snip>
And here you are, highlighting the crucial issue. For many years I've had the suspicion that right-to-lifers are less concerned about the foetuses they're attempting to have brought into an already overcrowed world than they are about keeping women in their place.

How DARE a woman think that she can have a say in what happens to her? How DARE a woman think that she can sleep with a man and not be considered a slut? How DARE a woman think that she can possibly have a life for herself that does not involve being responsible for the upbringing of another human being? How DARE a woman so much as think for herself in the first place?

I'm very proud to put my hand up and say that I have had an abortion, less than a year ago. I am 38 years old. My husband is 41. Our birth control failed. I had made the decision when I was in my 20's that I was not interested in having children, <snip>
Let's not be shy about it -- we know full well there's an anti-abortion crowd out there (I won't even call them "pro-life") who just want to stitch a big scarlet "A" on any woman who dares open her mouth, not get married, not obey, etc., etc.

As long as we're giving out personal info, I also had an abortion, in my mid-20s. Our birth control also failed. I was not married to the guy, and he didn't stick around to support me, and I didn't ask him to as I had also decided never to have children (I'm one of those zero-population-growth people). But according to Avalon, neither of us should have been allowed to make that decision. We should have been forced to accept pregnancy as the price of not being virgins, even if, as in your case, it would have meant sickness and/or injury, because we, as women, have no right to control the use of our own bodies.

But then, I'm not sure if that's what Avalon is saying at all, as his arguments have been so outrageously self-contradictory throughout this thread:

In the same posts he has stated that a fetus is a person but cannot be proven to be a person.

In some places he grants that rape and medical necessity are justifications for abortion, but later denies this and says that they are not justifications because the fetus's rights outweigh the woman's.

He (so generously) grants that women have rights but then insists that they are less valuable than a fetus's rights. Yet he claims that this does not diminish women's rights.

He claims factual foundations for his views, but offers only opinions, then tries to argue that opinions carry as much weight as facts, or more.

He argues in favor of adoption as a way of supporting children who otherwise would be unwanted or left in poverty; he completely ignores the obvious existence of widespread poverty, child abuse and abandonment, which hints that adoption is not the answer to the problem; and also claims that he is under no obligation to participate in the system he himself advocates by adopting any unwanted children. So who then will be required to do all this adopting?

This is nonsense.

Avalon would do much better if he just admitted that he values his opinion over all other information, including facts; that he wants abortion outlawed because that's what his religion says; and that he doesn't give a damn about women or the poor, just so long as he gets to dictate how others live.

PS: Many, many cheers to Skaladora for his stirring words in favor of women's rights. I like you very much.

Her? You're not talking about me, are you?

I'm male. :cool: A male feminist, to be sure, but male nonetheless.

Not the only one, my friend. :)

Not the only one, my friend. :)
Then I like you too. :)

I'm obbligaed to support the adoption system with money and/or time and/or effort but it doesnt mean that I have to adopt.

Then, since you are unwilling to adopt, have you really any justification for saying women should put their children up for adoption?

Knowing, as you (must) do, that there are already FAR more children waiting to be adopted, than there are parents willing to adopt them?

Then I like you too. :)

Ha ha! Well, thank you. But, I'm not a feminist for the public recognition it garners. ;)

All your examples, if left to themselves will not develop into what the pro-choice people around here define as "a person". The embryo is alive and will develop into a person. Since it is alive it should be granted a right to life.

I believe, in the technical trade, down our way.... they would have responded with a resounding 'Bollocks'.

You have yet to prove that an embryo is 'alive' in any significant way... much less a human person.

However, you don't see the flaw at the heart of your argument.

If LEFT ALONE, a foetus will NOT grow into a person.

And that, my friend, is the clincher.

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced

Sorry - still just rhetoric.

Abortion has yet to be proved to kill even ONE person... except in the case of accidents, and illegal abortions.

You opinion is morally superior? What on earth gave you THAT idea?

Indeed. And English common law and US law up until medical abortions were possible (ie. not going to a midwife) held that a embryo/fetus received no protection under the law up until the quickening. Our law now actually affords some protection before that point, in that 2nd trimester abortions can be heavily regulated.

And, of course, women have been aborting unwanted foetuses for thousands of years... with no need to see any doctors or specialists.

Bring back Herbalism, I say... and let's put abortion back ENTIRELY in the privacy of a girl's own body.

I find it humorous how nobody has yet attempted to prove how abortion has any sort of negative impact on society. If it does not impact society as a whole, how can you justify passing any sort of legislation over it?

Simply repeating it will not make it magically true.

PROVE it is alive.



Oooh Oooh! *Raises hands and jumps up and down*

The following is a picture taken via ultrasound of my wife’s belly in my presence on October 14...

The heartbeat is 170 (can't see the heart beat in the still shot but can readily see it when it was a live feed). It is 8 weeks in this shot (10 if you count to last period instead of conception date).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Ph33r/Ph33rTheBaby.jpg

It's kicking and squirming ... Most definitely alive. :D

Oooh Oooh! *Raises hands and jumps up and down*

The following is a picture taken via ultrasound of my wife’s belly in my presence on October 14...

The heartbeat is 170 (can't see the heart beat in the still shot but can readily see it when it was a live feed). It is 8 weeks in this shot (10 if you count to last period instead of conception date).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Ph33r/Ph33rTheBaby.jpg

It's kicking and squirming ... Most definitely alive. :D

About as alive as my heart is.

But not yet a human being.

I find it humorous how nobody has yet attempted to prove how abortion has any sort of negative impact on society. If it does not impact society as a whole, how can you justify passing any sort of legislation over it?

African American is the only minority group in America that isn't growing, directly because of abortion rates. Hispanics are growing 20%, the Asians are growing 18% the African Americans are at -1.5 or +1.5% depending on whom you ask... Of course, the caucasian rate is -18% because of abortion...


Ask us in twenty five years how Social Security is doing without all those tax payers :p

About as alive as my heart is.

But not yet a human being.

It has it's own heart...

I find it humorous how nobody has yet attempted to prove how abortion has any sort of negative impact on society. If it does not impact society as a whole, how can you justify passing any sort of legislation over it?
I'd have thought that the opposite case applies, actually. Doing away with it entirely would cause a lot of harm to society as a whole.

African American is the only minority group in America that isn't growing, directly because of abortion rates. Hispanics are growing 20%, the Asians are growing 18% the African Americans are at -1.5 or +1.5% depending on whom you ask... Of course, the caucasian rate is -18% because of abortion...


Ask us in twenty five years how Social Security is doing without all those tax payers :p
I forgot that Hispanics and Asians are tax exempt.

Oooh Oooh! *Raises hands and jumps up and down*

The following is a picture taken via ultrasound of my wife’s belly in my presence on October 14...

The heartbeat is 170 (can't see the heart beat in the still shot but can readily see it when it was a live feed). It is 8 weeks in this shot (10 if you count to last period instead of conception date).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Ph33r/Ph33rTheBaby.jpg

It's kicking and squirming ... Most definitely alive. :D

Good for you, my friend... my little boy turned up on October 5th... so I did all this just a short while back... :)

We call it a heartbeat, but it's more of a valve, at that point... however, that's not the quibble I wanted... YES, the flesh is alive... yes it is human flesh... but there is no cognition yet... in fact, it will be several months before there is any coherent firing in the neural net... so is the foetus 'alive' yet, in any absolute sense?

And - if it is alive (I'm not going to deny it outright), is it a 'human life', yet?

See - the problem is... we recognise the shape, and we recognise the functionality, and we recognise the movements... but what we are literally seeing is no more than reflex at that point... so - isn't what we are doing, the same thing we do to dolls? Are we not projecting? Anthropomorphosising?

The random electrical firing in the body, will have no direction for months yet... so why do we instil a simple gesture with 'aaaah, baby kicked!'?

(I did it myself... I know. But... while it 'feels' right... is it logical?)

I've just noticed that you'll answer her post about something like that, but not answer a post asking you if you've adopted an unwanted child.

Don't be silly, only Filthy Whores(tm) have to give up any personal freedom.

The embryo is a seperate living enitiy. It is alive like I am alive

Well, I got no argument against that.

It has it's own heart...

So does a brain-dead person, but we don't consider them alive....

The random electrical firing in the body, will have no direction for months yet... so why do we instil a simple gesture with 'aaaah, baby kicked!'?

To be fair, by the time of the quickening, there may be enough of a nervous system for actual kicking, although still with no cognition behind it.

Well, I got no argument against that.
Besides the fact that it's incapable of living any kind of independant existence?

So does a brain-dead person, but we don't consider them alive....


I find myself wondering about those cases of 'absorbed' twins... if your arm has a heart, is it still you arm? Or your brother? Or your son? (Or female equivalents, obviously)... If you masturbated... would it be incest? And... gay incest, at that?


To be fair, by the time of the quickening, there may be enough of a nervous system for actual kicking, although still with no cognition behind it.

Which is still within the confines I was aiming for... random reflex movement... nothing 'conscious'.

So does a brain-dead person, but we don't consider them alive....

Watch them both for a half dozen months to see how they're doing before unplugging them eh? ;)


To be fair, by the time of the quickening, there may be enough of a nervous system for actual kicking, although still with no cognition behind it.

You have scientific evidence of this 'quickening' you talk about? Or is this a faith based thing with you?

Let's have some before and after shots... two minutes before the quickening and another picture taken two minutes after... :p Perchance there is no such thing as 'the quickening' except for in Highlander movies.

Besides the fact that it's incapable of living any kind of independant existence?

Neither is a child on a respirator... that's not proof of anything.

African American is the only minority group in America that isn't growing, directly because of abortion rates. Hispanics are growing 20%, the Asians are growing 18% the African Americans are at -1.5 or +1.5% depending on whom you ask... Of course, the caucasian rate is -18% because of abortion...


Ask us in twenty five years how Social Security is doing without all those tax payers :p

Would you cite your evidence for this?

Would you cite your evidence for this?


What part? The Entire US Census?

Watch them both for a half dozen months to see how they're doing before unplugging them eh? ;)

Argument of potential. Has nothing at all to do with what it is (or is not) at the moment.

You have scientific evidence of this 'quickening' you talk about? Or is this a faith based thing with you?

The quickening is essentially the point at which a woman begins to feel movement. It isn't a scientific term - it is an old one that has been used for centuries. Basically what I was saying was, that by the point the woman can feel "kicking", the fetus probably is actually kicking.

Now, there certainly is a point at which the fetus has a working rudimentary nervous system and can then sense and respond to stimuli. A picture taken at that point may not help, but I am fairly certain there are ways that we could test the response...

Int J Appl Philos. 2003 Spring;17(1):89-109. Related Articles, Links

What philosophy of mind can tell us about the morality of abortion: personhood, materialism, and the existence of self.

Himma KE.

University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

I attempt to show that, under materialist assumptions about the nature of mind, it is a necessary condition for fetal personhood that electrical activity has begun in the brain. First, I argue that it is a necessary condition for a thing to be a moral person that it is (or has) a self--understood as something that is capable of serving as the subject of a mental experience. Second, I argue that it is a necessary condition for a fetus to be (or have) a self that some form of electrical brain activity occurs. Third, I argue that since the beginning of brain activity typically occurs at around 10 weeks of gestational age, most fetuses are not persons during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and hence that abortion of most fetuses during this period does not rise to the moral level of murder.

(...) I had made the decision when I was in my 20's that I was not interested in having children (...)

(...) I had also decided never to have children (I'm one of those zero-population-growth people) (...)

Oooooh childfree! Me too, me too! Hi! :D

Now, there certainly is a point at which the fetus has a working rudimentary nervous system and can then sense and respond to stimuli. A picture taken at that point may not help, but I am fairly certain there are ways that we could test the response...

A cell phone!

That's what I used.... once we started feeling kicks, I would place the cell phone in different areas around her... pressed against the skin... and set the 'ringer' to one of the ringtones.

Baby would 'hit' at the sound.

You can do the same with a flashlight. (But, shine it, not set it's ringtones...)

At that point, I'm willing to concede 'human life'. :)

Neither is a child on a respirator... that's not proof of anything.

A child on a respiratory exists independently of another person. That child is not using another person as housing, nourishment, or a toilet (It sounds horrible, but this is exactly how someone who truly does not want to be pregnant may see it).

An interesting point that I just though of - does anyone know what the percentage of urine in the amniotic fluid is by the time of birth? One of the ways to diagnose kidney disease in an infant is to check for whether or not he is club-footed or something similar. Being squished in the womb could be due to not producing enough urine (which makes up a large portion of the amniotic fluid). [[I know this is completely off-topic, but I think it is cool]]

That baby was dancing a jig, the nurse lady had to chase it around... just because the mother can't feel the kicking yet doesn't mean it's not doing it.


(i'm not arguing about the brain transistors working yet because I'm not claiming that they are. They don't need to be at that age.) Kind of like molars. Children don't have them yet, they get them later. 8-week old fetuses don't need brain waves yet...

A cell phone!

That's what I used.... once we started feeling kicks, I would place the cell phone in different areas around her... pressed against the skin... and set the 'ringer' to one of the ringtones.

Baby would 'hit' at the sound.

You can do the same with a flashlight. (But, shine it, not set it's ringtones...)

At that point, I'm willing to concede 'human life'. :)

That's awesome! One of these days when I'm pregnant, I am sooooo going to do that! =) Of course, if I end up showing it to my boyfriend, he'll probably never stop......maybe not such a good idea. =)

This is old, but:

My opinion if put into practise means that seveal thousand people every year wont be killed

Pro-Choice opinion if put into practise means that several thousand people every year may be killed.

My opinion is morrally supiror and thus should be legally enforced

Um. No.

If my opinion about the war is put into practise, several thousand people's lives may be saved, and the cripplingly ridiculous amounts of money the US is pouring into it. My opinion is morrally supiror (fabulous spelling skills btw) and thus should be legally enforced.

If my opinion about pollution, nuclear power plants, and oil drilling is put into practise, we take a giant step in preventing global warming and stopping the self-destruction of our planet that humans have kept going for so long.

Anyway, we're humans! Our population is HUGE!! We don't NEED several thousand more people. Call me insensetive, but it's true!

... Being squished in the womb could be due to not producing enough urine (which makes up a large portion of the amniotic fluid). [[I know this is completely off-topic, but I think it is cool]]

It's not urine yet because it's not being used to produce nutrients. It's not processed. The embryonic fluid goes through the lungs and the dietary track over and over again, I think completely recycling the entire fluid base more than once every day... It's not being used as food though so it's not digested so much as it passes through so that all the parts work on the day the baby has to drink milk for the first time... Nutrients come through the umbilical cord until then.

I'm curious....how many of you "Pro (except of course for the child you're murdering) Choice" people also support the death penalty for already born miscreants that deserve it?

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461544034/U_S_Population_Growth_by_Race.html

Shows that the black population is growing faster than the white population and both populations are increasing.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/005164.html

Again, blacks are shown to be growing faster than whites. In fact the white population is growing the slowest according the US Census Bureau.

Seems like you are not correct about the effect of abortion on the black population.

Besides the fact that it's incapable of living any kind of independant existence?

I meant it in the sense of, if Avalon himself says he's as cogent as an embryo, I'm not gonna argue. It was sarcasm.

I'm curious....how many of you "Pro (except of course for the child you're murdering) Choice" people also support the death penalty for already born miscreants that deserve it?

Me.

What part? The Entire US Census?

Nevermind. I already posted the links that show what you said is not true.

Ha ha! Well, thank you. But, I'm not a feminist for the public recognition it garners. ;)
That's okay, I dont' represent the public, and my good opinion probably won't help you in life. ;)

African American is the only minority group in America that isn't growing, directly because of abortion rates. Hispanics are growing 20%, the Asians are growing 18% the African Americans are at -1.5 or +1.5% depending on whom you ask... Of course, the caucasian rate is -18% because of abortion...


Ask us in twenty five years how Social Security is doing without all those tax payers :p
If we didn't have all those taxpayers, we might not need Social Security. Yay, zero population growth. :D

I'm curious....how many of you "Pro (except of course for the child you're murdering) Choice" people also support the death penalty for already born miscreants that deserve it?

We're not talking about children. A large part of the argument here is whether or not embryos and fetuses should get the same right as children. Have you read anything from the last 40 pages or are you just jumping in with flamebait?

Neither is a child on a respirator... that's not proof of anything.
CHILDREN are not on respirators (we hope). FETUSES are on the total life support of their mothers' bodies without which they could not continue to develop into anything. Let's not confuse what we are talking about. We are not discussing children here. We are talking about women, fetuses, embryos, pregnancy and abortion.

It's not urine yet because it's not being used to produce nutrients. It's not processed. The embryonic fluid goes through the lungs and the dietary track over and over again, I think completely recycling the entire fluid base more than once every day... It's not being used as food though so it's not digested so much as it passes through so that all the parts work on the day the baby has to drink milk for the first time... Nutrients come through the umbilical cord until then.

I think you are confused as to exactly how urine is created (and what it is). Nothing actually has to pass through the digestive system to become urine - it only has to pass through the bloodstream. Your digestive system does not hook directly to your kidneys - they remove wastes from the bloodstream. Once the excretory system of the fetus is developed, it begins to produce (and yes, to release) urine. This urine is released into the womb, thus becoming part of the amniotic fluid.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the urine producing nutrients. That is not the point of the urine. The point of the urine is to excrete wastes...

Like I said before, one of the ways to diagnose kidney problems in an infant is to check for physical deformities that could be caused by not having enough room in the amniotic sac, thus squeezing the fetus so that it does not grow properly.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/005164.html

Again, blacks are shown to be growing faster than whites. In fact the white population is growing the slowest according the US Census Bureau.

Seems like you are not correct about the effect of abortion on the black population.


Your first link was useless, it's looking at a two hundred year statistics, abortion has only been around since 73.

The second link is better, but it says exactly what I said.

Hispanics are growing very fast, followed by Asian, with African Americans barely staying even and the Caucasians are I said are in a decline.... Looks like I was right, you need to read your links a little better.

Oooooh childfree! Me too, me too! Hi! :D
It's a small club now, but it will look bigger once all the baby boomers are dead. :)

I'm curious....how many of you "Pro (except of course for the child you're murdering) Choice"

(a) Who says that a person who is pro-choice would have or has had an abortion? You are aware, I assume, that many pro-choice people are, in fact, anti-abortion?

(b) Emotive language really isn't going to help your point. If the only way you can pretend to make a point is to demonize anyone who disagrees with you, you won't get far....

people also support the death penalty for already born miscreants that deserve it?

I absolutely support the death penalty for someone that deserves it. I'm just wondering exactly how we will prove, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that they actually deserve it....

A cell phone!

That's what I used.... once we started feeling kicks, I would place the cell phone in different areas around her... pressed against the skin... and set the 'ringer' to one of the ringtones.

Baby would 'hit' at the sound.

You can do the same with a flashlight. (But, shine it, not set it's ringtones...)

At that point, I'm willing to concede 'human life'. :)
I don't know, you might want to hold off on "human life" until it can start paying that phone bill.

We're not talking about children. A large part of the argument here is whether or not embryos and fetuses should get the same right as children. Have you read anything from the last 40 pages or are you just jumping in with flamebait?

I'm asking a question jackass.

It's got a heartbeat it's alive, it's alive and under the age of 18 (In this country at least) then it's a child.

So again, answer the question or shut the hell up and let someone else answer it.

I'm asking a question jackass.

Flaming.

It's got a heartbeat it's alive,

So brain-dead people are alive? That's news to the medical community...

A pithed frog is alive?

A heart, sitting in a petri dish and beating, is its own organism?

I'm asking a question jackass.

It's got a heartbeat it's alive, it's alive and under the age of 18 (In this country at least) then it's a child.

So again, answer the question or shut the hell up and let someone else answer it.

Oooh insults, those sure make you look tough on the internet.

I'm asking a question jackass.
Not needed.

It's got a heartbeat it's alive, it's alive and under the age of 18 (In this country at least) then it's a child.
Some things don't need a heartbeat to be alive. But in reality wheter or not an embryo/feotus is alive isn't whats at issue here. Its wheter or not it can be classified as a person/human.

So again, answer the question or shut the hell up and let someone else answer it.
Once again not needed. But to answer your question I'm for a moritorium on the practice until we can be sure the practice is being done on guilty people and not innocents.

http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

A little more info for you. From the time of Roe v. Wade until 1990 the black population grew 32.8% as compared to the 22.4% of the total population. The twenty years before that it was 50.1% and 34.8% respectively. The black population growth had a nearly identical percentage over the curve in both periods. So if abortion had an effect on population growth for blacks, it had the same effect on population growth for the entire population.

I'm asking a question jackass.

It's got a heartbeat it's alive, it's alive and under the age of 18 (In this country at least) then it's a child.

So again, answer the question or shut the hell up and let someone else answer it.
This is a grown up party, so be cool or get ignored.

That's awesome! One of these days when I'm pregnant, I am sooooo going to do that! =) Of course, if I end up showing it to my boyfriend, he'll probably never stop......maybe not such a good idea. =)

It is pretty awesome, actually. :)

Also - you might not notice it on the first pregnancy, but if you have a second pregnancy, (because you'll be more 'attuned' to what you are feeling), you get to feel baby blink and frown. Apparently, it feels like tiny little bubbles. :)

And, you HAVE to show the bf... he needs to talk to the bump, and get it used to him.

By the time our little boy was born, mere minutes old, he would turn to face my voice, mommy's voice, and his big sister's voice.... and ignored the rest of the world.

It was SO cool. :D

It's a small club now, but it will look bigger once all the baby boomers are dead. :)

We're so l33t ;)

That's okay, I dont' represent the public, and my good opinion probably won't help you in life. ;)

Good! THAT's the kind of commendation I LIVE for... :)

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. It boggles the mind that a semi-intelligent individual with the ability to reason could possibly think that it's ok to kill an unborn child just because it would be an inconvience to bring it to term and put it up for adoption.

I can perfectly well understand abortion in the case of rape, incest or when medically the mothers life is endangered by carrying the child. What I can't understand is why it should be ok to have an abortion when nobody put a gun to the womans head and made her spread her legs and get pregnant. It's another prime example of the liberal "don't make me responsible for my own actions please" mindset that is destroying this country today.

Your first link was useless, it's looking at a two hundred year statistics, abortion has only been around since 73.


Come, come... you KNOW that's not true....

Pro-Choice: What is your logic?

My body, my choice!

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you're pro-abortion, it is simply that you're pro people (women) making choices about their bodies.

I am very pro-choice, yet MY choice was to have my children and not have any abortions in my life, that is also pro-choice.