NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Whites are in decline? Blacks are barely staying even? Let's quote some numbers, shall we?

Following Asians in rate of growth were native Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders (1.7 percent, to 980,000), blacks (1.3 percent, to 39.2 million), American Indians and Alaska natives (1.0 percent, to 4.4 million) and whites (0.8 percent, to 239.9 million). The population of non-Hispanic whites who indicated no other race increased 0.3 percent, to 197.8 million.

See now a positive population growth generally means the population is growing, but perhaps you'd like to explain how this is not true. I think what you intended to say is that whites are decreasing as a percentage of the total population. And blacks are actually exceeding the population growth of the population as a whole. Still doesn't show a decline in numbers for either group.

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.

??? :eek: ???

Is this typical here?

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.

Yup, flamebait.

Everyone, see how much better I'm doing, not responding in the same level? I think I've really grown as a person.

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.

The Mods are pretty lenient at the moment.

However, I wouldn't tempt fate, too much, if I were you...

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

And that coming from a gay male, believe it or not. :eek:

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.

Enough with the Filthy Whore argument already!

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?
And just to show you that grown ups do have answers to questions because they take the time to think about things:

I'm against the death penalty for exactly the same reason I'm in favor of legal abortion -- my entire interest in is the rights of people actually living in the world. That includes convicted murderers, as well as their victims, as well as women who do not wish to give birth, as well as people who hold views different from mine.

I am not interested in potential rights that may someday be claimed by people who are not actually living in the world but who may do so someday, maybe, or who used to do so but have stopped (i.e. are dead).

And wow, I didn't need to curse you out or use negative emotional language anywhere in this post. Amazing.

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.

I'll ignore your inflamatory language.

1. About 60% of women that have abortions were using contraceptives.

2. Having an abortion is being responsible for one's own actions.

3. Neither misogyny nor anti-sex puritanism help your cause.

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.
All right, not cool, not grown up.

And you know, if you want to argue against elective abortion you could legitimately do it (I'll never agree with you, but still), if only you weren't frigging hostile.

Too bad. So sad. 'Bye to you.

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.

Worth repeating.

Enough with the Filthy Whore argument already!

You forgot the (tm) after Filthy Whore(tm).

Worth repeating.

Ten weeks? The source I found said three. Will have to do further research.

You forgot the (tm) after Filthy Whore(tm).

They don't even get a trademark anymore. Next they'll be losing the capitalization.

Ten weeks? The source I found said three. Will have to do further research.

An embryo does not have a functioning brain at 3 weeks gestation. That is just nonsense.

The brain only begins to develop at 3 weeks.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

An embryo does not have a functioning brain at 3 weeks gestation. That is just nonsense.

The brain only begins to develop at 3 weeks.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Most sources would put the date for a functioning brain well beyond 20 weeks, so the article saying 10 weeks was being particularly conservative in its estimate.

They don't even get a trademark anymore. Next they'll be losing the capitalization.

What is the world coming to?

Next thing you know women will have the same rights as men, blacks will be riding our buses, and beating to death a sodomite will be a crime. :rolleyes:

We really need to get back to our good old family values.

An embryo does not begin to develop a heartbeat, brainwaves, etc. until 3 weeks into the gestation period so there you go. Abortion should not be considered inhumane until 3 weeks into the pregnancy. Just a shot in the dark (no pun intended).

Ok, so I was not wrong in my statement. I stand by my post. I see what you're saying about full development, however.

1. About 60% of women that have abortions were using contraceptives.

Since there is no 100% effective contrecepiton, women must be prepared for a low level chance gof getting pregnant


2. Having an abortion is being responsible for one's own actions.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Being responable for your actions would be to have the child.

What is the world coming to?

Next thing you know women will have the same rights as men, blacks will be riding our buses, and beating to death a sodomite will be a crime. :rolleyes:

We really need to get back to our good old family values.

You're right! We must act now! Get the hoods and the kerosene. Fire will cleanse the world of this wickedness.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Being responable for your actions would be to have the child.

As I posted my evidence before, and there seems to be agreement that 10 weeks is a conservative estimate, an abortion before 10 weeks (and in some scientific circles, 20 weeks) there isn't any brain activity - hence no soul, thoughts, feelings, etc. A non-person.

Stop using the term child when it isn't true.

You're right! We must act now! Get the hoods and the kerosene. Fire will cleanse the world of this wickedness.

Does that mean we can have witch trials?

Since there is no 100% effective contrecepiton, women must be prepared for a low level chance gof getting pregnant

And they are. They are prepared to take the morning after pill, get an abortion, or carry out the pregnancy.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Being responable for your actions would be to have the child.

Circular argument. It assumes abortion is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.

As abortion is not wrong, it is a responsible choice.

Since there is no 100% effective contrecepiton, women must be prepared for a low level chance gof getting pregnant



Two wrongs do not make a right. Being responable for your actions would be to have the child.


Do you still type these out anymore? Or have you learned the wonders of Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V ?

Do you still type these out anymore? Or have you learned the wonders of Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V ?

I think that Avalon is a bot...

And they are. They are prepared to take the morning after pill, get an abortion, or carry out the pregnancy.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Dealing with the action by killing the embryo is not


Circular argument. It assumes abortion is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.

As abortion is not wrong, it is a responsible choice.

Abortion is wrong. So far no one has shown how the embryo is not a life. Given that we know for a fact that it is alive and will develop into what we call a "person" it has the right to life, because it is capable of being alive. It is at an extremely early stage of life, but that does not mean it is not alive.

Does that mean we can have witch trials?

Witchy trials yaaaay! Can I throw one in the water to see if they drown? Pleasepleaseprettyplease?

By your logic of a fetus being life, then a pregnant women would have to spend more money for the some services, because technically it's two by your logic. However, that has been decided by the Supreme Court when they stated a pregnant women was NOT carpooling.

Furthermore, by your same logic, a fertility clinic should be closed down. If I'm correct, a women is injected with multiple fertilized eggs, due to the fact that there is a high chance that they will all die. It's still technically life right? So those who cannot have babies, should not because it would kill more potential children.

1: You ignoring me is hardly going to cause me to lose any sleep. :rolleyes:

2: I'm relatively certain I failed to use the term "whore" much less "filthy whore" anywhere in my posts above.


The woman is responsible for her actions, she choses to engage in sex knowing full well that there is no 100% effective contraceptive and yet does so anyway. 99% of the time there is no side effect (other than possibly guilt or revulsion depending on whom she slept with) but that 1% possibility still exists that she could get pregnant. So, because she decided that she just had to have some good old fashioned, earth shattering sex with Dudley DoRight after one too many at the club last night it should be ok for her to abort a child if she so chooses? Using that logic it should be ok for be to abort people I don't like as well....we can call it retroactive birth control, or retroactive abortion....shoot, I like that idea. :rolleyes:

And mr Dulles, it is a child, has in fact been a child since conception, you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be true. :p

TSo far no one has shown how the embryo is not a life.

So far you've ignored my post and the scientific evidence to back it. I certainly have shown that it's not a human life.

Abortion is wrong. So far no one has shown how the embryo is not a life. Given that we know for a fact that it is alive and will develop into what we call a "person" it has the right to life, because it is capable of being alive. It is at an extremely early stage of life, but that does not mean it is not alive.

1) But we don't know that it will develop into a "person." Remember human isn't necessarily person.

2) Capable of being alive is not a qualification for being a "person."

I think that Avalon is a bot...

Can't be, too many typos/spelling errors. Plus all those logical fallacies should lock anything mechanical or digital in a self-consuming, infinite loop.

As I posted my evidence before, and there seems to be agreement that 10 weeks is a conservative estimate, an abortion before 10 weeks (and in some scientific circles, 20 weeks) there isn't any brain activity - hence no soul, thoughts, feelings, etc. A non-person.

Stop using the term child when it isn't true.

Has the brain actually been determined to be the source of a soul? I've had this debate with others before, looking for evidence to back that statement up. Of course when I was looking at the stages of the embryo and my son asked, "What is that?", I instinctively replied, "That's a baby." Oops. How do you describe a human embryo without referring to it as human... or a baby? Do I just call it a "thing"? It comes down to a question (in my mind) of not what it is but what it has the potential to become.

1) But we don't know that it will develop into a "person." Remember human isn't necessarily person.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here.


2) Capable of being alive is not a qualification for being a "person."

Capable of being a human life is a quality of a right to life

By your logic of a fetus being life, then a pregnant women would have to spend more money for the some services, because technically it's two by your logic. However, that has been outlawed by the Supreme Court when they stated a pregnant women was NOT carpooling.


The Supreme Court also said that it's perfectly legal for the government, be it local, state or federal, to take your property and build a school on it, or allow it to be sold to a developer so that it can generate a higher tax base for the community. Does that mean that it's right as well? :confused:

Abortion is wrong. So far no one has shown how the embryo is not a life. Given that we know for a fact that it is alive and will develop into what we call a "person" it has the right to life, because it is capable of being alive. It is at an extremely early stage of life, but that does not mean it is not alive.

No one is disputing wheter or not an embryo is alive. What we are disputing is that you consider an embryo a person when others do not. Now since you have by your own volition have admitted that things that are not people ie animals have no rights. Now if an embryo is alive and not a person then it deserves no more rights then my heart or hand deserve. Now you keep saying that because the embryo could possibly become a human you argue that it is human. Most of us reject that arguement stating that if something has the possibility to develop into something that does not mean that it is infact that thing at the present time. I pointed out the example of a catipillar turning into a butterfly. Just because the catipillar could develop into a butterfly does not mean it is a butterfly at that moment.

The Supreme Court also said that it's perfectly legal for the government, be it local, state or federal, to take your property and build a school on it, or allow it to be sold to a developer so that it can generate a higher tax base for the community. Does that mean that it's right as well? :confused:

I think it's right, so long as the person who is not doing this is corrupt. As long as the person is not corrupt, then there has to be a good reason why they want to put that up. Besides, if they ever get too abusive, I can always bring it to the Supreme Court and use Life, Liberty, and Property as my argument.

And I would think this argument is old. It's pretty much a question whether you choose to believe an embryo can be called a human, or just a fetus.

The Supreme Court also said that it's perfectly legal for the government, be it local, state or federal, to take your property and build a school on it, or allow it to be sold to a developer so that it can generate a higher tax base for the community. Does that mean that it's right as well? :confused:

If you wish to live in a nation of laws, you must abide by them. Regardless of whether you believe them to be right or wrong.

Circular argument. It assumes abortion is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong.

As abortion is not wrong, it is a responsible choice.

That arguement is equally circular

2: I'm relatively certain I failed to use the term "whore" much less "filthy whore" anywhere in my posts above.

"I didn't use the word, so that isn't what I was saying!"

The woman is responsible for her actions, she choses to engage in sex knowing full well that there is no 100% effective contraceptive and yet does so anyway. 99% of the time there is no side effect (other than possibly guilt or revulsion depending on whom she slept with) but that 1% possibility still exists that she could get pregnant. So, because she decided that she just had to have some good old fashioned, earth shattering sex with Dudley DoRight after one too many at the club last night it should be ok for her to abort a child if she so chooses?

And then you still make the same argument. You are aware, I would assume, that a significant portion of women who end up getting abortions are *gasp* married. Most have been in some sort of committed relationship. One-night stands are not a significant portion of abortions.

And mr Dulles, it is a child, has in fact been a child since conception, you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be true. :p

You can state an opinion as fact all you like, but until you can back it up...

Also, are you aware that, based on your logic, monozygotic twins or triplets are, in fact, only one person? Are you also aware that, by your logic, chimeras are two persons?

Does that mean we can have witch trials?
Obviously, if you're going to oppress women et al. on religious grounds, then you simply must have witch trials. Have you got your puritan hat?

1: You ignoring me is hardly going to cause me to lose any sleep. :rolleyes:

2: I'm relatively certain I failed to use the term "whore" much less "filthy whore" anywhere in my posts above.


The woman is responsible for her actions, she choses to engage in sex knowing full well that there is no 100% effective contraceptive and yet does so anyway. 99% of the time there is no side effect (other than possibly guilt or revulsion depending on whom she slept with) but that 1% possibility still exists that she could get pregnant. So, because she decided that she just had to have some good old fashioned, earth shattering sex with Dudley DoRight after one too many at the club last night it should be ok for her to abort a child if she so chooses? Using that logic it should be ok for be to abort people I don't like as well....we can call it retroactive birth control, or retroactive abortion....shoot, I like that idea. :rolleyes:

And mr Dulles, it is a child, has in fact been a child since conception, you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be true. :p

You were responded to directly. You ignored the responses.

Has the brain actually been determined to be the source of a soul? I've had this debate with others before, looking for evidence to back that statement up. Of course when I was looking at the stages of the embryo and my son asked, "What is that?", I instinctively replied, "That's a baby." Oops. How do you describe a human embryo without referring to it as human... or a baby? Do I just call it a "thing"? It comes down to a question (in my mind) of not what it is but what it has the potential to become.

"It isn't a pile of bricks, it is a house."

"Verily I doth declare it is but a pile of bricks!"

"Nay, for it has the potential to be a house."

See the problem?

Can you elaborate on what you mean here.

If you are going to invoke the concept of rights you need to be familiar with the underlying principles involved. Humans do not have rights merely because they have a "unique" DNA code. See my earlier posts in the first 5 or so pages of the thread.

I pointed out the example of a catipillar turning into a butterfly. Just because the catipillar could develop into a butterfly does not mean it is a butterfly at that moment.

However it is a caterpillar... do caterpillars not have the right to live? ;)

1: You ignoring me is hardly going to cause me to lose any sleep. :rolleyes:

2: I'm relatively certain I failed to use the term "whore" much less "filthy whore" anywhere in my posts above.


The woman is responsible for her actions, she choses to engage in sex knowing full well that there is no 100% effective contraceptive and yet does so anyway. 99% of the time there is no side effect (other than possibly guilt or revulsion depending on whom she slept with) but that 1% possibility still exists that she could get pregnant. So, because she decided that she just had to have some good old fashioned, earth shattering sex with Dudley DoRight after one too many at the club last night it should be ok for her to abort a child if she so chooses? Using that logic it should be ok for be to abort people I don't like as well....we can call it retroactive birth control, or retroactive abortion....shoot, I like that idea. :rolleyes:

And mr Dulles, it is a child, has in fact been a child since conception, you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be true. :p

Avalon! Whatchoo go an' change your name for? We can still see you.

The Supreme Court also said that it's perfectly legal for the government, be it local, state or federal, to take your property and build a school on it, or allow it to be sold to a developer so that it can generate a higher tax base for the community. Does that mean that it's right as well? :confused:

I wouldn't delve into caselaw you do not understand.

That arguement is equally circular

Now you're getting it!

Now, if you can understand why you reject The Cat-Tribe's argument, you can understand why he rejects yours - and why neither of you have the right to legislate your views. Thing is, you're the only one trying to do so.....

Tell that to the people in New London CT that not only found that they are going to lose the property and homes that the bought and paid for, but are going to be charged back rent on said property because the City and State used Eminent(sp) Domain to force them to give it up and took it all the way to the Supreme Court when said property owners refused.
Yeah, that new shopping center / casino complex will generate more tax money for the city...screw the people that actually worked to own that property.

I suspect you'd be screaming a different view point were it your home and not someone you didn't know.

The point of course being, the Supreme Court makes stupid decisions just like anyone else.....

And of course, the mothers economic state is more important than the childs life.
No, but the economic state of the nation certainly does.

I fail to see what the anti-abortion people have to back up their claim. They can throw all of these facts at us, but it really doesn't mean anything until it is third stage (which I'm against), where the baby actually can live in the real world.

That arguement is equally circular
Doesn't matter if Cat Tribe's second argument is circular. His first argument is not, and yours most certainly is. You are arguing from the point that your statement "abortion is wrong" is already correct. You have to prove that it is correct, which you have not.

Therefore, all of your arguments so far are in pieces on the floor.

"It isn't a pile of bricks, it is a house."

"Verily I doth declare it is but a pile of bricks!"

"Nay, for it has the potential to be a house."

See the problem?

Aha! But I will never have a mansion if I keep throwing those bricks away.

Now you're getting it!

Now, if you can understand why you reject The Cat-Tribe's argument, you can understand why he rejects yours - and why neither of you have the right to legislate your views. Thing is, you're the only one trying to do so.....

"Exactically!!," said the Caterpillar.

Tell that to the people in New London CT that not only found that they are going to lose the property and homes that the bought and paid for, but are going to be charged back rent on said property because the City and State used Eminent(sp) Domain to force them to give it up and took it all the way to the Supreme Court when said property owners refused.
Yeah, that new shopping center / casino complex will generate more tax money for the city...screw the people that actually worked to own that property.

I suspect you'd be screaming a different view point were it your home and not someone you didn't know.

The point of course being, the Supreme Court makes stupid decisions just like anyone else.....

You'd probably be screaming when you found out that you were pregnant and you would die during birth (though you would have to be a girl).

I believe the government has to pay me first to move off my property too, or else that would go against the basic idea behind our constitution.

Furthermore, by your same logic, a fertility clinic should be closed down. If I'm correct, a women is injected with multiple fertilized eggs, due to the fact that there is a high chance that they will all die. It's still technically life right? So those who cannot have babies, should not because it would kill more potential children.
I'm surprised there's been no comment on this one.
Perhaps you've scared the right to life nuts into avoiding IVF treastment?

Whites are in decline? Blacks are barely staying even? Let's quote some numbers, shall we?

Following Asians in rate of growth were native Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders (1.7 percent, to 980,000), blacks (1.3 percent, to 39.2 million), American Indians and Alaska natives (1.0 percent, to 4.4 million) and whites (0.8 percent, to 239.9 million). The population of non-Hispanic whites who indicated no other race increased 0.3 percent, to 197.8 million.

See now a positive population growth generally means the population is growing, but perhaps you'd like to explain how this is not true. I think what you intended to say is that whites are decreasing as a percentage of the total population. And blacks are actually exceeding the population growth of the population as a whole. Still doesn't show a decline in numbers for either group.


Let's see now, what is this called? %

I think it's called a percentage symbol. When do we use it? When we mean percentages? Yes, yes we do. Did I? Why yes, yes I did. :rolleyes:

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...

I fail to see what the anti-abortion people have to back up their claim. They can throw all of these facts at us, but it really doesn't mean anything until it is third stage (which I'm against), where the baby actually can live in the real world.

I just jumped in this, but why not, eh?

Alright, Eastern Coast. What happens when we gain the technology to keep a child alive outside of a mother's womb, before the third stage? We will gain the technology; it's only a matter of time.

Will the entity suddenly become a living individual human?

Avalon! Whatchoo go an' change your name for? We can still see you.

Just because someone has the same name as me, doesnt mean its me. Suprising as it is, this view is valid enough.

Aha! But I will never have a mansion if I keep throwing those bricks away.

If you throw the bricks away, then you are choosing to do so.

Maybe you didn't want a mansion.

Tell that to the people in New London CT that not only found that they are going to lose the property and homes that the bought and paid for, but are going to be charged back rent on said property because the City and State used Eminent(sp) Domain to force them to give it up and took it all the way to the Supreme Court when said property owners refused.
Yeah, that new shopping center / casino complex will generate more tax money for the city...screw the people that actually worked to own that property.

I suspect you'd be screaming a different view point were it your home and not someone you didn't know.

The point of course being, the Supreme Court makes stupid decisions just like anyone else.....


Different topic, and one you clearly do not understand.

If we all agree the Supreme Court is sometimes wrong, will you drop it?

Two wrongs do not make a right. Dealing with the action by killing the embryo is not



Abortion is wrong. So far no one has shown how the embryo is not a life. Given that we know for a fact that it is alive and will develop into what we call a "person" it has the right to life, because it is capable of being alive. It is at an extremely early stage of life, but that does not mean it is not alive.
Excuse me, but I and a few other people have argued that, even if abortion is killing, women still must retain the right to decide to abort their pregnancies on the grounds of civil and human rights. Yet you continue to argue as if the only pro-choice argument is about whether a fetus is a life or not. Is it because you didn't do so well arguing against civil and human rights for women? Or are you just having trouble keeping track of all the circular arguments you've started?

You are failing to persuade people, and you have done nothing but repeat yourself for some time now. Why not take a break and think of a new approach?

Doesn't matter if Cat Tribe's second argument is circular. His first argument is not, and yours most certainly is. You are arguing from the point that your statement "abortion is wrong" is already correct. You have to prove that it is correct, which you have not.

Therefore, all of your arguments so far are in pieces on the floor.

You know, your arguing from the perspective "abortion is right" all the time. Therefore your arguements are in pieces too.

Who here is anti-life? I dont think I have met one of those yet
"Stop linking your arms outside of abortionists and start denying access to graveyards if you're so pro life..."

"It isn't a pile of bricks, it is a house."

"Verily I doth declare it is but a pile of bricks!"

"Nay, for it has the potential to be a house."

See the problem?

I certainly do: false analogy.

The pile of bricks will not grow into more of a house. The house will not continue developing until the moment it "dies".

Obviously, if you're going to oppress women et al. on religious grounds, then you simply must have witch trials. Have you got your puritan hat?

The most fun you can have oppressing women is with witch trials! It's a must on every party. Accuse your neighbors and annoying relatives and anyone who disagrees with you and watch the whackiness unfold. Plus, you get to scream WITCH!! WITCH!!! and make a big fire. Everyone loves fires.

I just jumped in this, but why not, eh?

Alright, Eastern Coast. What happens when we gain the technology to keep a child alive outside of a mother's womb, before the third stage? We will gain the technology; it's only a matter of time.

Will the entity suddenly become a living individual human?

If the entity can be removed from the mother and live, then there is no need for it to die.

Problem solved.

I just jumped in this, but why not, eh?

Alright, Eastern Coast. What happens when we gain the technology to keep a child alive outside of a mother's womb, before the third stage? We will gain the technology; it's only a matter of time.

Will the entity suddenly become a living individual human?

Ah, good question. Maybe you do have some potention (I'm joking).

No, it is still not alive, becuase that would require some sort of energy powering it. Is a dead person really alive when machines are keeping his body alive? Only when a child can survive in a natural situtation, is, in my definition, alive. If it were kept alive long enough for it to function in a natural situtation, then yes, it is now alive.

If you throw the bricks away, then you are choosing to do so.

Maybe you didn't want a mansion.

Perhaps I want a hut made of straw.... yes... straw... anyone know where I can find some sheep?

I just jumped in this, but why not, eh?

Alright, Eastern Coast. What happens when we gain the technology to keep a child alive outside of a mother's womb, before the third stage? We will gain the technology; it's only a matter of time.

Will the entity suddenly become a living individual human?

It will be irrelevant.

Women who want to be rid of the fetus can do so at centers run by Avalon and his chums, who, out of their moral righteousness, will fund the entire center and set up all the adoptions after the fetuses reach birth.

And, since Avalon does not seek to punish women for having sex, he will gladly save the life of every fetus - pay for it, take care of it, make sure it gets adopted. Oh, and he'll pay to have this technology researched in order to make sure this can happen.

Think of the abortions that would be prevented. And he would have the legal, technical, and monetary means to do so (think of all the money that anti-abortion groups have). Therefore they would have the absolute moral imperative to do so.

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. :)
Thanks, I really feel very proud. :)

Personally I think the civil rights argument for abortion is more powerful then the practical arguments for it, but that's just me.
I don't see what could be a more powerful argument than reality.

Also, I avoid using it because such arguments wouldn't really fit my utilitarian mindset, since I also advocate some policies that some people consider a severe restriction on civil rights such as tax-funded health, welfare, education, transport, military service, etc...

Excuse me, but I and a few other people have argued that, even if abortion is killing, women still must retain the right to decide to abort their pregnancies on the grounds of civil and human rights. Yet you continue to argue as if the only pro-choice argument is about whether a fetus is a life or not. Is it because you didn't do so well arguing against civil and human rights for women? Or are you just having trouble keeping track of all the circular arguments you've started?

The right of the woman to control her own body is less important than the right of the embryo to live. People talk about the womens right to her body. What about the child's right to its body, and its right to life. Ulitmately its clear. The right to life is superor to the right to bodily control

Can you elaborate on what you mean here.



Capable of being a human life is a quality of a right to life
Explain, please.

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.
My mistake.
(We could really do with a sarcasm emoticon...)

Let's see now, what is this called? %

I think it's called a percentage symbol. When do we use it? When we mean percentages? Yes, yes we do. Did I? Why yes, yes I did. :rolleyes:

Um, did you notice that Jocabia's numbers also had percents? They just had the word instead of the symbol.

There is a rather large difference between -18% (as you claim) and 0.8%, as the numbers he posted claims.

You know, your arguing from the perspective "abortion is right" all the time. Therefore your arguements are in pieces too.

Pro-choice does not equate to "abortion is right".

You know, your arguing from the perspective "abortion is right" all the time. Therefore your arguements are in pieces too.

You have never refuted the premise that only a person has rights.

You have never refuted the objective criteria of personhood I put forth.

You have never refuted that an embryo does not meet the criteria of personhood.

You have therefore never refuted that an embryo does not have rights.

You have also granted that a woman has a right to control her own body.

Right to control own body > no rights.

You lose.

The right of the woman to control her own body is less important than the right of the embryo to live. People talk about the womens right to her body. What about the child's right to its body, and its right to life. Ulitmately its clear. The right to life is superor to the right to bodily control

If it is not capable of conscious thought, as I have proven, and you have NEVER addressed, it is not a human life, and is most definitely not a child.

Stop using terms you have not only not proven, but I have disproven.

Aha! But I will never have a mansion if I keep throwing those bricks away.

But I don't want a mansion! I wanna live in a yatch and travel the world.

If the entity can be removed from the mother and live, then there is no need for it to die.

Problem solved.
The religious right are likely to be down on that as well.

The right of the woman to control her own body is less important than the right of the embryo to live. People talk about the womens right to her body. What about the child's right to its body, and its right to life. Ulitmately its clear. The right to life is superor to the right to bodily control

Except you have stated that things that are not human have no right to life. So since the burden of proof is on you because you want to impose your beliefs as laws that effect others you must show objectively that an embryo is a human. The problem is that you have also stated in your own words that it is impossible to prove so. Now since this is the case you can not make laws taking away a women's right to control her body.

You have never refuted the premise that only a person has rights.

You have never refuted the objective criteria of personhood I put forth.

You have never refuted that an embryo does not meet the criteria of personhood.

You have therefore never refuted that an embryo does not have rights.

You have also granted that a woman has a right to control her own body.

Right to control own body > no rights.

You lose.

Though this would work in a debate round, please refrain from using LD type strategies here. More or less, it just aggravates those who are not used to debate.

Just because someone has the same name as me, doesnt mean its me. Suprising as it is, this view is valid enough.

His name is quite different than yours, actually. It was the arguments that were exactly the same (though worded considerably less politely).

The right of the woman to control her own body is less important than the right of the embryo to live. People talk about the womens right to her body. What about the child's right to its body, and its right to life. Ulitmately its clear. The right to life is superor to the right to bodily control
So presumably you have no objection to baby farming using slave labour?

No one is disputing wheter or not an embryo is alive. What we are disputing is that you consider an embryo a person when others do not. Now since you have by your own volition have admitted that things that are not people ie animals have no rights. Now if an embryo is alive and not a person then it deserves no more rights then my heart or hand deserve.

Its not yet a person but it is human and thus diffrent to animals. It is a living human and thus has the right to life.


Now you keep saying that because the embryo could possibly become a human you argue that it is human. Most of us reject that arguement stating that if something has the possibility to develop into something that does not mean that it is infact that thing at the present time. I pointed out the example of a catipillar turning into a butterfly. Just because the catipillar could develop into a butterfly does not mean it is a butterfly at that moment.

It IS Human. Look at its DNA, look at its cellular structure. It is a member of the homosapain race. The diffrences between me and it are that I am far older, more developed and have a diffrent genome to it. It has the right to life because it is human and alive. We know it isnt just an inanimate clump of cells because it is developing. I am not saying "it will be a person therefore it should get the rights of a human now", what I am saying is "the fact that it is developing is a sign that it is a seprate entity and that it is human"

abortion has a place in this world. it is not something that should be encouraged, or rewarded, but it is useful. sex happens, accidents happen, and I think that terminating a pregnancy is a better option for would-be families that aren't fit to care for a child properly than to go ahead and have the child. if the would be mother is any of the following: drug-addicted, alcoholic, mentally unstable, the infant is already at a huge disadvantage, before it even gets born. In the case where the mentioned conditions (albeit that those are not the only considerations) do not apply, carrying the child to term is an option IF the mother (and hopefully father) are affluent enough to afford the hospital and legal fees involved for adoption (provided that they have decided or been forced to abandon the child due to financial or parental competency issues).

In short, in cases where the mother's lifestyle presents health risks to the child, financial or parental competency deficiency presents health and developmental risks to the child, abortion is an option. It should be the LAST option, but it should be a legal, accessible option.

Another case, and I may get some flak for this, is in the case of genetic 'defects' of the foetus determined in-vitro. I would rather terminate the pregnancy than raise a 'retarded' child. It is no life to have little or no control over motor functions, ability to think, etc. In this case, I believe I would not be a competent parent, and I couldn't bear the thought of putting a mentally retarded child up for adoption. This is not to say that I am in favour of made-to-order babies, but if it is determined that there are significant health or developmental issues with the foetus, then it is an option.

Abortion is NOT a form of birth control (unless you nit-pick the definition), it is a last-resort option for hard-pressed people in dire situations.

Ah, good question. Maybe you do have some potention (I'm joking).

No, it is still not alive, becuase that would require some sort of energy powering it. Is a dead person really alive when machines are keeping his body alive? Only when a child can survive in a natural situtation, is, in my definition, alive. If it were kept alive long enough for it to function in a natural situtation, then yes, it is now alive.

I think I have plenty of potention. If this is your claim for the entity not being alive, then how is it even more alive by the third stage? It still would need machines to keep it alive.

Though this would work in a debate round, please refrain from using LD type strategies here. More or less, it just aggravates those who are not used to debate.

Um.

Though it may aggravate opponents, I will continue to use logic and evidence in my arguments. Thank you very much.

(What is an LD type strategy?)

Let's see now, what is this called? %

I think it's called a percentage symbol. When do we use it? When we mean percentages? Yes, yes we do. Did I? Why yes, yes I did. :rolleyes:

Hmmm... do I have to explain these numbers to you? The growth rate of the black population is higher than the national average which is growing. That means that not only are the black population growing but they are increasing the slice of the US population pie.

The most fun you can have oppressing women is with witch trials! It's a must on every party. Accuse your neighbors and annoying relatives and anyone who disagrees with you and watch the whackiness unfold. Plus, you get to scream WITCH!! WITCH!!! and make a big fire. Everyone loves fires.
I like fires, and marshmallows on sticks -- next to the witches on sticks.

Its not yet a person but it is human and thus diffrent to animals. It is a living human and thus has the right to life.


I've posted scientific evidence that you are wrong. It is not a living human at all. You still haven't posted any scientific evidence to the contrary.

Before I go any further, let me explain that I am fully for a woman being able to choose what she does with her body and what resides inside it. I wouldn't get an abortion myself, unless it was a threat to my health because I already have one child to take care of.

With that being said, which if any of you would prefer to not be here. If you had a choice that is... and then think about how your life would be different if say you're best friend's mother had an abortion.

On the other hand, what your birth was imposed upon your mother by society-at-large... let's assume this was "the condom broke" type of pregnancy... would you want your mother to be responsible for something that she never chose? Imagine the therapy involved there.

I like to look at all sides of the argument, so please do not misunderstand any of my comments here.

(We could really do with a sarcasm emoticon...)

(definitely)

I think I have plenty of potention. If this is your claim for the entity not being alive, then how is it even more alive by the third stage? It still would need machines to keep it alive.

I didn't mean potential in that fashion, I apoligize for any offence. It was just a joke statement, I don't think you're an idiot.

And by third stage, the baby has a good chance of living. Meaning, if I cut a 3rd stage baby out of it's womb, it will survive (90 perc and greater).

LD type strategy is something like, "You didn't state anything about this contention," etc. Though I have yet to see someone refute my fertility clinic example. However, we can't expect the world to be perfect.

So presumably you have no objection to baby farming using slave labour?

Of course I do.

I mean control over their own bodies in so far as they come into conflict with the right of the child. The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control. Women obvoiulsy should have the choice to have sex or not. But they must accept the consequences of sex

I've posted scientific evidence that you are wrong. It is not a living human at all. You still haven't posted any scientific evidence to the contrary.

This issue is not whether it is alive or human. The issue is whether it has rights. Only persons have rights.

You and I and others have proven an embryo is not a person.

(Avalon goes back and forth on whether it is a person or is merely a potential person, but he provides no proof it is a person.)

The right of the woman to control her own body is less important than the right of the embryo to live. People talk about the womens right to her body. What about the child's right to its body, and its right to life. Ulitmately its clear. The right to life is superor to the right to bodily control
Until it is born, the fetus doesn't have a body. It has my body, which is mine, to be used as I see fit. No one else gets to make that decision, including the fetus and -- least of all!! -- some third party purporting to act on the fetus's behalf.

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.
1. It's not a child.
2. It's ok for the rapist to get to consinue his genetic line at the expense of a woman he forced himself on if she doesn't want a kid? I don't think so, and as I said before, you disgust me for suggesting as much.

If it is not capable of conscious thought, as I have proven, and you have NEVER addressed, it is not a human life, and is most definitely not a child.

Stop using terms you have not only not proven, but I have disproven.

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. It is growing.

It is not dead and thus cannot be said to not be a human life.

Of course I do.

I mean control over their own bodies in so far as they come into conflict with the right of the child. The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control. Women obvoiulsy should have the choice to have sex or not. But they must accept the consequences of sex

But you also believe the woman should be forced to have the baby when she is raped. Then she is little more than a slave.

Your consent argument is not only disingenuous, but has been thoroughly refuted many times herein.

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.
I think this is the best quote of the thread and should be repeated at regular intervals. :D

You have never refuted the premise that only a person has rights.

I disagree with this premise, but that is irrelevant here.

You have never refuted the objective criteria of personhood I put forth.

Which post is it? My criteria for personhood is:
1) Living
2) Human
3) Individual

You have never refuted that an embryo does not meet the criteria of personhood.

Life is not worth arguing. Human is all that the offspring of two humans can be. The entity has his/her own DNA and full chromosome count.

Sure, twins share DNA, but the DNA is regardlessly distinct from either parent.

Both conjoined twins are considered human individuals, though they depend on each other for life.

You have therefore never refuted that an embryo does not have rights.

Like it or not, the trend of progressivism is to grant a MORE liberal understanding of human rights (and, most likely, nonhuman rights).

You have also granted that a woman has a right to control her own body.

I think I've heard the argument of property rights over human rights somewhere before... are you sure you aren't right-wing?

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. It is growing.

It is not dead and thus cannot be said to not be a human life.
Cancer it has dna (sometimes its own) and its growing at times

Does Cancer have rights?

Of course I do.

I mean control over their own bodies in so far as they come into conflict with the right of the child. The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control. Women obvoiulsy should have the choice to have sex or not. But they must accept the consequences of sex
Because of course if they got pregnant by being raped, it was probably their own fault.

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. It is growing.

It is not dead and thus cannot be said to not be a human life.
Are chimeras two people and identical twins one person?

Of course I do.

I mean control over their own bodies in so far as they come into conflict with the right of the child. The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control. Women obvoiulsy should have the choice to have sex or not. But they must accept the consequences of sex

I am wondering where it is said in our system of laws that a women must give up her right to choose what to do with her body when she becomes pregnant.

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. It is growing.

It is not dead and thus cannot be said to not be a human life.

So?

Assume it is a human life, why does it have rights?

I like fires, and marshmallows on sticks -- next to the witches on sticks.

Yay for trials and marshmallows!

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. It is growing.

It is not dead and thus cannot be said to not be a human life.

You know, for the lack of better terms, you're a broken record.

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. Due to the fact that cancer cell's DNA is similar to human's DNA, does it have a right to live?

1. It's not a child.

Embryo. But dont quibble with semantics.


2. It's ok for the rapist to get to consinue his genetic line at the expense of a woman he forced himself on if she doesn't want a kid? I don't think so, and as I said before, you disgust me for suggesting as much.

Is it ok for the woman to kill someone for any reason other than if it is in danger of killing her? I dont think so and you disgust me for suggesting as such

I think I've heard the argument of property rights over human rights somewhere before... are you sure you aren't right-wing?
I'm sorry, but did you just call a woman's body property and say she isn't human? Because that's how it came out.

Of course I do.

I mean control over their own bodies in so far as they come into conflict with the right of the child. The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control. Women obvoiulsy should have the choice to have sex or not. But they must accept the consequences of sex
So you're against contraception too?

Is it ok for the woman to kill someone for any reason other than if it is in danger of killing her? I dont think so and you disgust me for suggesting as such
She's not killing "someone" she's ending the potentiality of a "someone" from being realized.

Embryo. But dont quibble with semantics.



Is it ok for the woman to kill someone for any reason other than if it is in danger of killing her? I dont think so and you disgust me for suggesting as such
Nope as it is no more a person then cancer is

You know, for the lack of better terms, you're a broken record.

It is an embryo. It has its own DNA which is human. Due to the fact that cancer cell's DNA is similar to human's DNA, does it have a right to live?

Its own DNA. Its own indiviudal DNA. No other DNA like it in the human race. It is growing in a fashion that is not cancerous, but into something far more.

Am I going to get a reply to any of the posts I made?

I didn't mean potential in that fashion, I apoligize for any offence. It was just a joke statement, I don't think you're an idiot.

Sorry for my sarcastic return. Nothing gets resolved that way. :(

And by third stage, the baby has a good chance of living. Meaning, if I cut a 3rd stage baby out of it's womb, it will survive (90 perc and greater).

You'd still use machines to keep it (the baby) alive, wouldn't you? I don't think we should base humanity on probability.

LD type strategy is something like, "You didn't state anything about this contention," etc. Though I have yet to see someone refute my fertility clinic example. However, we can't expect the world to be perfect.

Yes, the body does naturally kill several fertilised eggs. Acknowledged. There is a difference between the body doing this and other people actively killing fertilized eggs. This is the difference between sending out hundreds of people in hopes that a few will survive, and killing a single person because it is not wanted.

The main problem people have with the concept of so many individuals dying naturally before birth is a religious one. "How is heaven efficient if the majority of its occupants are naturally-aborted fertilised eggs?" Well, it doesn't matter. People die; that's just how it is. It doesn't mean we have to kill people ourselves.

With that being said, which if any of you would prefer to not be here. If you had a choice that is... and then think about how your life would be different if say you're best friend's mother had an abortion.

We would have a different best friend. An uncountable number of people are not born each day, either because they were miscarried or aborted or simply weren't conceived. Think of the millions of sperm from your best friend's dad that could've been your other best friend if only they had been a little faster... Miss them much? No, I didn't think so.

Its own DNA. Its own indiviudal DNA. No other DNA like it in the human race. It is growing in a fashion that is not cancerous, but into something far more.
Oh? in a lot of ways it is very simmilar to a cancerous growth

Nope as it is no more a person then cancer is

Yes it is. Cancer is not an individual life form. Cancer does not have its own unique DNA. Cancer if left in its natural state will only grow into an inanimate cancer.

Its own DNA. Its own indiviudal DNA. No other DNA like it in the human race. It is growing in a fashion that is not cancerous, but into something far more.
So a chimera is two individuals and identical twins are one?

Yes it is. Cancer is not an individual life form. Cancer does not have its own unique DNA. Cancer if left in its natural state will only grow into an inanimate cancer.

So, it's ok if we make an embryo by cloning the mother, and then smashing that embryo with a hammer?

Its own DNA. Its own indiviudal DNA. No other DNA like it in the human race. It is growing in a fashion that is not cancerous, but into something far more.

But it's DNA is still simlar. A baby's DNA is not identical to it's mothers. Why shouldn't cancer have a right to live? I mean, they just what to survive! In essence, a cancer cell is a rebel human cell. It's life. It will not develope into a human, but it is still living.

So you're against contraception too?

How did you get that from what I said. Contreception is fine. It just lowers the posibilty of a woman getting pregnant which is fine.

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

When discussing human life it very well does have a place in a discussion of legality.

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.

So that justifies abortion? Because an embryo isn't human yet? If we know what it will become, how is that not murder? There's no doubt an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a seed will become a living breathing functioning human being...extinguishing an embryo is the same as extinguishing a human life. What stage of life it's in should have no relevence.

I think this is the best quote of the thread and should be repeated at regular intervals. :D

Thanks :D

Yes it is. Cancer is not an individual life form. Cancer does not have its own unique DNA. Cancer if left in its natural state will only grow into an inanimate cancer.
1. An embryo is not an indivudual life form until it preforms stimulus response as such, which does not occur until 20 weeks in.
2. Cancer does have its own unique DNA, if I"m not mistaken.
3. An embryo without contribution from the woman carrying it will not do anything other than rot.

How did you get that from what I said. Contreception is fine. It just lowers the posibilty of a woman getting pregnant which is fine.

Conctreception is essnetially keeping a potential baby from forming.

We would have a different best friend. An uncountable number of people are not born each day, either because they were miscarried or aborted or simply weren't conceived. Think of the millions of sperm from your best friend's dad that could've been your other best friend if only they had been a little faster... Miss them much? No, I didn't think so.

Yeah, actually I miss that little spermie because that probably would've been the friend who became a millionare and bought me that damnable mansion I've been trying to build with all these useless bricks. :D

Moving on... has anybody adressed the issue of whether whacking off is homicide or not?

But it's DNA is still simlar. A baby's DNA is not identical to it's mothers. Why shouldn't cancer have a right to live? I mean, they just what to survive! In essence, a cancer cell is a rebel human cell. It's life. It will not develope into a human, but it is still living.

A baby's DNA is completely unique to its mother. A cancer is not developing in a fashion that is remotely the same as an embryo. All an embryo is, is a human in the earliest possible state of life. You cannot disprove that.

Because of course if they got pregnant by being raped, it was probably their own fault.

Of course. They were probably prancing on the streets with revealing clothing, taunting the men, practically asking to be taken. Who can blame the poor fool who fell for her tricks?

I disagree with this premise, but that is irrelevant here.



Which post is it? My criteria for personhood is:
1) Living
2) Human
3) Individual



Life is not worth arguing. Human is all that the offspring of two humans can be. The entity has his/her own DNA and full chromosome count.

Sure, twins share DNA, but the DNA is regardlessly distinct from either parent.

Both conjoined twins are considered human individuals, though they depend on each other for life.



Like it or not, the trend of progressivism is to grant a MORE liberal understanding of human rights (and, most likely, nonhuman rights).



I think I've heard the argument of property rights over human rights somewhere before... are you sure you aren't right-wing?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9894469&postcount=530

Why does a living human individual necessarily have rights?

When discussing human life it very well does have a place in a discussion of legality.



So that justifies abortion? Because an embryo isn't human yet? If we know what it will become, how is that not murder? There's no doubt an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a seed will become a living breathing functioning human being...extinguishing an embryo is the same as extinguishing a human life. What stage of life it's in should have no relevence.
The same argument can also be applied to sperm cells and unfertilised eggs, though. Are menstruation and the sin of Onan also to be construed as murder?

But it's DNA is still simlar. A baby's DNA is not identical to it's mothers. Why shouldn't cancer have a right to live? I mean, they just what to survive! In essence, a cancer cell is a rebel human cell. It's life. It will not develope into a human, but it is still living.

That's a dumb argument. Cancer doesn't grow a brain and function like a normal human. It doesn't contribute to society...it doesn't create, write, sing, or perform all the other wondrous abilities the human mind and body are gifted with. Cancer and humans are two different things...they're not the least bit comparable.

So?

Assume it is a human life, why does it have rights?

I cannot believe you typed this. Well, I can, but... wow.

I mean, blacks and Jews are living humans, but why do they have rights? Man.

I am wondering where it is said in our system of laws that a women must give up her right to choose what to do with her body when she becomes pregnant.

Me too.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Being responable for your actions would be to have the child.

So - having a child is a punishment?

A baby's DNA is completely unique to its mother. A cancer is not developing in a fashion that is remotely the same as an embryo. All an embryo is, is a human in the earliest possible state of life. You cannot disprove that.

And you haven't offered anything to deny that it isn't even thinking or feeling anything prior to 20 weeks. It's got about as much emotion, thought, and soul as my little finger - probably less.

Am I going to get a reply to any of the posts I made?
Doesn't look like it, no. These things happen, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry, but did you just call a woman's body property and say she isn't human? Because that's how it came out.

The woman's body is her own property. Her life is not threatened (in most of these cases), so it is not a case of human rights.

Her comfort is threatened. So, it's human comfort over human right to exist? I repeat: are you sure you aren't right-wing?

A baby's DNA is completely unique to its mother. A cancer is not developing in a fashion that is remotely the same as an embryo. All an embryo is, is a human in the earliest possible state of life. You cannot disprove that.
Cancer can have DNA that is completley unique to its carrier
And how is it not the same? at the early stages (that we are talking about) it has a very similar multiplying effect of cells the mother does not actualy need

An ebryo deffinatly could fit under a cancerous heading

So - having a child is a punishment?

Depends on the child. Have you seen some of the hellions running about?! Have we gotten to the point yet where we can officially term an embryo a "parasitic organism"?

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]]
EEEEEEEEEEEEEwwwww...

I think that just turned me off having kids now.

A baby's DNA is completely unique to its mother. A cancer is not developing in a fashion that is remotely the same as an embryo. All an embryo is, is a human in the earliest possible state of life. You cannot disprove that.

Yes, I cannot refute the fact that an embryo is a human in the earliest possible state of life. Yes, it grows. But you cannot refute the fact that a fetus cannot take it's first breath of oxygen when removed right after sexual intercourse.

Which leads us all back to a definition war on whether or not life means capable of living, or life means. I will use websters for this one.

5 a : the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence <adult life> c : the period from an event until death <a judge appointed for life> d : a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life

and dictionary.com

#

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.


A removed embryo will quickly be a dead embryo. Nuff said.

Am I going to get a reply to any of the posts I made?

You should know better than to question the great Avalon's wise decisions of whom to reply. Shame on you.

Erm. I mean. No, probably not.

I cannot believe you typed this. Well, I can, but... wow.

I mean, blacks and Jews are living humans, but why do they have rights? Man.
He said human life not person ... there is a difference

Depending on how you take it my pinkey could be considered human life (it is alive and it has human DNA) does that mean my pinkey has rights?

1. An embryo is not an indivudual life form until it preforms stimulus response as such, which does not occur until 20 weeks in.

Wrong. By logic a blind man is not as alive as a seeing man. An embryo doesnt have to sense to be a sepreate entity. It has its own unique DNA which is vastly diffrent to that of the mother. While it is attached to the mother


2. Cancer does have its own unique DNA, if I"m not mistaken..

Only insofar as the error in a cancer cell that makes it over-replicate


3. An embryo without contribution from the woman carrying it will not do anything other than rot.

The natural state of an embryo is inside the woman reciveing these things. A human without contributions of food or water will do nothing but rot.

The same argument can also be applied to sperm cells and unfertilised eggs, though. Are menstruation and the sin of Onan also to be construed as murder?

No, the same argument can't be applied. Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience ejaculation and menstruation. It's a natural cycle whereas abortion is not. The fact that there are thousands of sperm cells in a male's body as opposed to one fertilized egg in an ovary destined for birth also holds water against your argument.

I cannot believe you typed this. Well, I can, but... wow.

I mean, blacks and Jews are living humans, but why do they have rights? Man.

The reasons that persons have rights is directly related to the criteria of personhood.

We believe persons have rights because entities with the qualities of a person are deserving of such rights for a mulititude of reasons (utilitarian, ontological, etc).

Simply because something is human and alive does not make it worthy of rights.

All living brain-functioning humans are persons.

But being a living human cell does not qualify one as a person.

Got it?

The woman's body is her own property. Her life is not threatened (in most of these cases), so it is not a case of human rights.

Her comfort is threatened. So, it's human comfort over human right to exist? I repeat: are you sure you aren't right-wing?
It's not human comfort oer human right to exist. The only human involved in this whole situation is the woman and she's going to exist either way (unless she dies in delivery, of course).

Are you sure you know anything about fetal development?

Depending on how you take it my pinkey could be considered human life (it is alive and it has human DNA) does that mean my pinkey has rights?

Is your pinky developing into its own seperate entity? I doubt it

That's a dumb argument. Cancer doesn't grow a brain and function like a normal human. It doesn't contribute to society...it doesn't create, write, sing, or perform all the other wondrous abilities the human mind and body are gifted with. Cancer and humans are two different things...they're not the least bit comparable.
Embryos don't do any of that stuff either, though.

Grianne makes a good point: far from trying to stop people having abortions (because it upsets God and Avalon) we should make the damn things compulsory.

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...

Now according to you the African American population is in decline or even and the caucasian growth rate is actually negative. Of course you show no source for these numbers or showed any causality with abortion. Now, when I asked for a source, your reply was -

What part? The Entire US Census?

So I can assume the US Census is an appropriate source. I posted directly from the census. Let's see what it says.

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

After reading the link - you said that it says exactly what you said -

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.

Hmmm... let's see what it actually says.

Following Asians in rate of growth were native Hawaiians and other Pacific islanders (1.7 percent, to 980,000), blacks (1.3 percent, to 39.2 million), American Indians and Alaska natives (1.0 percent, to 4.4 million) and whites (0.8 percent, to 239.9 million). The population of non-Hispanic whites who indicated no other race increased 0.3 percent, to 197.8 million.

Amazingly, you read this little tidbit and pretended like it agrees with your numbers, when it in fact shows that ALL populations are INCREASING (you suggest it shows whites in decline). It also shows that the black population is growing faster than the population as a whole.

And in just in case you're still confused, Ph33r, here is another table that shows that from the legalization of abortion until 1990 the black population increased by 32.8%, significantly higher than the national average of 22.4%. The ratio of the percentages between the black population and the entire population has remained pretty consistant with the two decades prior to the legalization of abortion. Hard to make the argument that abortion is making their population decline when they are actually growing.

http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

As far as my first link being useless, it shows the population growth slowed prior to the legalization of abortion and that the black population has grown faster than the average population growth for the last eighty years.

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

Since the slowing of growth occurred before 1973, it's not really possible to suggest legalized abortion caused it.

Now, would you like to try again?

No, the same argument can't be applied. Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience ejaculation and menstruation. It's a natural cycle whereas abortion is not. The fact that there are thousands of sperm cells in a male's body as opposed to one fertilized egg in an ovary destined for birth also holds water against your argument.

"Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience" abortion as well.

1. Natural abortions are common.

2. Abortion is thousands of years old. Man is part of nature and discovered how to carry out abortion.

Oops. There goes your argument.

It's not human comfort oer human right to exist. The only human involved in this whole situation is the woman and she's going to exist either way (unless she dies in delivery, of course).

Are you sure you know anything about fetal development?
It doesn't sound like it, no.
He doesn't seem to have considered that a child is for life, not just the nine months it spends as a parasite, either.

I think that the sum of Avalon's arguments are that men own women's bodies, and can force them to have babies by a) raping them, and b) preventing them from having an abortion.

He hasn't refuted that heinous line of thought, either.

Embryos don't do any of that stuff either, though.

But they develop into something that can do those things; cancer doesn't do that. Of course, I'm sure you knew that.

Cancer can have DNA that is completley unique to its carrier
And how is it not the same? at the early stages (that we are talking about) it has a very similar multiplying effect of cells the mother does not actualy need

An ebryo deffinatly could fit under a cancerous heading

It is the form of development the cancer takes and the embryo takes.

Yeah, actually I miss that little spermie because that probably would've been the friend who became a millionare and bought me that damnable mansion I've been trying to build with all these useless bricks. :D

LOL!

Moving on... has anybody adressed the issue of whether whacking off is homicide or not?

They have. It has been dismissed. Please don't bring it up again.

But they develop into something that can do those things; cancer doesn't do that. Of course, I'm sure you knew that.

Technically cancer can do things, just not in the terms of a human life.

I think that the sum of Avalon's arguments are that men own women's bodies, and can force them to have babies by a) raping them, and b) preventing them from having an abortion.

He hasn't refuted that heinous line of thought, either.

I dont agree with rape, I never said that. I dont support rape in any way. I dont support abortion either. I hate both abortion and the circumstances which lead to the supposed nessecity of abortions.

But they develop into something that can do those things; cancer doesn't do that. Of course, I'm sure you knew that.
They can develop into something that can do that. It doesn't follow that they will, though. Most people don't, after all.

That's a dumb argument. Cancer doesn't grow a brain and function like a normal human. It doesn't contribute to society...it doesn't create, write, sing, or perform all the other wondrous abilities the human mind and body are gifted with. Cancer and humans are two different things...they're not the least bit comparable.

But how do you know?? Maybe it would've if only you'd given it a chance!! T_T

Wrong. By logic a blind man is not as alive as a seeing man. An embryo doesnt have to sense to be a sepreate entity. It has its own unique DNA which is vastly diffrent to that of the mother. While it is attached to the mother
No, that's one of the requirements for life, the ability to perform stimulus response. I'm sorry if you haven't taken a biology class ever.
And no, a blind man isn't less alive than a seeing man, the ability to perform any stimulus response is what counts. So a bacteria that reacts to different concentrations of nutrients in the water or different tempreature without being able to see or hear or touch or taste counts.
It's not just the 5 senses that matter.

Only insofar as the error in a cancer cell that makes it over-replicate
Still unique DNA.

The natural state of an embryo is inside the woman reciveing these things.
And the natural state of a woman's womb is to be empty. What's your point?

Hell, if you want to argue what's natural, in the wild, animals abandon or kill young they are unable to care for. But hey, if you want to go for the natural approach, then I propose you clean up the mess.

"Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience" abortion as well.

1. Natural abortions are common.

What are you on about? Last time I checked a doctor sucking out your insides with a tube, giving you a pill that dissolves your "embryo" is anything but natural.

2. Abortion is thousands of years old. Man is part of nature and discovered how to carry out abortion.

Oh, so now because man discovered it, it's a natural process. Cute.

Oops. There goes your argument.

Why? Because you made some baseless claims?

No, that's one of the requirements for life, the ability to perform stimulus response. I'm sorry if you haven't taken a biology class ever.
And no, a blind man isn't less alive than a seeing man, the ability to perform any stimulus response is what counts. So a bacteria that reacts to different concentrations of nutrients in the water or different tempreature without being able to see or hear or touch or taste counts.
It's not just the 5 senses that matter.


Still unique DNA.


And the natural state of a woman's womb is to be empty. What's your point?

Hell, if you want to argue what's natural, in the wild, animals abandon or kill young they are unable to care for. But hey, if you want to go for the natural approach, then I propose you clean up the mess.


*kneels*
Very good argument.

I dont agree with rape, I never said that. I dont support rape in any way. I dont support abortion either. I hate both abortion and the circumstances which lead to the supposed nessecity of abortions.

You said many times very clearly that a raped woman must be forced to have the baby.

Men rape women. It happens.

And you want the woman to bear the consequences.

So, men can rape women and you will force them to have the babies.

That's exactly what you said.

Oh? in a lot of ways it is very simmilar to a cancerous growth
In more ways than one, and not just before birth, judging by the way some of these arguments are going -- they just grow and grow, sucking up energy, becoming nothing, and going nowhere.

Got it?

Not precisely, but I looked at your list.

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

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

The comatose. The downright sleeping. The unconscious. Newborn infants who have no idea about their surroundings.

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

I'd wager that newborns have no greater concept of a "self" than most animals.

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

Rudimentary meaning what? Newborns will not understand anything you tell them. They do not plan or reason.

-being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
-being able to have emotions.

These are the only two that develop in the womb. Even many of our emotions don't manifest themselves until our teen years. ;)

EDIT: Concerning the sperm and egg argument. These will not grow more into people without fertilisation with each other. Only 23 chromosomes. Not individual.

So - having a child is a punishment?

Yup. Fornication is punishable with 18 - 20 years restricted freedoms, no probation. I hope that teaches you that crime just ain't worth it.

Technically cancer can do things, just not in the terms of a human life.

Which was the point I was trying to make.I didn't say cancer couldn't develop, I said it couldn't develop into a human that could think write, and read. Or maybe you know something I don't.

But how do you know?? Maybe it would've if only you'd given it a chance!! T_T

Isn't that adorable. Let's mock me instead of making valid points. You're a regular thinking man.

Yup. Fornication is punishable with 18 - 20 years restricted freedoms, no probation. I hope that teaches you that crime just ain't worth it.
:D Only redeeming part of this thread

And mr Dulles, it is a child, has in fact been a child since conception, you don't have to like it or agree with it for it to be true. :p

And stating it as though it were fact, will not make it so, either.

A blastocyst is not a child, is it?

Is an egg a child?

No, that's one of the requirements for life, the ability to perform stimulus response. I'm sorry if you haven't taken a biology class ever.
And no, a blind man isn't less alive than a seeing man, the ability to perform any stimulus response is what counts.

So someone who had lost all their sense abilitys is thus dead? Your arguement in this system stems from "It hasnt got them yet, we can kill it before it does". You seem to forget that it has both the DNA to develop such systems and the DNA is acting to do so.


Still unique DNA.

But the uniqe DNA cannot create a person in the same way embryo DNA does


And the natural state of a woman's womb is to be empty. What's your point?


Stop doging the issue. You said that an embryo left to itself rots. I said that the natural state of an embryo is to be in the womb so it wont rot, and more to the point we would rot if it wernt for food etc. Thus your point that it is not independt thus not alive is moot

The comatose. The downright sleeping. The unconscious. Newborn infants who have no idea about their surroundings.
If you prick them with a pin, they'll still react unless they're brain dead.

Which was the point I was trying to make.I didn't say cancer couldn't develop, I said it couldn't develop into a human that could think write, and read. Or maybe you know something I don't.


Cancer...under extreme circumstances.....can learn to read and write. They take over the body, and eventually become the human body. Can't you see them all around you? They're planning an rebellion to destroy the world, and make the entire world a place for cancer cells only!

An animal cannot read or write. I'm also not quite sure you mean by think, because a cancer cell still emits chemicals to grow new blood vessels whenever the tumor requires more nutrients. It can still, "think," in a basic level, it just doesn't have the ability to think on a higher scale (frontal lobe of the brain), nor does it have a very nice hard drive to save data on. Though it still knows whether or not it's starving.

No, the same argument can't be applied. Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience ejaculation and menstruation. It's a natural cycle whereas abortion is not. The fact that there are thousands of sperm cells in a male's body as opposed to one fertilized egg in an ovary destined for birth also holds water against your argument.

Then how come it happens all by itself "up to 78%" of the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalence)?

You said many times very clearly that a raped woman must be forced to have the baby.

Men rape women. It happens.

And you want the woman to bear the consequences.

So, men can rape women and you will force them to have the babies.

That's exactly what you said.

Yes, but that doesnt mean I support rape!

Then how come it happens all by itself "up to 78%" of the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#Prevalence)?

Miscarriage is not abortion. Its an accident. Had you said miscarriage we would have all understood. Dillebrately withholding the word was just an effort to make the opposing side look stupid. The fact is you did not explain yourself

Yes, but that doesnt mean I support rape!
Though in a way you agree that it is the women who has to accept concequences dealing with rape.

Is an egg a child?

Nope. Its not growing. Move on Grave.

Though in a way you agree that it is the women who has to accept concequences dealing with rape.

Yes. But that doenst mean I think rape is right.

Not precisely, but I looked at your list.



The comatose. The downright sleeping. The unconscious. Newborn infants who have no idea about their surroundings.



I'd wager that newborns have no greater concept of a "self" than most animals.



Rudimentary meaning what? Newborns will not understand anything you tell them. They do not plan or reason.



These are the only two that develop in the womb. Even many of our emotions don't manifest themselves until our teen years. ;)

EDIT: Concerning the sperm and egg argument. These will not grow more into people without fertilisation with each other. Only 23 chromosomes. Not individual.

You are now arguing that newborns are not persons. I disagree. Newborns meet my criteria and you've done a poor job of showing otherwise.

I assume you concede that fetuses and embryos are not persons.

Moreover, newborns no longer occupy a woman's body so there is no conflict of rights.

So someone who had lost all their sense abilitys is thus dead? Your arguement in this system stems from "It hasnt got them yet, we can kill it before it does". You seem to forget that it has both the DNA to develop such systems and the DNA is acting to do so.
Someone's not going to lose all their sense abilities unless they're brain dead, in which case, yes they are dead. Look at that Terry Shiavo incident a while back.
And since the embryo is not an individual life, there is not really an "it" to "kill".

But the uniqe DNA cannot create a person in the same way embryo DNA does
How do you know?
Not that that matters, since your argument was that the fact that an embryo has unique DNA and its cells are dividing, it is an individual life. So by your argument, cancer is an individual life.

Stop doging the issue. You said that an embryo left to itself rots. I said that the natural state of an embryo is to be in the womb so it wont rot, and more to the point we would rot if it wernt for food etc. Thus your point that it is not independt thus not alive is moot
Your whole argument is moot. We as individual human beings do not depend on other human beings like parasites for our nutrients. Since we do not act as parasites, we can obtain our own food or if someone chooses to provide us with food, that will do as well. The point being that someone is choosing to provide us with food if we are unable to go get it. If we are left to fend for ourselves and cannot obtain our own food... well, that's what the survival of the fittest is all about, isn't it?

Yes, but that doesnt mean I support rape!
It means, in effect, that men in your ideal society can rape women, and even if you were to execute the men, their goal of impregnating a woman would not only be achieved, but would be guaranteed - by YOU.

Originally Posted by Dakini
It's not human comfort oer human right to exist.

...because...

The only human involved in this whole situation is the woman

Wrong. That person inside her is indeed very human, with his/her own developing body.

and she's going to exist either way (unless she dies in delivery, of course).

Agreed. I'm for abortions when the mother's life is threatened; one life to save another and all.

But, otherwise, you prove my point by saying the woman will exist either way. So it is, in fact, comfort over life.

I would have missed this one if Cahnt hadn't posted it; so many in this thread. Is this a hot-button issue or something? ;)

Yes. But that doenst mean I think rape is right.

This basically throws out the, "The women has to take responsibility," argument, because the rapist is not taking responsibility for what he's doing.

Miscarriage is not abortion. Its an accident. Had you said miscarriage we would have all understood. Dillebrately withholding the word was just an effort to make the opposing side look stupid. The fact is you did not explain yourself

Miscarriage -
2 : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation

Abortion -
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy -- compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION


See the difference? He was talking about spontaneous abortions, not miscarriages.

:D Only redeeming part of this thread

Aw, thanks! :D

How did you get that from what I said. Contreception is fine. It just lowers the posibilty of a woman getting pregnant which is fine.
Sorry, but that seems to me like another self-contradiction. If women must accept the possibility of pregnancy as part of having sex, then why should they be given the option of avoiding it?

Are you suggesting that having sex and being pregnant are two different states subject to different rules? I would agree with that, but I would say that it undermines your argument that pregnancy is a possible result of having sex and therefore the woman who chooses to have sex cannot decide to abort a pregnancy because she must take responsibility for the decision to have sex.

Once again, Avalon, you are arguing two opposite views at the same time.

Obviously, if you are saying that a woman has the right to choose not to get pregnant but no right to decide to stop being pregnant, then sex decisions and pregnancy decisions are two different sets of decisions, and arguments concerning abortion cannot hinge on the conditions that control having sex.

What are you on about? Last time I checked a doctor sucking out your insides with a tube, giving you a pill that dissolves your "embryo" is anything but natural.
Abortions work by inducing a miscarriage. Miscarriages have been part of nature ever since mammals stopped laying eggs/the Lord created his perfect creation in 7 days.

Miscarriage is not abortion. Its an accident. Had you said miscarriage we would have all understood. Dillebrately withholding the word was just an effort to make the opposing side look stupid. The fact is you did not explain yourself
Miscarriage is too an abortion. It is a spontaneous one.

You made yourself look stupid by not knowing this.

Miscarriage is not abortion. Its an accident. Had you said miscarriage we would have all understood. Dillebrately withholding the word was just an effort to make the opposing side look stupid. The fact is you did not explain yourself

Medically, miscarriage is referred to as spontaneous abortion.

It is a removal of the embryo or fetus without human intervention.

Abortion is merely the removal of the embryo or fetus with human intervention. Humans are part of nature.



(BTW, this makes you potentiality argument weaker as well.)

Miscarriage is not abortion. Its an accident. Had you said miscarriage we would have all understood. Dillebrately withholding the word was just an effort to make the opposing side look stupid. The fact is you did not explain yourself

It's the same thing. Some languages (like, say, mine) don't even have distinguishing words for them. If you read a little further up the article, you'll see that "In medical terms, any terminated pregnancy is an abortion, whether the abortion is deliberately induced or not. Natural deaths (miscarriages) are termed spontaneous abortions."

You might be wondering, Avalon, why nearly everyone strongly disagrees with you...

Take a minute to ask yourself how wrong you might be.

Medically, miscarriage is referred to as spontaneous abortion.

It is a removal of the embryo or fetus without human intervention.

Abortion is merely the removal of the embryo or fetus with human intervention. Humans are part of nature.



(BTW, this makes you potentiality argument weaker as well.)

Actually, it's only a spontaneous abortion for the first twelve weeks, then it becomes a miscarriage.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

Wrong. That person inside her is indeed very human, with his/her own developing body.
I'm wrong according to you. There's a difference of opinion here, obviously and who the hell do you think you are that you get to force your opinion on others?

Agreed. I'm for abortions when the mother's life is threatened; one life to save another and all.
And women are much more likely to die in childbirth than through having an abortion. Yes, even in western countries. The mother's life is always threatened by a pregnancy.

But, otherwise, you prove my point by saying the woman will exist either way. So it is, in fact, comfort over life.
As I pointed out, there is a chance that the woman might not survive the ordeal and if she doesn't want to have a kid, that may not be a risk she is willing to take.

Actually, it's only a spontaneous abortion for the first twelve weeks, then it becomes a miscarriage.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html
Most (90% of...) abortions happen within the first 12 weeks too. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

Yes, but that doesnt mean I support rape!
But it doesn't mean you support the woman who has been raped, either.
I'm reading this thread and it amazes me the lack of progress any of these arguments are making with you. You're a tree.

Actually, it's only a spontaneous abortion for the first twelve weeks, then it becomes a miscarriage.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/mplusdictionary.html

90% of medical abortions occur within the first 12 weeks.

No, that's one of the requirements for life, the ability to perform stimulus response. I'm sorry if you haven't taken a biology class ever.

Keep in mind that the wizards who made this "requirements for life" list decided that ability to reproduce was one of the criteria.

Sorry, mules. You can't live, for you flaw our religious dogmas of biology.

You are now arguing that newborns are not persons. I disagree.

Oh, as do I. I was merely using your criteria.

Newborns meet my criteria and you've done a poor job of showing otherwise.

You have openly stated, with a metaphorically straight face, that the unconscious (while living) have no civil rights.

Whether they wake up or not when pricked with a pin is inconsequential; besides, the comatose don't.

You have also stated that only those with a concept of "self" can be considered a person. According to your list, Koko the gorilla has more inherent rights than a newborn human child.

Which can actually stand as an argument. But if that's your argument, then make it. Don't present us this joke of a list and then waffle on it.

Moreover, newborns no longer occupy a woman's body so there is no conflict of rights.

I again direct you to the case of conjoined twins who cannot survive without each other. Not one person, but two.

So - having a child is a punishment?
I've always thought so. That's why I won't get pregnant. They'll never get me!!:D

I'm wrong according to you. There's a difference of opinion here, obviously and who the hell do you think you are that you get to force your opinion on others?

The weakest of the anti-anti-abortion legislation arguments. It is my opinion that murder is bad, as is thievery. Even libertarians support forcing this opinion on others.

You have openly stated, with a metaphorically straight face, that the unconscious (while living) have no civil rights.

Whether they wake up or not when pricked with a pin is inconsequential; besides, the comatose don't.

You have also stated that only those with a concept of "self" can be considered a person. According to your list, Koko the gorilla has more inherent rights than a newborn human child.

Which can actually stand as an argument. But if that's your argument, then make it. Don't present us this joke of a list and then waffle on it.

I am not waffling on the list. (And it isn't mine - it is one adopted by many philosophers.)

Your argument about the unconcious is specious as it confuses capacity with current usage. Merely because you are not using something does not mean you do not have it.

Koko arguably does have a better claim to personhood than a newborn -- although you seriously understimate the capacity of a newborn child. They do have a concept of "self"

Capable of being a human life is a quality of a right to life

There is no such thing as an empirical 'right to life'.

The ONLY rights we have, are what we allow.

90% of medical abortions occur within the first 12 weeks.

Oh, I'm not arguing against legalized abortion or against your point. I just wanted to close the nitpick door before the opposition pointed it out and then derailed the debate. Carry on.

The weakest of the anti-anti-abortion legislation arguments. It is my opinion that murder is bad, as is thievery. Even libertarians support forcing this opinion on others.

Because they harm other persons.

Abortion doesn't harm a person.

Forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will harms a person.

A libertarian should easily be pro-choice.

The weakest of the anti-anti-abortion legislation arguments. It my opinion that murder is bad, as is thievery. Even libertarians support forcing this opinion on others.
Libertarians support forcing women to bear children they don't want? What the hell kind of libertarians have you been talking to.

Furthermore, how is your uninformed opinion on a subject good enough to force it on women whose lives can be changed radically by such a decision. You don't know the truth here and I might not either, so you know, fuck it and let these people deciede on their own.

Also, I'm pretty sure everyone can see where stealign is wrong, whereas we both disagree on the state of living a fetus or an embryo has as to many others...

Although, when you consider that the majority of the population both the U.S. and Canada considers the right to choose necessary... you're in the minority buddy.

The Supreme Court also said that it's perfectly legal for the government, be it local, state or federal, to take your property and build a school on it, or allow it to be sold to a developer so that it can generate a higher tax base for the community. Does that mean that it's right as well? :confused:

Got a source?

I thought it was only a couple of States that were in the process of allowing Eminent Domain for economic reasons... and that, Federally, there was currently a moratorium being imposed to halt that?

Where is Cat-Tribes when I need him....

I am not waffling on the list. (And it isn't mine - it is one adopted by many philosophers.)

Yeah. And my stance isn't mine--it is one adopted by many philosophers, too.

Your argument about the unconcious is specious as it confuses capacity with current usage. Merely because you are not using something does not mean you do not have it.

No, just that you have the potential to have it. Not all humans may have the rationale for sophisticated comprehension, but they develop this throughout their lives. Still, we don't make a policy of killing people who have yet to develop this.

We grow and develop our entire lives.

Koko arguably does have a better claim to personhood than a newborn -- although you seriously understimate the capacity of a newborn child. They do have a concept of "self"

As do raccoons.

Wrong. By logic a blind man is not as alive as a seeing man. An embryo doesnt have to sense to be a sepreate entity. It has its own unique DNA which is vastly diffrent to that of the mother. While it is attached to the mother

That's some logic you got there, pal. I know some (apparently illogical) blind people who would disagree with you. But I guess this is the same logic that let's you say women's rights can be tossed out the window in favor of fetuses' rights.

All are equal but some are more equal than others, eh?

Because they harm other persons.
Abortion doesn't harm a person.
Forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will harms a person.
A libertarian should easily be pro-choice.

Beating a slave to death doesn't harm a person, either. Beating a pagan or infidel also escapes harming a person. As does killing off an adulterous woman. Or a traitor to the nation. None of these are people. A libertarian should easily be for all of these.

Oversimplification? Of course. But, so is your own counter.

Yeah. And my stance isn't mine--it is one adopted by many philosophers, too.

No, just that you have the potential to have it. Not all humans may have the rationale for sophisticated comprehension, but they develop this throughout their lives. Still, we don't make a policy of killing people who have yet to develop this.

We grow and develop our entire lives.

As do raccoons.


You apply the criteria as a whole. Satisfying one element does not make a raccoon a person.

Nor did the criteria require "sophisticated comprehension". To the contrary it refered to rudimentary consciousness.

You have yet to make a good argument against my criteria.

EDIT: BTW, I made no appeal to authority. I merely corrected your assumption that I arbitrarily made up my criteria.

Koko arguably does have a better claim to personhood than a newborn -- although you seriously understimate the capacity of a newborn child. They do have a concept of "self"

As do raccoons.

That is one enlightened raccoon you got there.

Beating a slave to death doesn't harm a person, either. Beating a pagan or infidel also escapes harming a person. As does killing off an adulterous woman. Or a traitor to the nation. None of these are people. A libertarian should easily be for all of these.

Where did you pull that out of??

Wrong. By logic a blind man is not as alive as a seeing man. An embryo doesnt have to sense to be a sepreate entity. It has its own unique DNA which is vastly diffrent to that of the mother. While it is attached to the mother

That's some logic you got there, pal. I know some (apparently illogical) blind people who would disagree with you. But I guess this is the same logic that let's you say women's rights can be tossed out the window in favor of fetuses' rights.

Person A: "If you say 13-year olds are not alive because they have so much more to develop, you could argue that the disabled person is also not alive."

Person B: "That's some logic you got there, pal. I know some (apparently illogical) disabled people who would disagree. But I guess this is the same logic that lets you say a parent's right to kill its 13-year old for financial necessity can be defenestrated in favor of whippersnappers' rights."

Oh, it's been fun, but I really have to get back to work. Maybe I'll come back over later, but it'll probably be so flooded... ah well. Take care for now! :D

Beating a slave to death doesn't harm a person, either. Beating a pagan or infidel also escapes harming a person. As does killing off an adulterous woman. Or a traitor to the nation. None of these are people. A libertarian should easily be for all of these.

Oversimplification? Of course. But, so is your own counter.
That is absolutely disgusting and horribly wrong. All those people you mentioned are undeniably living human beings.

Just because you can't prove that a fetus is an individual living human being doesn't mean you get to be all racist, mysoginistic and disgusting on us.

I'm through with this debate.

Yes, but that doesnt mean I support rape!
No, you just want to punish the woman for being the victim of it.

Beating a slave to death doesn't harm a person, either. Beating a pagan or infidel also escapes harming a person. As does killing off an adulterous woman. Or a traitor to the nation. None of these are people. A libertarian should easily be for all of these.

Oversimplification? Of course. But, so is your own counter.

I said abortion does not harm a person. I gave objective criteria for what a person is. That objective criteria is directly tied to why we recognize rights at all.

In all of the parade of horribles you make, the victim is a person under the objective criteria.

So your argument is non-responsive.

EDIT: I also stated that every born, living, breathing human being is a person. So you knew your argument was specious.

EDIT2: If you were trying to make a point about how their can't or shouldn't be a criteria for personhood, you also fail. How do we know it is OK to eat a cow, but not to kill our neighbor?

Okay, I just had to answer the raccoon one. Then I'll stop until tonight. :D

That is one enlightened raccoon you got there.

Not really.

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

Easily applicable to raccoons.

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

Again, how rudimentary is this? I'd wager that the newborn human and the adult raccoon have at least equal understanding of themselves as "selves".

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

Just watch a raccoon fish. No newborn could pull that off.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure

Which is it, sentience or feeling of pain/pleasure? Raccoons feel pain/pleasure, as do newborns. I'd argue that neither have achieved "sentience". A newborn, however, has the potential to develop this sentience.

being able to have emotions.

I know that domesticated dogs have emotions, or they fake it really well. With enough raccoon experience, I'd probably find the same.

It is a flawed criteria. If the criteria is not flawed, we should be giving more rights to intelligent animals and extending abortion lengths until after birth.

The mother should not be used as any kind of slave as that is a loss of personal freedom, not freedom to bodyily control.

And a loss of bodily control is not a loss of personal freedom? Are you claiming that a slaveowner is not exerting "property rights" over the body of another, such that said person loses bodily control?

All the slaves who were forced into work against their will, beaten, and sold would probably disagree.

Yes it is. Cancer is not an individual life form. Cancer does not have its own unique DNA.

On the contrary, cancer does have its own unique DNA. If it had the same DNA as the rest of the organism, it wouldn't be able to develop into cancer...

Meanwhile, by your definition, a chimera is two persons. The woman whose reproductive system was from a different zygote than the rest of her body is two persons, with her reproductive system being its own person. Therefore, she cannot have a hysterectomy if she wants one.

By your definition, monozygotic twins or triplets are one person, instead of two or three.

Cancer if left in its natural state will only grow into an inanimate cancer.

Cancer is hardly "inanimate." It is just as alive as any of your organs, and displays no less characteristics of life than an embryo/early fetus.

It is a flawed criteria. If the criteria is not flawed, we should be giving more rights to intelligent animals and extending abortion lengths until after birth.

This, even if true, would not necessarily make the criteria flawed.

Arguably we should extend more rights to intelligent animals. And the rights of newborns are severely limited already.

Most of the alleged flaws in the criteria actually come from your misunderstandings of biology and neurology.

Sorry for just jumping in on this, but I do love a good arguement.

I myself am pro-choice. Why should we allow religous groups and other extreme-right wingers to make the moral decisions for the whole country? I do not think it is wrong to have an abortion because I do not view a fetus as a human life until it is able to live on its own outside its mother's womb. So far I have not seen any convincing, scientific evidence to proove otherwise. Just because it could become a human, has the DNA of a human, and will eventually resemble a human does not mean it is deserving of human rights. When humans are fetuses, they resemble many different kinds of animals before they actually start to look like a human. Our DNA is also very close to many different animals. Does that mean we should arrest and jail every butcher?

I've seen lots of arguing going on about whether or not a raped woman should carry the child of the rapist to term. Tell me this: whould you still force that woman to carry the child if she were raped by her brother? Even though that the child could be born with horrible, painful defects and may possibly die anyways?

Women should be allowed to have sex without being "punished" just the same as men are. Sure, the states can tell the fathers to pay child support, but does that mean that they will pay it? No. I have friends who constantly have to hound their ex-husbands and nearly jail them because they do not pay their child support.

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

Again, how rudimentary is this? I'd wager that the newborn human and the adult raccoon have at least equal understanding of themselves as "selves".


I can't argue with you on this, I don't have an extensive knowlege of raccoons. I do agree that a newborn human has very little understanding of itself as an individual, but while humans develop this as they grow, non-sentient creatures seem to remain unaware of themselves. It looks pretty much "food = good", "pain = bad" to me. Being a good fisher by instinct doesn't mean they have any concept of self, and vice versa.

When discussing human life it very well does have a place in a discussion of legality.

The idea that it is a discussion of human life is, in and of itself, nothing more than an emotive response with no objective backing - unless you would like to provide some?

How you "feel" about it has nothing at all to do with whether or not is legal. I think promiscuity is wrong, as I think that sex should be reserved for a long-term, loving relationship between two people. However, I know that my gut feelings and beliefs have no place in the law, so I would never argue that promiscuity be made illegal.

In the law, there is no room for emotion. A judge who uses his emotion, instead of objective reasoning and interpretation of the law is seen as a poor judge. A lawmaker who makes laws based on his emotions ends up infringing upon the rights of others, with no objective backing.

So that justifies abortion? Because an embryo isn't human yet?

I didn't say it justified it. However, it is an objective reason that we cannot make abortion illegal. Only human persons are granted human rights. If an embryo cannot be objectively shown to be a human person, it is granted no human rights. It is as simple as that.

If we know what it will become, how is that not murder?

(a) We don't know that it will become anything. In fact, the chances of a fertilized egg actually becoming a viable human being is rather low.

(b) No, it isn't. If I have a hysterectomy right now, when I know that I could one day have children, is that committing murder? If not, neither is abortion of something that is not yet a human person. If I dig up a seed before it grows, have I cut down a tree?

There's no doubt an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a seed will become a living breathing functioning human being...

No doubt? So the fact that 50% of all known pregnancies (not to mention the ones we never even know about and those that actually end in stillbirth) end in miscarriage doesn't cast doubt on whether or not the embryo will become a "living, breathing, functioning human being"?

extinguishing an embryo is the same as extinguishing a human life.

Illogical. This is like saying that burning a packet of seeds is the same as burning a forest.

No, the same argument can't be applied. Whatever forces created us, whether natural or supernatural, intended for humans to experience ejaculation and menstruation. It's a natural cycle whereas abortion is not.

On the contrary. Most pregnancies spontaneously abort. Medical abortion is simply the woman making that choice on her own, just as a man makes the choice to ejaculate, and women can now (with the help of hormones) make the choice of whether or not to menstruate).

The fact that there are thousands of sperm cells in a male's body as opposed to one fertilized egg in an ovary destined for birth also holds water against your argument.

Would you really call odds of at least 50% against being born "destined for birth"?

First and foremost, if you're a man, you have no right to "make a rule" here. Why? 'cause it doesn't affect you at all. The moment a man can get pregnant, I will listen to his opinion about this.

I'm a man, so that's where I close.

No, you just want to punish the woman for being the victim of it.

Since when is being pregnant a punishment?

I dont want to punish women, I just dont want to see embryos die more than I dont want to see women pregnant who dont want it.

Since when is being pregnant a punishment?

....Since the person didn't want to be pregnant.

On the contrary. Most pregnancies spontaneously abort. Medical abortion is simply the woman making that choice on her own, just as a man makes the choice to ejaculate, and women can now (with the help of hormones) make the choice of whether or not to menstruate).

Would you really call odds of at least 50% against being born "destined for birth"?

Right so your arguement is that since most of them die naturally its ok to kill them? Then I guess its ok to kill all 76 year old men, since most men only live to 75

....Since the person didn't want to be pregnant.

So its more of a punishement for them to be pregnant than it is for the embryo to die?

First and foremost, if you're a man, you have no right to "make a rule" here. Why? 'cause it doesn't affect you at all. The moment a man can get pregnant, I will listen to his opinion about this.

I'm a man, so that's where I close.

Actually, I'm a woman and I disagree with this to an extent, but before I get hated upon my reasoning is this: I've seen way too many men have their hearts broken when they found out they were "going to be" a dad and the woman decided to have an abortion (usually this is in an instance where the woman decided to start seeing another man and it wasn't until she hooked up with this new guy that she decided to get an abortion).

In a world where I've encountered so many men who want nothing to do with their own children, I can't help but feel for a guy who wants to take part only to be denied. However, ultimately it is the woman's choice and I don't really see a justifiable reason to make it any other way. You just can't simply say it has no effect on a man whatsoever. That's the only part I have a disagreement with.

I certainly do: false analogy.

The pile of bricks will not grow into more of a house. The house will not continue developing until the moment it "dies".

Well I thought my argument was painfully simple and clear, but let me bear it out for you.

You are arguing that a fetus can be defined by what it can become, and I am proposing that to do so is ridiculous on epistemological grounds. A fetus is not unlike a pile of bricks in that it can develop into something else. The only difference between a pile of bricks and a fetus in terms of potential for change is that an outside force acts to build up the bricks and a natural force acts to build up the fetus.

But that distinction isn't totally clear, after all the fetus needs the help of its mother or modern medical science to survive, so that this natural force can do its work. So where is the false analogy?

Furthermore, if you take the potential definition to its rational extension you can say that the fetus is indeed a corpse, and you can't very well kill a corpse, so then there's no problem with abortion.

That's a whimsical worldview isn't it? Alcoholics are cured! Everyone's dead! President Bush is a good fit for his office!(Well, maybe I have gone too far...)

There you go, the problem of defining things by their potential is provided not by analogy but by reasonable logical extension of the rules you have provided.

Now I can tell what is going on in your head. You don't like what I said because it messes with your worldview and it refutes a helpful little argument. So... what are you going to say about my post...?

False analogy to some other part? Nah, remember this is only in regards with a things potential to be another thing. As long as my analogy includes something which has potential for change then I don't see how it matters whether I use a plant, an animal or a pile of bricks. How about this. A child has the potential to be an adult, so then children are adults? I mean that fits your "developing until death" corollary.

Ad hominem? Well... I do sound like an ass don't I? But let me clear this up, I think you're a great person but you are making a bad argument.

Slippery Slope? Nah, that doesn't work. There is no extended series of causation where I make many assumptions. In fact I only make two assumptions: (1) the fetus is alive; (2) all living things die. Thus by your method of definition the fetus is dead. But then if the fetus is dead then we have to drop the first assumption. If we drop the first assumption then we can't define the fetus as dead. I didn't create this self-destructive circle, your definition did. This is why we don't define things by what they can become, we never get anywhere.

There is no such thing as an empirical 'right to life'.

The ONLY rights we have, are what we allow.

So murder is acceptable, since there is no emperical "right to life". If your going to base rights on the emperical, you are going to have a very diffrent world

So its more of a punishement for them to be pregnant than it is for the embryo to die

Exactly. This is what I mean, Pro-Choice people's arguments dont make sense.

For instance, in my Public Speaking class, I am doing a debate on abortion. My partner and I are prolife, both my opponents are prochoice. Today, we were doing research, when my opponent came up to me and said "we are so going to win, we have the best proof!" and I said, "well, what is that proof, my friend?" and - comitting the worse mistake you could do before an argument- he told me that his argument was when a baby couldnt do an abortion, she threw her baby away in the trash.

What the hell?

So he's basicly saying "It's better to make it easier to kill the baby before its born instead of cracking down on not having it die".

Again.. .just annoying

But that distinction isn't totally clear, after all the fetus needs the help of its mother or modern medical science to survive, so that this natural force can do its work. So where is the false analogy?

Humans need the input of food, water and air to suvive and allow the natural process of growth to take place.


Furthermore, if you take the potential definition to its rational extension you can say that the fetus is indeed a corpse, and you can't very well kill a corpse, so then there's no problem with abortion.

That's a whimsical worldview isn't it? Alcoholics are cured! Everyone's dead! President Bush is a good fit for his office!(Well, maybe I have gone too far...)

There you go, the problem of defining things by their potential is provided not by analogy but by reasonable logical extension of the rules you have provided.


You misunderstand the potential arguement. We are not saying "the fact that it will develop into a human means we should give it its rights now". We are saying "the fact that it develops in this way means it is alive and seperate, thus it has a right to life.

Since when is being pregnant a punishment?

You clearly have never been pregnant. Morning sickness, breast tenderness, weight gain, less bladder control, mood swings, back pain, general swelling of...everything. The physical effects of pregnancy can get to be a bit overwhelming. To make somone live in a constant state of bloat against their will for nine months, I would venture to say, could be an effective form punishment.

I dont want to punish women, I just dont want to see embryos die more than I dont want to see women pregnant who dont want it.

Well, until we find a way to effectively avoid unwanted pregnancy 100% of the time, you cant have it both ways.

....Since the person didn't want to be pregnant.

So every time we have something done to us we dont want we are being "punished". You must have a sad, whiney world view.

So murder is acceptable, since there is no emperical "right to life". If your going to base rights on the emperical, you are going to have a very diffrent world

Actually, dependant upon one's point of view murder CAN be acceptable if it is done is self-defense for example. Just because things (like the death penalty) are called by another name doesn't mean they don't smell the same. If you are completely against murder then you wouldn't kill someone even if they were trying to kill you?

You clearly have never been pregnant. Morning sickness, breast tenderness, weight gain, less bladder control, mood swings, back pain, general swelling of...everything. The physical effects of pregnancy can get to be a bit overwhelming. To make somone live in a constant state of bloat against their will for nine months, I would venture to say, could be an effective form punishment.

Would you rather be dead or pregnant?


Well, until we find a way to effectively avoid unwanted pregnancy 100% of the time, you cant have it both ways.

Just not have sex unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences

Actually, dependant upon one's point of view murder CAN be acceptable if it is done is self-defense for example. Just because things (like the death penalty) are called by another name doesn't mean they don't smell the same. If you are completely against murder then you wouldn't kill someone even if they were trying to kill you?

Killing is acceptable in the kill or be killed scenario. Thus if the fetus threatens the life of the mother (IE if it continues to exist she will die) then the situation is kill or be killed and thus abortion is justifed. The point though G&I was making is that there is no emprical right to life. If thats true then I can kill him whenever I want.

We are saying "the fact that it develops in this way means it is alive and seperate, thus it has a right to life.

But a fetus is not alive nor seperate. In fact, it is very much connected and dependent upon its mother. Fetuses are parasidic in nature and definition.

That's a whimsical worldview isn't it? Alcoholics are cured! Everyone's dead! President Bush is a good fit for his office!(Well, maybe I have gone too far...)

That's just crazy talk.

Humans need the input of food, water and air to suvive and allow the natural process of growth to take place.

Which goes to my point that the source of the force makes no difference with regards to my bricks analogy. I knew you would see the light!

You misunderstand the potential arguement. We are not saying "the fact that it will develop into a human means we should give it its rights now". We are saying "the fact that it develops in this way means it is alive and seperate, thus it has a right to life.

Statement 1: That the fetus will develop…

Statement 2: That the fetus develops…

Statement 1: into a human…

Statement 2: in this way [meaning human]…

Statement 1: means that we respect its rights [assuming personhood].

Statement 2: means that it is a person [given the definition of person is a living individual] so that we should respect its rights.

Eh… yay for repetition?

Your post was not only wrong it was also not right.

That's just crazy talk.

Yes, but it is a bit charming no? :)

Would you rather be dead or pregnant?

Pregnant. That's fixable with an abortion.

Killing is acceptable in the kill or be killed scenario. Thus if the fetus threatens the life of the mother (IE if it continues to exist she will die) then the situation is kill or be killed and thus abortion is justifed. The point though G&I was making is that there is no emprical right to life. If thats true then I can kill him whenever I want.

Well... it was his idea. If it's ok by him then where do we start? (J/K).

I have come to an interesting idea in that it seems most people agree there are certain circumstances where abortion is "ok" so let's put every woman who wants to have an abortion through a "just cause" trial to determine whether or not the procedure is deemed justifiable. Of course, by the time said trial was over, it would probably be too late in the pregnancy to do so. Oh well another far-fetched idea down the drain.

Would you rather be dead or pregnant?

Neither. And thankfully, women have more choices than that! The problem is that, in many countries, especially those led my religious leadres/fanatics/fundementalists those are the only two women get!


Just not have sex unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences

Married women get abortions. Are you going to suggest that if you get married, you cannot have sex with your husband until you are financially stable? Or if you already have one or more children, you cannot have sex again until you are ready for another? Abortion does not apply only to slutty street-whores who walk around with little or no self control over who they fuck. Abortion applies, has been experienced by, and will continue to be an option for women of all races, classes, and marital situations.

Including myself.

Yes, but it is a bit charming no? :)

Bush being fit for his office? No. But let's not turn political... er, more political.

Killing is acceptable in the kill or be killed scenario. Thus if the fetus threatens the life of the mother (IE if it continues to exist she will die) then the situation is kill or be killed and thus abortion is justifed. The point though G&I was making is that there is no emprical right to life. If thats true then I can kill him whenever I want.

That's not true. I can kill someone to protect my person even if it is likely they won't kill me. If in order to protect my person I must injure their person and nothing short of killing them will stop them from injuring me, then I am permitted to cause their death. If a person is about to rape me, killing them to defend myself is justified. One could argue childbirth is every bit as traumatic as rape.

Bush being fit for his office? No. But let's not turn political... er, more political.

Heh.

I meant more the everyone is dead, alcoholics are cured sort of thing.

Heh.

I meant more the everyone is dead, alcoholics are cured sort of thing.

Oh, that. Yeah, that I agree with. By Avalon's logic, we're all corpses.