NationStates Jolt Archive

Right so your arguement is that since most of them die naturally its ok to kill them?

I have made no such argument. All I have done is point out an erroneous argument - ie. that the embryo is necessariy "destined" to become a human person.

Please try to stick to arguments that have actually been made, instead of building pretty little strawmen.

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

Abortion certainly isn't punishment to a woman who has decided she wants it. The only way it could be used as punishment is if it was forced on a woman who wants to continue her pregnancy - something no one here has advocated.

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

When that something infringes on basic human rights? Absolutely.


I have a question for you Avalon, and I want a clear and honest answer. Suppose we put the logical conclusion of your arguments into effect. I would assume that your arguments extend to actual entities we can objectively define as human persons, no?

Imagine the following situation:

You receive government notice that you are a match for Betty Smith, who needs a kidney. You are ordered to report to Hospital X on the following week and you will receive your bill after the surgery. You will be scarred and one kidney short, but people survive just fine on one kidney. Your bill will be huge, but you will have saved a human life that would have otherwise been lost.

Three months after you have recovered, you get another notice telling you that you are a match for John Stivy, a 6-year old who needs a new liver. You are ordered to report to Hospital Y on the following week, where they will take a portion of your liver to give to the child. You will be fine afterwards. The liver regenerates. You are presented with a huge bill for the surgery. You are still paying for the kidney one, but it's no problem.

Your boss is starting to get angry about all the missed time at work. He is threatening to fire you.

Six months after recovering from your liver surgery, you receive notification that you are a bone marrow match for Susan Bartley, a leukemia patient. She lives 3000 miles away, and you are ordered to report to a hospital in her town to provide bone marrow for her. You're beginning to get a little sick of all of this, so you refuse. You are then placed in jail for murder.

Would you agree that you committed murder?

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.

And this is where everyone else disagrees. First you say things that aren't human like animals have no right to life. Now just because the embryo can develop into a person does not mean it is a seperate organism which can fend for itself. An embryo is dependent on the mother for food, shelter, and other essential functions. It has no seperate concious and does not react to stimuli until such time as it does develop into a seperate person. Now the issue here is one of conflict. It is a conflict between the mother and the embryo. Now when dealing with this a mother's right to choose what to do with her body is at stake and the embryo's life is at stake. Now when it comes to an issue dealing with rights we must inherently side with the mother because she is an actual person. The embryo itself is not a person and has no rights because of this. It is in the same way one would argue the point on wheter or not we can eat an animal for food. The animal itself not being human has no rights and therefore we must side with the humans on the issue.

Also there were a few points I made in previous posts that were never addressed. The one that I find most important was where avalon said that by having sex a woman consented to the possibility of having a child and surrendered her right to choose what to do with her body. I want to know where in our system of laws this is written. Because if it is not in our system of laws then that statement is not a fact merely an opinion of avalon.

Pregnant. That's fixable with an abortion.I was initially going to say 'dead', because I can think of no greater horrors than giving birth or becoming a mother, which sadly would, in and of itself, result from a pregnancy. But your answer suits very well :)

If abortion were not an option - legal, illegal, whatever - I would kill myself if I got up the duff. I wouldn't refrain from sex; there are plenty of things we enjoy doing that could potentially have horrid consequences despite our best efforts, yet we do them anyway. I mean, employing the argument that you shouldn't have sex in case you get up the duff is like saying you shouldn't leave your house in case you trip and fall in front of a car. Or even that you shouldn't stay in your house in case it burns down / gets broken into by an axe murderer / etc. There are small chances of these things happening, so we do our best to prevent them, but otherwise carry on as normal. Same principle, as far as I can see. Sex is a normal part of happy relationships.

To say that a couple who don't want to procreate should refrain from sexual intercourse at least until they are in their twilight years is desperately cruel.

Luckily, though, I won't have to refrain from sex or commit suicide, because it's not difficult to get rid of the thing :)

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! .

The point about "dead or pregnant" is to make people see that the loss of bodyly control to the woman is less of a encrochment on rights than is the loss of life of the embryo


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.


I think that you should not really have sex unless you are prepared for a pregnancy. However you can lower the chance of an outcome of a pregnancy by using contreception and thus have sex more. But abortion should not be considered an option by anyone.

I have a question for you Avalon, and I want a clear and honest answer. Suppose we put the logical conclusion of your arguments into effect. I would assume that your arguments extend to actual entities we can objectively define as human persons, no?

Imagine the following situation:

You receive government notice that you are a match for Betty Smith, who needs a kidney. You are ordered to report to Hospital X on the following week and you will receive your bill after the surgery. You will be scarred and one kidney short, but people survive just fine on one kidney. Your bill will be huge, but you will have saved a human life that would have otherwise been lost.

Three months after you have recovered, you get another notice telling you that you are a match for John Stivy, a 6-year old who needs a new liver. You are ordered to report to Hospital Y on the following week, where they will take a portion of your liver to give to the child. You will be fine afterwards. The liver regenerates. You are presented with a huge bill for the surgery. You are still paying for the kidney one, but it's no problem.

Your boss is starting to get angry about all the missed time at work. He is threatening to fire you.

Six months after recovering from your liver surgery, you receive notification that you are a bone marrow match for Susan Bartley, a leukemia patient. She lives 3000 miles away, and you are ordered to report to a hospital in her town to provide bone marrow for her. You're beginning to get a little sick of all of this, so you refuse. You are then placed in jail for murder.

Would you agree that you committed murder?

Flaws in your scenerio

1: You should not be charged for the donation of an organ - as you were required to do so. I am British and thus the NHS would deal with this for me

2: The fact that you are demanded to take ths time off work by the government would mean your boss would not be able to fire you.

3: It would only be murder if there was no one else in the entire world who could supply that bone marrow.

4. If the governemnt forced you to report there then you should legally be compensated for the travel expenses along with the medical bill. In the UK there are extensive procedures of this sort for compensating you for fuel costs etc when you go to do jury duty.

Flaws in your scenerio

1: You should not be charged for the donation of an organ - as you were required to do so. I am British and thus the NHS would deal with this for me

Why not? You are charged for a pregnancy. Or does the British government pay for all of that too?

((In the US, the person would have to be charged, since they pay for a pregnancy too))

2: The fact that you are demanded to take ths time off work by the government would mean your boss would not be able to fire you.

You are very, very naive my friend. You think people don't get fired all the time for things that would mean your boss couldn't fire you? Women get fired for being pregnant or taking time to take care of children - and it gets shoved under the rug under the guise of some other cause.

3: It would only be murder if there was no one else in the entire world who could supply that bone marrow.

And how do you know that there is? Bone marrow is very, very hard to match up. Besides, if they were counting on you, and can't find another donor in time, she will die.

4. If the governemnt forced you to report there then you should legally be compensated for the travel expenses along with the medical bill. In the UK there are extensive procedures of this sort for compensating you for fuel costs etc when you go to do jury duty.

Are you compensated for any travel associated with a pregnancy?



Besides, none of this is really relevant to the point. Do you think the government has the right to force you to give up any and all of your organs that you can survive without, but someone else needs, no matter how it affects your life?

Besides, none of this is really relevant to the point. Do you think the government has the right to force you to give up any and all of your organs that you can survive without, but someone else needs, no matter how it affects your life?

According to him, yeah.

According to him, yeah.

Well, if that's true, at least he's consistent.

I wonder if he would agree to give them to a convicted felon in for life in prison....

Well, if that's true, at least he's consistent.

I wonder if he would agree to give them to a convicted felon in for life in prison....

It's true that he said it, but we'll never know if he'd actually accept that.

The point about "dead or pregnant" is to make people see that the loss of bodyly control to the woman is less of a encrochment on rights than is the loss of life of the embryo

I saw a very good documentary a few days ago titled "Speak Out: I had an Abortion." In which women from 21 to 80-something told about their experiences with abortion. There was one woman, in her 40's talking about her desicion to get an abortion a few years previous. She was already a wife and mother, and felt that another child would put undue strain and limit the oppurtunities of her other children. Although I did not agree with everything she said during her section of the film, she said one thing that I think was very relevent. She said: "Women have the power to give life, and with that power comes the right not to."

Until the "baby/fetus/whatever" is born, it is a part of her body. It is dependent on her in every way possible. She has the power and the right to do with her body, and everything in it, from unborn fetuses to gall bladders, what she wants.

Women know which situations are good to bring new life forms into, and which aren't. I think it is ok to trust our discretion.


I think that you should not really have sex unless you are prepared for a pregnancy. However you can lower the chance of an outcome of a pregnancy by using contreception and thus have sex more. But abortion should not be considered an option by anyone.

No form of contreception, even if practiced flawlessly, is 100% safe. And what you think people should do, what morals and values you carry, will and cannot be forced upon a large group of people. You may think that people should not have sex until they are ready, but that does not mean that anyone will listen to you. And people should not be punished for refusing to live by the word of Avalon II, a faceless poster on the NS forum. And that does not resolve the married woman issue. She has been pregnant, delivered, and raised her children thus far like a good little woman should. She has contributed to the human race and resisted the godless temptation of abortion so far-- but the economy just isnt what it was. her job didnt hold the prospects she thought it had. she fears her husband may be cheating. the idea of another child is overwhelming to her...would you really force her to have another kid?

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

Give me liberty or give me death!
So Thomas Paine eh?


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

Really? I've never heard that before. I just gheard they have a right to privacy after that ruling.


Because it exists and is human and is alive.

So Avalon II, trees injected with human dna have rights too? Or if we splice a human with a monkey will the monkey have rights?


Dead? Of course not! Something has to first be alive to be dead. However, based on the accepted biological requirements for life, an embryo is not alive (which is not the same thing as dead).

Dempublicents1, are you calling embryos un-dead? I means if not alive...and not dead...that means embryos are undead!

Women create the undead! :eek:

So Thomas Paine eh?

Patrick Henry, no?

Dempublicents1, are you calling embryos un-dead? I means if not alive...and not dead...that means embryos are undead!

Rocks?

Patrick Henry, no?



Rocks?
Right forgot him: Paine has a cooler last name though.

Mr. Paine: the sound if better.

Embryos aren't rocks, not hard enough. Undead makes a more logical conclusion, no?

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

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


So THAT'S why no one bother to make any rebuttals on my initial post!

I feel so much better. :p

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

Alright I know I've done my share of slamming of Avalon, but I must put this in.

He is not refusing to reconize the rights of women. He IS putting certain rights over others. In this case it's of the baby's life over the right of the carrying mother.

I wish that I could come up with an example of the woman's right superceeding another's right, but there really is nothing that would compare.

But I must protest any arguement that Avalon fails to reconize women's rights. There is a major diffrence in failing to reconize rights and in placing diffrent emphasis on various rights.

3: It would only be murder if there was no one else in the entire world who could supply that bone marrow.


And if everyone refuses to donate do they all get charged with murder?

Again, I bring up the money, because you have not responded to it. Have you commited murder by having a computer and electricity while others have starved? Should the government demand people pay to charities? How do you decide how much a person should donate?

Ok I gave up trying to catch up and jumped straight to the end of the list and it seems to be repeating in a cycle. Particular;y with Avalon and a couple of others. So let me twist things up a bit just for some clearifiers. These are seperate questions so please answer them seperately and for themselves only (add no other situations):

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed for a pregnancy due to rape?

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed when it is determined that a child will be born that will be incapable of living on it's own outside the womb or has an almost certain chance of being stillborn?

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed when it is determined that the birthing process would kill both mother and child?

Do you believe an abortion should be allowed when it is determined that the birthing process would kill the mother but not the child?

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

There are consequences to actions. Getting pregnant is a possible consequence to sex. Losing a hand is a possible consequence to sticking it in the wood chipper. You didn't want to lose the hand but you have to live with the consequences.

Shift the comparison to skydiving. 99 times out of 100 your chute will open and you will land safe. But that one time your chute doesn't open (in comparison: the comdom breaks or the pill fails) you could end up with lots of broken bones (pregnant). So you spend several months healing up (9 month to birth).
Now this is a comparison on a real basic level so no need to pick it all apart, I well know the arguments against it.

This is my basic reasoning against a woman having an abortion, BTW. However I don't want any legialation nor would I force a woman to follow my opinion. I would hope she would at least listen to my logic.

ANd yes I'm running bcakward through the posts now to see if there is anythng I want to comment on.

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
OK you just need to leave this argument at home. There is no comparing the rights of an established person with that of an unestablished one.

You have some good thoughts and logic (as well as some bad ones as well) but the contrversey is the STATUS of the unborn child, not that of a born one nor that of a preconceved one. Focus the arguments there. Otherwise your basis is shakey at best

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.

This is one of the reasons I agree with laws that state that a woman must inform her husband (inform not obtain permission from) prior to getting an abortion. I'd like to see it expanded to the father of the child, with exceptions for rapists, but that's for another day.

This is one of the reasons I agree with laws that state that a woman must inform her husband (inform not obtain permission from) prior to getting an abortion. I'd like to see it expanded to the father of the child, with exceptions for rapists, but that's for another day.

Yeah, I volunteer at a women and children's shelter. Sometimes that doesn't work out so well for the woman...or their children. born and unborn.

Bad argument.

There are consequences to actions. Getting pregnant is a possible consequence to sex. Losing a hand is a possible consequence to sticking it in the wood chipper. You didn't want to lose the hand but you have to live with the consequences.


And if there was a surgery to replace that hand would you deny it to the person because they need to face up to the consequences of their actions.

This is one of the reasons I agree with laws that state that a woman must inform her husband (inform not obtain permission from) prior to getting an abortion. I'd like to see it expanded to the father of the child, with exceptions for rapists, but that's for another day.
What if he is not her husband?

Bad argument.

There are consequences to actions. Getting pregnant is a possible consequence to sex. Losing a hand is a possible consequence to sticking it in the wood chipper. You didn't want to lose the hand but you have to live with the consequences.

Shift the comparison to skydiving. 99 times out of 100 your chute will open and you will land safe. But that one time your chute doesn't open (in comparison: the comdom breaks or the pill fails) you could end up with lots of broken bones (pregnant). So you spend several months healing up (9 month to birth).
Now this is a comparison on a real basic level so no need to pick it all apart, I well know the arguments against it.

This is my basic reasoning against a woman having an abortion, BTW. However I don't want any legialation nor would I force a woman to follow my opinion. I would hope she would at least listen to my logic.

ANd yes I'm running bcakward through the posts now to see if there is anythng I want to comment on.

I do not agree with your opinion, but I really respect it. And I really respect that you do not want your opinion on a political issue to become law, restricting the rights of others who have the right to disagree. That is a very noble position and I definitely appreciate thinkers like this.

Avalon II, you repeatedly claim that a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is a human life, or a human being on the basis that they are a separate entity and have all the necessary information etc. to develop into a human being. I have two questions for you:

Is a chicken egg a chicken?

Is a tulip bulb a tulip?

If you answer no to either one of these, stop trying to equate the human equivalent of a chicken egg or tulip bulb (zygote/blastocyst/embryo) with a human being. Because you believe it isn't. And therefore it cannot have human rights.

Dempublicents1, are you calling embryos un-dead? I means if not alive...and not dead...that means embryos are undead!

Women create the undead! :eek:

Braaaai-- I mean, uuuteruuuuuuuuus....

Avalon II, you repeatedly claim that a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is a human life, or a human being on the basis that they are a separate entity and have all the necessary information etc. to develop into a human being. I have two questions for you:

Is a chicken egg a chicken?

Is a tulip bulb a tulip?

If you answer no to either one of these, stop trying to equate the human equivalent of a chicken egg or tulip bulb (zygote/blastocyst/embryo) with a human being. Because you believe it isn't. And therefore it cannot have human rights.

I'm trying to go with you on this, but the I can't. I keep having silly thoughts like "Well, it's not a giraffe" and "It's not a rose". Sorry. I know where you're coming from.

Braaaai-- I mean, uuuteruuuuuuuuus....

Placeeeeeeboooooooo.....


Somehow it sounds more funny :p

Bad argument.

There are consequences to actions. Getting pregnant is a possible consequence to sex. Losing a hand is a possible consequence to sticking it in the wood chipper. You didn't want to lose the hand but you have to live with the consequences.

Yeeees, but does that mean the person isn't allowed to get a prostetic hand because "it's not natural" and "in the natural state, the hand would not grow back"?

Placeeeeeeboooooooo.....


Somehow it sounds more funny :p

Feeeedusssss.... feeeedusssss.....

Again, I bring up the money, because you have not responded to it. Have you commited murder by having a computer and electricity while others have starved? Should the government demand people pay to charities? How do you decide how much a person should donate?

You have discovered the awful, unspeakable truth...


Avalon is really an evil communist come to corrupt our souls!!!:eek:

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D

Placeeeeeeboooooooo.....


Somehow it sounds more funny :p

Placebo? Why would zombie-embryo want to eat a placebo? :confused:
Wouldn't "placenta" make a bit more sense?

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.
Being forced to give birth to a child that was forced on you violently, to run all the physical risks associated with pregnancy, to have to explain to everyone why you burst into tears of terror every time they congratulate you and try to rub your tummy, only to either dump this pathetic reminder of your suffering as quickly as you can after birth or else keep it, be reminded of the rape every time you look at it and at least live a depressed, painful life if not actually turn to abusing this poor child because you can't get at its father. That's a punishment, for the woman and the child.

The fact that you can't see that proves how self-centered you are. All your arguments are little more than an ego trip. And if you really think this, then why did you earlier say that rape was a justification for abortion? Nothing you say makes sense, but everything you say is becoming offensive.

Placebo? Why would zombie-embryo want to eat a placebo? :confused:
Wouldn't "placenta" make a bit more sense?

Yes, you're right. :eek:

:headbang:

Hey, it's 11h00 PM, and I'm tired. It's really time to go to sleep when I start confusing words like that.

to have to explain to everyone why you burst into tears of terror every time they congratulate you and try to rub your tummy

I think that annoys more than just the raped women. :rolleyes:

Yes, you're right. :eek:

:headbang:

Hey, it's 11h00 PM, and I'm tired. It's really time to go to sleep when I start confusing words like that.

It's 1:15 AM here, and I'm not making excuses :rolleyes:
What, no all-nighters for you?

But it took me a while to figure out which word you meant to use, even though it was pretty obvious. So I'll blame sleepiness too.

Would you rather be dead or pregnant?



Just not have sex unless you are prepared to deal with the consequences
I am so sick of you repeating these idiotic remarks.

I would rather be dead than pregnant in a world dominated by you. In fact, I would rather be dead than not pregnant but trapped in a stuck elevator with you for a quarter of an hour. You could drive a plant to violence with your smug little inanities.

Yet, no matter how many times you say them, they never mean anything more than they did the first time you said them = nothing.

I am so sick of you repeating these idiotic remarks.

I would rather be dead than pregnant in a world dominated by you. In fact, I would rather be dead than not pregnant but trapped in a stuck elevator with you for a quarter of an hour. You could drive a plant to violence with your smug little inanities.

Yet, no matter how many times you say them, they never mean anything more than they did the first time you said them = nothing.

...

I was going to make a comment on what would be more effective than killing yourself, but then I remembered I'm not suppose to threaten posters. So it's been censored. :(

I think that annoys more than just the raped women. :rolleyes:
Yes, but I'm assuming that the raped woman might be too emotionally fragile to just haul off and punch the intrusive, smarmy-touchy morons.

...

I was going to make a comment on what would be more effective than killing yourself, but then I remembered I'm not suppose to threaten posters. So it's been censored. :(
For a second there I was imagining a scene out of The Living Dead (Embryos), but then I remembered how you catch mad cow disease, and I thought, man, that would be just too horrifying a sequel.

Quick attempt at hijack because this thread is starting to feel like the Terry Schaivo case -- has anyone ever seen that 70's movie "It's Alive!"? It's about a baby. It had sequels -- It's Alive! II; Island of the Alive (that was a good one).

You all with your brains and your placentas -- you caused this. :D

Yes, but I'm assuming that the raped woman might be too emotionally fragile to just haul off and punch the intrusive, smarmy-touchy morons.

Yeah, I was just bugging you.

For a second there I was imagining a scene out of The Living Dead (Embryos), but then I remembered how you catch mad cow disease, and I thought, man, that would be just too horrifying a sequel.

Quick attempt at hijack because this thread is starting to feel like the Terry Schaivo case -- has anyone ever seen that 70's movie "It's Alive!"? It's about a baby. It had sequels -- It's Alive! II; Island of the Alive (that was a good one).

You all with your brains and your placentas -- you caused this. :D

Sorryyyyy! ;)

Yeah, I was just bugging you.



Sorryyyyy! ;)
You should be sorry. Those "Alive" movies are crap and now they're in my head. On the other hand they're different from these dumbass circular arguments... Thanks!! :D ;)

“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die. Don't try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”
~ Proverbs 24:11,12

"Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing."
~ Ronald Reagan

“Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't stand back and let them die. Don't try to avoid responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God knows all hearts, and he sees you. He keeps watch over your soul, and he knows you knew! And he will judge all people according to what they have done.”
~ Proverbs 24:11,12

"Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing."
~ Ronald Reagan
At first I was bored and annoyed (yet another use of scripture to try and persuade people who have already made it clear they don't follow your religious rules), but then you quoted Reagan in the same post and I couldn't help laughing. Thanks for lightening up the mood. :D

At first I was bored and annoyed (yet another use of scripture to try and persuade people who have already made it clear they don't follow your religious rules),

There's no reason to value and follow your 'lack' of rules either...

but then you quoted Reagan in the same post and I couldn't help laughing. Thanks for lightening up the mood. :D

Not a problem... Here's another.

"To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last -- but eat you he will."
~ Ronald Reagan

There's no reason to value and follow your 'lack' of rules either...



Not a problem... Here's another.

"To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last -- but eat you he will."
~ Ronald Reagan
Are these from the 12 disk CD collection "Ronald Reagan Reads His Favorite Fortune Cookies"?

If you were hoping to debase this poor old tired debate even more, you may be on the right track. Unless you're trying to open up a stem cell research side topic?

If we're going to do the quote thing...

"For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement."
Norman Haire, letter to the editor, Birth Control Review, 7/1930

If we're going to do the quote thing...

"For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement."
Norman Haire, letter to the editor, Birth Control Review, 7/1930
1930. Golden Age of Eugenics, when it was "hep" to be a Nazi sympathizer. Excellent source because, of course, the public debate hasn't advanced at all since then. Kinda like this thread. I'm going to bed now.

Are these from the 12 disk CD collection "Ronald Reagan Reads His Favorite Fortune Cookies"?

If you were hoping to debase this poor old tired debate even more, you may be on the right track. Unless you're trying to open up a stem cell research side topic?

Perhaps the defenders of the child killers are in superior numbers here, but that is no cause of alarm...

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
~ Mark Twain

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
~ George Orwell

If we're going to do the quote thing...

"For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement."
Norman Haire, letter to the editor, Birth Control Review, 7/1930


Ooh, nicely authoritarian. Fine good example of justification for violence and murder... That or why the anti-abortionists shouldn't be alarmed that the other side is killing their genes off?

Yeah that kind of was a crappy quote, here's a better one for you:

"In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the existential choice for a woman is not abortion vs. no abortion, but, as [Garrett Hardin] has pointed out, abortion vs. compulsory childbearing. If others can force her to be a mother... then she is coerced into putting her body at the disposal of the fetus as if she were an unclaimed natural resource or a chattel slave.... Thus, the woman's most fundamental right of choice, the right to control her own body and happiness, is being abrogated."
Sharon Presley and Robert Cooke

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
~Ronald Reagan

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
~Ronald Reagan
Okay, that knocked me out of my torpor. That has to be the single stupidest sentence Ronald Reagan ever said. That's so dumb, I almost doubt he actually said it. Wow! I mean, who the hell else is going to respond to polls?!?!?!

"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."
~ Mother Teresa

Yeah that kind of was a crappy quote, here's a better one for you:

"In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the existential choice for a woman is not abortion vs. no abortion, but, as [Garrett Hardin] has pointed out, abortion vs. compulsory childbearing. If others can force her to be a mother... then she is coerced into putting her body at the disposal of the fetus as if she were an unclaimed natural resource or a chattel slave.... Thus, the woman's most fundamental right of choice, the right to control her own body and happiness, is being abrogated."
Sharon Presley and Robert Cooke
Careful. That oddly spelled dude with the quote book might think you're not 115% on his side.

All right, now I've had enough of you all. Good night.

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." -Ayn Rand

And this is my last quote.

"My heart got callous to against the fact that I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me as to what abortion really was."
~former abortionist Dr. David Brewer

"I want the general public to know what the doctors know- that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue."
~Dr. Anthony Levantino

"I have taken the lives of innocent babies, and I have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful suction machine"
~McArthur Hill, M.D.

"Remember, there is a human being at the other end of the table taking that kid apart. We've had a couple of guys drinking too much, taking drugs, even a suicide or two."
~Dr. Julius Butler, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Minnesota Medical School

"Arms, legs, and chests come out of the forceps. It's not a sight for everybody"
~Dr. William Benbow Thompson at the University of California at Irvine

I have found one absolutely undeniable instance where an abortion is not murder. It's called a partial mole (molar pregnancy) involving would-be twins and requires a D & C that scrapes fetal matter from the uterus. In this case the woman does not have a miscarriage, however the fetal matter is in no way living. The only way to remove this potentially cancerous threat (yes, I said cancerous) is to have a D & C. So not all abortions are murder and nobody can argue with that. I guess the person who compared a fetus to cancer earlier on wasn't too far off.

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights -— and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." -Ayn Rand

And this is my last quote.

That has to be the first time ever I agree with Ayn Rand... wow :eek:

Okay, that knocked me out of my torpor. That has to be the single stupidest sentence Ronald Reagan ever said. That's so dumb, I almost doubt he actually said it. Wow! I mean, who the hell else is going to respond to polls?!?!?!
Oh, he said it all right.

Man, this topic is flooded. Here's what I found from p. 65 onward, for what it's worth...

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.

Fine, I’ll spell it out. *You* gave *your* version of objective criteria. While it may be obvious to us that slaves, pagans/infidels, adulterers, and traitors are people with human rights, it has not always been so obvious. Other *objective* criteria have been made and blown away in the ever-increasing, liberal understanding of humanity. To say that someone is alive, human, and individual WITHOUT having the rights of a person has as much application as any of these other restrictive, elitist definitions.

Dakini said my description of atrocities against these people was “disgusting and horribly wrong”. Well, now you know how pro-lifers feel.

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..

::sigh:: The cancer is not human. Let me know if there is debate on this.

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?

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Sorry, that came out wrong; let me try again. Are you suggesting that a human has ever given birth to a non-human?

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.

Agreed. Unlike the raccoon, the newborn has potential to develop into a sentient creature. Even so, why not kill it off before it does achieve sentience?

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.

Okay, Mr. Man. I’m going to go around raping women at random. Go about your business; it doesn’t affect you at all.

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.

Okay, then. Avalon answered this already, but I feel like a little emphasis. Address the newborn argument. A newborn does not have more awareness of itself or its surroundings than a sophisticated animal. Why is this thing a person, if it only has the potential to develop further?

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?

The fetus needs substinence to survive, as all of us do. Many people on artificial breathing aparatuses are still considered people, yet they rely on modern medical science. I repeat: conjoined twins rely on each other, but they are considered two people instead of one. Anyway, your post went on about fallacy arguments for a while here... apparently you had little faith in my ability/desire to answer it. :)

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.

And here we go: Children are not adults; children only have the potential to be adults. If children simply remained children, then perhaps they would not have any arguable right to life over others. However, the childrens’ potential to grow into adults makes them HUMAN PEOPLE. Yes, children are people too! Adults are people, post-natals are people, and pre-natals are people. Children may not have all the rights of adults, but they certainly have the right to live, regardless of whether it costs us adults a little extra money and time. Regardless of whether it costs a lot, in fact.

Besides, none of this is really relevant to the point. Do you think the government has the right to force you to give up any and all of your organs that you can survive without, but someone else needs, no matter how it affects your life?

Well, I do. Except for the fact that some people may need that second kidney someday... I see no problem with compulsory donation of superfluous organs/tissue. With government compensation, of course. If we can’t work economics around social justice, then we’re at the same impasse slaveowners met.

I wish that I could come up with an example of the woman's right superceeding another's right, but there really is nothing that would compare.

That’s easy. 50% of all abortions are of women. ;)
But more within your argument, a decent system of maternity leave would have the woman’s (and the child’s) rights supercede the employer’s.

And if there was a surgery to replace that hand would you deny it to the person because they need to face up to the consequences of their actions.

Nope. Healing /= destroying another person.
"But it's not a person!" you say. Fine. Ignore this argument and address the ones we stated on 'personhood' instead.
1) Human
2) Living
3) Individual

Avalon II, you repeatedly claim that a zygote/blastocyst/embryo is a human life, or a human being on the basis that they are a separate entity and have all the necessary information etc. to develop into a human being. I have two questions for you:

Is a chicken egg a chicken?

Is a tulip bulb a tulip?

I certainly consider eggs to be meat; they ARE animal protein, after all. I'm not sure about all the details of how many eggs are initially empty and such... instruct me, though, and I shall understand.
Still, the better question is this: if chickens were sentient beings, would you eat their eggs?

As for the tulip bulb, as with a sunflower seed, I would ask how you classify each scientifically. It is of the same species, so it is the same thing. If you DON’T feel that a tulip bulb is a tulip, then let me ask you this: is a tulip a tulip whenever the first bit of green appears from the dirt?

I have found one absolutely undeniable instance where an abortion is not murder. It's called a partial mole (molar pregnancy)

If this page is correct:
http://www.obgyn.net/women/articles/molarpreg_dah.htm

Then I agree. It was an empty egg; no baby. That doesn’t say anything about all the other cases. And, conceding an argument, I now go sleepy-sleep. Probably see you tomorrow, guys. Thanks for the discussion, please ignore my bits of sarcasm, and take care! :D

To say that someone is alive, human, and individual WITHOUT having the rights of a person has as much application as any of these other restrictive, elitist definitions.


As stated before, it is living, but not alive in the bioligical sense. It is human, but so are your skin cells and every other part of your body. It is not yet an individual.


::sigh:: The cancer is not human. Let me know if there is debate on this.


Of course cancer cells are human cells. What else would they be???


Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
Sorry, that came out wrong; let me try again. Are you suggesting that a human has ever given birth to a non-human?


By the time the baby is born it is a human being, yes. Two weeks after conception, it isn't.


Agreed. Unlike the raccoon, the newborn has potential to develop into a sentient creature. Even so, why not kill it off before it does achieve sentience?

Because after it developed sentience, it's murder.



Okay, then. Avalon answered this already, but I feel like a little emphasis. Address the newborn argument. A newborn does not have more awareness of itself or its surroundings than a sophisticated animal. Why is this thing a person, if it only has the potential to develop further?

It is an independent life form, it has a nervous system, a brain and a beating heart. A foetus doesn't.


And here we go: Children are not adults; children only have the potential to be adults. If children simply remained children, then perhaps they would not have any arguable right to life over others. However, the childrens’ potential to grow into adults makes them HUMAN PEOPLE. Yes, children are people too! Adults are people, post-natals are people, and pre-natals are people. Children may not have all the rights of adults, but they certainly have the right to live, regardless of whether it costs us adults a little extra money and time. Regardless of whether it costs a lot, in fact.

You got something seriously wrong. Children are human beings, if they develop on into adults or not. The ability to develop doesn't determine the personhood of a human being.
A foetus is not a yet human being.

I certainly consider eggs to be meat; they ARE animal protein, after all. I'm not sure about all the details of how many eggs are initially empty and such... instruct me, though, and I shall understand.
Still, the better question is this: if chickens were sentient beings, would you eat their eggs?

So, you consider milk to be meat? It is animal protein after all...
Btw, most likely none of the eggs you've ever eaten were fertilised...

You didn't answer my question - is a chicken egg a chicken?

If you say it isn't, how can you then argue that the human equivalent is a human being? And if it isn't a human being, then how can it have human rights?

I'll start by saying I've only read the first and last pages of this thread. Please, forgive me if I'm repeating anyone.

Now I'll give you three good reasons why abortion should be legal.

1) Finite Resources. Like it or not the fact of the matter is that there's only so much of any given resource on this planet, and the more people there are using them up the faster they will be gone. Since I would like to see the continuing improvement of human civilization and not it's eventually downfall due to lack of resourses, I'm all for less people. Since I'm not for mandatory anything, I don't want forced sterilization or some other forced population control. Therefore, I'd much rather people be able to chose for themselves not to add one more mouth for the world to feed.

For those who need a more immidiate case than eventually societal failure. Limited resources also means that the more people there are today, the less there is to go around for every other person... And yes, that means you.

2) Maximizing Human Happiness. Let's be serious. If you talk to most people about thier children they say something like, "I love my children but...", or "... but I love my kids." Just replace the dots with a long list of complaints. From personal experiance I'd say at least 75% of children, especially first borns, are concieved before thier parents feel they are ready to have kids. If these people were to abort that unplanned child they would be able to put themselves into a better position to be prepared to have a child. It would be less hard on them, and in turn they would probrably do a better job of parenting any other children they have. This would make those children happier. Also having a better cared for happier population of children, who would grow up into happier adults, could only benefit society. Happier people are more productive, less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to do things like have kids just so they'll have someone who loves them (typical American welfare mother/teenage mother).

3) There's no logical relationship between the fact that murder is illegal and whether abortion should be. I'm quite sure somewhere in the 90% range of people think murder is wrong (outside self-defence and possibly capital punishment). On the other hand abortion is at most about 50/50. It's ridiculous to claim 50% of the population should be able to force the other 50% to do something as important and personal as having a child.

And before you try the half/a large minority of people in America thought slavery was OK line, or something similar... STOP! The only way a policy poll makes sense is if you ask people who will be affected by it. If you asked black slaves at the time (which I'm sure no one did) they would have nearly all have said that it was wrong (I'm sure a few were happy enough with the situation if they were well taken care of). Why? Because they were the one's most strongly affected. White people held no fear of being enslaved, so how could they be trusted to make an objective decision. They couldn't, and that's why slavery lasted for 200 years in America.

Since you obviously can't ask a fetus anything, you must ask the only other people who will be affected: people who have already been born and will have to face the consequences of bringing any future fetuses to term. Seeing as half these people believe abortion is wrong and will thus never have to face this decision (since they've already made it beforehand), how can they be trusted to make an objective decision on abortion's legallity. THEY CAN'T!!!

Refute me if you can, but I know I'm right. Stop trying to make decisions based on your antiquated notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what will have the best outcome in the end for the most people. Pro-choice wins in that metric over Pro-life every time.

I began typing out a long response before stopping and thinking better of it. My views on abortion are immaterial, but what is important is that you can't legislate based on 'morals' or religion, because you're forcing your own beliefs on others... which is probably a subconscious reason why many people are pro-life. But enough of that. Whatever your personal views on abortion may be, remember that they're YOUR OPINONS and it is highly unlikely that you will be able to make others come over to your side. If you don't support abortion, don't have one. And I agree with one of the first posters in this thread, it would occur to me that, given the traditional conservative viewpoint of less government involvement, would be more inclined toward the pro-choice school of thought.

But apparently not.

1) Finite Resources. Like it or not the fact of the matter is that there's only so much of any given resource on this planet, and the more people there are using them up the faster they will be gone. Since I would like to see the continuing improvement of human civilization and not it's eventually downfall due to lack of resourses, I'm all for less people. Since I'm not for mandatory anything, I don't want forced sterilization or some other forced population control. Therefore, I'd much rather people be able to chose for themselves not to add one more mouth for the world to feed

For those who need a more immidiate case than eventually societal failure. Limited resources also means that the more people there are today, the less there is to go around for every other person... And yes, that means you.

Right, of course. Because the best way to deal with a lack of resorces is to kill some people so we don't have to feed them. So your saying humans only matter in so far as they consume?


2) Maximizing Human Happiness. Let's be serious. If you talk to most people about thier children they say something like, "I love my children but...", or "... but I love my kids." Just replace the dots with a long list of complaints. From personal experiance I'd say at least 75% of children, especially first borns, are concieved before thier parents feel they are ready to have kids. If these people were to abort that unplanned child they would be able to put themselves into a better position to be prepared to have a child. It would be less hard on them, and in turn they would probrably do a better job of parenting any other children they have. This would make those children happier. Also having a better cared for happier population of children, who would grow up into happier adults, could only benefit society. Happier people are more productive, less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to do things like have kids just so they'll have someone who loves them (typical American welfare mother/teenage mother)

Of course. Because individual happyness goes above the right to life. What about the embryo's right to one day be happy? Now obviously if we outlaw abortion we should make the adoption process better.


3) There's no logical relationship between the fact that murder is illegal and whether abortion should be. I'm quite sure somewhere in the 90% range of people think murder is wrong (outside self-defence and possibly capital punishment). On the other hand abortion is at most about 50/50. It's ridiculous to claim 50% of the population should be able to force the other 50% to do something as important and personal as having a child.

Conversely you shouldnt be able to enable the entire population to be able to eliminate their unwanted embryos.


And before you try the half/a large minority of people in America thought slavery was OK line, or something similar... STOP! The only way a policy poll makes sense is if you ask people who will be affected by it. If you asked black slaves at the time (which I'm sure no one did) they would have nearly all have said that it was wrong (I'm sure a few were happy enough with the situation if they were well taken care of). Why? Because they were the one's most strongly affected. White people held no fear of being enslaved, so how could they be trusted to make an objective decision. They couldn't, and that's why slavery lasted for 200 years in America.

Since you obviously can't ask a fetus anything, you must ask the only other people who will be affected: people who have already been born and will have to face the consequences of bringing any future fetuses to term. Seeing as half these people believe abortion is wrong and will thus never have to face this decision (since they've already made it beforehand), how can they be trusted to make an objective decision on abortion's legallity. THEY CAN'T!!!

You have to assume if you cant ask the fetus that they would want to exist. There is nothing that makes you suggest that they wouldnt. The fetus is the one most affected, not the mother. If its killed is more serious than if the mother is pregnant.


Refute me if you can, but I know I'm right. Stop trying to make decisions based on your antiquated notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what will have the best outcome in the end for the most people. Pro-choice wins in that metric over Pro-life every time.

Antiquated notions of right and wrong? Fine I'll just be over to wherever you live and kill you then.

I began typing out a long response before stopping and thinking better of it. My views on abortion are immaterial, but what is important is that you can't legislate based on 'morals' or religion, because you're forcing your own beliefs on others... which is probably a subconscious reason why many people are pro-life. But enough of that. Whatever your personal views on abortion may be, remember that they're YOUR OPINONS and it is highly unlikely that you will be able to make others come over to your side. If you don't support abortion, don't have one. And I agree with one of the first posters in this thread, it would occur to me that, given the traditional conservative viewpoint of less government involvement, would be more inclined toward the pro-choice school of thought.

But apparently not.

Its not just the people deciding to have an abortion who are affected by the allowance of abortion. Its the embryo's as well.

Of course. Because individual happyness goes above the right to life. What about the embryo's right to one day be happy?


It doesn't have one. Only human beings have rights...

Refute me if you can, but I know I'm right. Stop trying to make decisions based on your antiquated notions of right and wrong. All that matters is what will have the best outcome in the end for the most people. Pro-choice wins in that metric over Pro-life every time.Actually, the concept that humanity begins at conception is a relatively "new" concept for christianity. St. Aquinas, for instance, was sure that a fetus didn't have a soul until a couple weeks after conception. This didn't change until someone looked through a microcsope and thought he saw a tiny fully developed human being that only had to grow to the size of a baby.

It doesn't have one. Only human beings have rights...

It is a human being - for the following reasons

It is a seperate organism - despite being dependant on its mother for suvival a biologist can clearly identify what is the embryo and what isnt.

It has its own individual DNA - Its own DNA which is completely unique from its mother, unlike a cancer cell whose only diffrence from its host is its rate of replication. No one on Earth has DNA that is like it

Its is developing in the way of a "person" - unlike a cancer it is moving towards becoming a human. Now obviously it doesnt have all its rights yet because it is not a full person. However it does have the right to life because it is alive, and it is human. The DNA inside it is not only human, it is also growing in the pattern of that DNA. Growth is one of the key guidelines for declaring something as living. And since it is clear that the cells it is made up of are not dead, then thats even more reason to declare it as living

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right. If (as your opinion states) it becomes a person at a specific time then you are killing that person if you abort after then. We dont have the right to play God over that issue. No one does. If your uncertian about when it becomes a person, you should not allow any attemt to terminate it go ahead.

It is a human being - for the following reasons

It is a seperate organism - despite being dependant on its mother for suvival a biologist can clearly identify what is the embryo and what isnt.

It has its own individual DNA - Its own DNA which is completely unique from its mother, unlike a cancer cell whose only diffrence from its host is its rate of replication. No one on Earth has DNA that is like itThese apply to a lot more than just humans. They don't support your case.
Its is developing in the way of a "person" - unlike a cancer it is moving towards becoming a human. Now obviously it doesnt have all its rights yet because it is not a full person. However it does have the right to life because it is alive, and it is human. The DNA inside it is not only human, it is also growing in the pattern of that DNA. Growth is one of the key guidelines for declaring something as living. And since it is clear that the cells it is made up of are not dead, then thats even more reason to declare it as livingThere the bold part says it all. It is not yet a person. That's what makes it different. It has the potential to become a nobel prize winner. It also has the potential to become a criminal. Potential is, to be frank, irrelevant.

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right. If (as your opinion states) it becomes a person at a specific time then you are killing that person if you abort after then. We dont have the right to play God over that issue. No one does. If your uncertian about when it becomes a person, you should not allow any attemt to terminate it go ahead.What gives you that right? What gives you the right to deny anyone the right to decide?

It is a human being - for the following reasons

It is a seperate organism - despite being dependant on its mother for suvival a biologist can clearly identify what is the embryo and what isnt.

It has its own individual DNA - Its own DNA which is completely unique from its mother, unlike a cancer cell whose only diffrence from its host is its rate of replication. No one on Earth has DNA that is like it

Its is developing in the way of a "person" - unlike a cancer it is moving towards becoming a human. Now obviously it doesnt have all its rights yet because it is not a full person. However it does have the right to life because it is alive, and it is human. The DNA inside it is not only human, it is also growing in the pattern of that DNA. Growth is one of the key guidelines for declaring something as living. And since it is clear that the cells it is made up of are not dead, then thats even more reason to declare it as living

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right. If (as your opinion states) it becomes a person at a specific time then you are killing that person if you abort after then. We dont have the right to play God over that issue. No one does. If your uncertian about when it becomes a person, you should not allow any attemt to terminate it go ahead.

Actually, it is not a seperate organism. A seperate organism would have a seperate metabolism, a foetus doesn't. Up til the 3rd trimester, it doesn't have its own heart, it doesn't have a brain, it doesn't even have a rudimentary nervous system. It is not so much dependent on the mother as rather part of her body.
And any biologist can identify a person's liver, but that doesn't make it a seperate organism.

It is living, but it is not alive, as it doesn't meet the biological requirements. Meeting one of those criteria, growth, is not enough. Even rocks grow.

And, yes, cancer cells will have altered DNA from the original, otherwise they wouldn't be cancer cells.

What gives you that right? What gives you the right to deny anyone the right to decide?

Because their right to decide means right to kill

Of course. Because individual happyness goes above the right to life. What about the embryo's right to one day be happy? Now obviously if we outlaw abortion we should make the adoption process better.


Again I will bring up the money issues (and will keep doing it until you respond to it) Aren't you placing your right to be happy (having a computer, electricity, etc) above other people's right to life by not donating the money used for that to charities that would feed the hungry? Should we be required to donate money to charities until no one dies of hunger? Yes I know that you are not the only one who could dontate, but meny times there are multiple people who can donate organs, what if each has refused? Evidently each person in the world has refused to donate enough money to make sure no one dies of starvation or preventable diseases.

Because their right to decide means right to kill

If I remember correctly, there is no objection to killing. As long as you don't kill a person, because that would be murder.

Because their right to decide means right to kill
Do you eat meat? Do you eat plant? There's a time when it is alright to kill, usually when things aren't persons. What gives you the right to deny someone the power to define what is a person and what is not other than your holier-than-thou attitude?

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right. If (as your opinion states) it becomes a person at a specific time then you are killing that person if you abort after then. We dont have the right to play God over that issue. No one does. If your uncertian about when it becomes a person, you should not allow any attemt to terminate it go ahead.


You make the decisions every day too. You decide that the plants and/or animals you eat are not people, even though they are every bit as alive as you or me. Who let you decide that a human is worth more than a cow or pig and a person while the rest of the animals are not people?

For me I am certain when a fetus become a person, when it starts having human brain waves. That is fairly easy to determine and the laws limiting abortion (generally requiring it to be before week 24 for elective procedures, the ones after are only performed out of medical neccisty) make sure those who have started to have them are not aborted. (This was inadvertant as teh reasoning behind most laws is the question "When can a fetus survive on outside of the womb?" not "When does a fetus start producing human brain waves?")

Actually, it is not a seperate organism. A seperate organism would have a seperate metabolism, a foetus doesn't. Up til the 3rd trimester, it doesn't have its own heart, it doesn't have a brain, it doesn't even have a rudimentary nervous system. It is not so much dependent on the mother as rather part of her body.



So what you're saying is that in the third Trimester, abortion is the murder of an individual? and that's ok because Row v Wade states a mother's right to privacy is legally greater than the third trimester individual's right to life??? Please forgive my American law reference if you're from another country.

So what you're saying is that in the third Trimester, abortion is the murder of an individual? and that's ok because Row v Wade states a mother's right to privacy is legally greater than the third trimester individual's right to life??? Please forgive my American law reference if you're from another country.

Actually abortion in the third trimester is banned as an elective procedure. If it is done, it is done for medical reasons.

So what you're saying is that in the third Trimester, abortion is the murder of an individual? and that's ok because Row v Wade states a mother's right to privacy is legally greater than the third trimester individual's right to life??? Please forgive my American law reference if you're from another country.

I'm from Germany, where abortions are only performed up to the 3rd trimester, unless there are extreme medical circumstances. And I live in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, which is why women who want an abortion go to the UK...

The German option is preferable, I think.

I'm from Germany, where abortions are only performed up to the 3rd trimester, unless there are extreme medical circumstances. And I live in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, which is why women who want an abortion go to the UK...

The German option is preferable, I think.You forgot the part with the mandatory conflict counselling as part of the German option.

You forgot the part with the mandatory conflict counselling as part of the German option.

I also forgot the part about "illegal, but not punishable" ;)

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



I would indeed support the development of artifical womb technology


Ok, what if you ran over someone who was drunk and not looking and decided to cross a freeway... In my view there is no blame to the driver... but it seems that as it was a possiblity that in your view the driver should plead guilty to first degree premeditated murder.

It is a human being - for the following reasons

It is a seperate organism - despite being dependant on its mother for suvival a biologist can clearly identify what is the embryo and what isnt.

It has its own individual DNA - Its own DNA which is completely unique from its mother, unlike a cancer cell whose only diffrence from its host is its rate of replication. No one on Earth has DNA that is like it

Its is developing in the way of a "person" - unlike a cancer it is moving towards becoming a human. Now obviously it doesnt have all its rights yet because it is not a full person. However it does have the right to life because it is alive, and it is human. The DNA inside it is not only human, it is also growing in the pattern of that DNA. Growth is one of the key guidelines for declaring something as living. And since it is clear that the cells it is made up of are not dead, then thats even more reason to declare it as living

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right. If (as your opinion states) it becomes a person at a specific time then you are killing that person if you abort after then. We dont have the right to play God over that issue. No one does. If your uncertian about when it becomes a person, you should not allow any attemt to terminate it go ahead.


actually the government already has declared when a person begins and ceases to exist through the use of a birth certificate and a death certificate. try filing taxes, submitting a medical insurance claim, or collecting social security or a life insurance benefit without them.

so if all these things you claim are so true, then why don't we issue conception certificates? why don't we allow for eligible dependant tax deductions for fetuses? why can't i buy life insurance for a zygote and collect a benefit if i miscarry? because right now, (at least in the state where i live) the laws say that you exist as a separate human being at birth.

i think it could make for some interesting legal cases, should they overturn roe v. wade on a religious-based definition of personhood.

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person..
Which is why we default over to the womans privacy rights because they are a known and established right

You have to prove it is a "person" before you over-ride the womans default rights

You should be sorry. Those "Alive" movies are crap and now they're in my head. On the other hand they're different from these dumbass circular arguments... Thanks!! :D ;)

You're welcome :D

Which is why we default over to the womans privacy rights because they are a known and established right

You have to prove it is a "person" before you over-ride the womans default rights


You know, when I was young and learning to hunt deer, my Dad taught me that I have to 'know' that the brown color movement I saw in the bush was deer 'before' I shot at it. Because that other persons right to walk through the woods out-wieghed my right to use my license to shoot a deer...


Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it. I think you got your analogy of who has to prove what, before action is carried out, backwards.

Dempublicents1, are you calling embryos un-dead? I means if not alive...and not dead...that means embryos are undead!

No, it doesn't. Not alive does not equate to dead, and it does not equate to undead. It simply means: Not alive. The individual cells of your pancreas are alive in the same way that the individual cells of an embryo are alive. However, like the pancreas, the embryo does not meet all the requirements to be deemed a living organism. So, as an entity, it is not alive. That doesn't make it dead - something must first be living to then be dead - it makes it "not alive."

There are consequences to actions. Getting pregnant is a possible consequence to sex. Losing a hand is a possible consequence to sticking it in the wood chipper. You didn't want to lose the hand but you have to live with the consequences.

Yes, but no one would argue that you didn't have the right to deal with the consequences of losing a hand as you saw fit, whether it be by reattaching it, getting a prosthetic, putting a Captain Hook style hook on it, etc....

This is one of the reasons I agree with laws that state that a woman must inform her husband (inform not obtain permission from) prior to getting an abortion. I'd like to see it expanded to the father of the child, with exceptions for rapists, but that's for another day.

And if the father cannot be found/is not known?

Perhaps the defenders of the child killers are in superior numbers here, but that is no cause of alarm...

I'm dissappointed in you Ph33r, it isn't like you to stoop to this level.

You know, when I was young and learning to hunt deer, my Dad taught me that I have to 'know' that the brown color movement I saw in the bush was deer 'before' I shot at it. Because that other persons right to walk through the woods out-wieghed my right to use my license to shoot a deer...


Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it. I think you got your analogy of who has to prove what, before action is carried out, backwards.
Well I took a look ... whatever the brown is it does not appear to be human ... and sense it is not human I feel no guilt removing it from my property

It can figure out what to do from then on

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
~Ronald Reagan

That's one is always cute, considering that everybody who has any opinion on anything at all has already been born - it is pretty much a prerequisite for being able to have an opinion.

"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want."
~ Mother Teresa

Oh yes, let's quote a woman who was under investigation for human rights abuses. A woman who refused anesthetic to children in pain. A woman who intentionally made people who were dying walk up numerous flights of stairs. Why did she do this? She specifically stated it - she wanted them to suffer.

::sigh:: The cancer is not human. Let me know if there is debate on this.

Of course it is! It has human DNA. It is made up of human cells. It is every bit as human as any other human cells.

The fetus needs substinence to survive, as all of us do.

All of us do not gain that sustenance parasitically.

Many people on artificial breathing aparatuses are still considered people, yet they rely on modern medical science.

So? They aren't hooked up to other people, now are they?

I repeat: conjoined twins rely on each other, but they are considered two people instead of one.

(a) Conjoined twins have equal claim to the organs they share because they both developed them.

(b) We very often sacrifice one conjoined twin so that the other may have a better chance at life. This is taking an organ from one (one with equal, not extra, claim to it) in order to give the other a better life. And yet you would tell someone that they must subjugate their organs, which only they have any claim to at all, to another that may or may not constitute a human person - and you would be willing to force such an action, rather than simply stating that you think it to be moral.

And here we go: Children are not adults; children only have the potential to be adults.

And we don't treat them as adults until they reach that potential.

Well, I do. Except for the fact that some people may need that second kidney someday... I see no problem with compulsory donation of superfluous organs/tissue. With government compensation, of course.

Do you think a woman should get government compensation for being pregnant? Otherwise, you cannot logically argue that anyone forced against their will to donate organs should receive said compensation.

Nope. Healing /= destroying another person.
"But it's not a person!" you say. Fine. Ignore this argument and address the ones we stated on 'personhood' instead.
1) Human
2) Living
3) Individual

How exactly do you define "individual"? If it is by unique original DNA, you're screwed. You have to count monozygotic twins as one individual and chimeras as two human being. If it is by consciousness, you're still screwed. An embryo/early fetus has no such thing. If it is by the ability to develop and grow separately from another, you are still screwed - cancer then meets your definition, as do most types of individual cells.

So how exactly do you define "individual"?

It is a seperate organism - despite being dependant on its mother for suvival a biologist can clearly identify what is the embryo and what isnt.

Organisms have to be able to sense and respond to stimuli - it is a basic requirement. Thus, as a biologist, I can state with certainty that, under the current understanding of what constitutes an organism, an embryo/early fetus is not one.

It has its own individual DNA - Its own DNA which is completely unique from its mother, unlike a cancer cell whose only diffrence from its host is its rate of replication.

Incorrect. There are many differences between a cancer cell's DNA and it's host. It is differences in DNA that cause the difference in rate of replication (and that is hardly the only difference - other differences include it's ability to correct DNA damage, what it will and will not differentiate into, what the vascular cells that inhabit it express, etc....). You have a very, very, very limited understanding of biology. I would suggest that you try not to embarrass yourself by making incorrect statements as if they were fact...

Meanwhile, you still have yet to address chimeras - people who have two completely unique sets of DNA within themselves. Are they two persons? Are monozygotic twins one person?

Its is developing in the way of a "person" - unlike a cancer it is moving towards becoming a human.

Argument from potential. You have already been shown time and time and time again why this is a fallacy.

The DNA inside it is not only human, it is also growing in the pattern of that DNA.

DNA doesn't "grow". It is replicated as cells divide, but it doesn't actually grow itself.

Growth is one of the key guidelines for declaring something as living.

Sorry, you can't accept some of the guidelines and discard others. If you want to use the requirements for a living organism, you must accept the requirement to sense and respond to stimuli as well. They come as a set, my dear.

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right.

If no one has that right, then you cannot declare it either, and we can legislate nothing regarding it. We don't make restrictive laws on actual living, breathing human beings "just in case."

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Actually, they do.

Agreed. Unlike the raccoon, the newborn has potential to develop into a sentient creature. Even so, why not kill it off before it does achieve sentience?

The "point" of abortion isn't to kill the embryo, it's to rid the mother of it. Once it's born, she can just give it to adoption

Okay, then. Avalon answered this already, but I feel like a little emphasis. Address the newborn argument. A newborn does not have more awareness of itself or its surroundings than a sophisticated animal. Why is this thing a person, if it only has the potential to develop further?

It doesn't matter whether or not it's a person. I think everyone agrees that if an embryo could be removed without being killed, that would be preferable. An embryo isn't aperson, so it doesn't get to enslave the women. A newborn can just be given to adoption.

The fetus needs substinence to survive, as all of us do. Many people on artificial breathing aparatuses are still considered people, yet they rely on modern medical science.

Repeat with me: a woman is not a machine.

Repeat with me: a woman is not a machine.Oh, obviously she is, or may as well be, according to some here. We're only good for spawning out babies, don't you know. Our happiness and well-being is of no importance when compared to a lump of cells that may or may not eventually become something more. Doesn't matter that we already are.

You know, when I was young and learning to hunt deer, my Dad taught me that I have to 'know' that the brown color movement I saw in the bush was deer 'before' I shot at it. Because that other persons right to walk through the woods out-wieghed my right to use my license to shoot a deer...


Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it. I think you got your analogy of who has to prove what, before action is carried out, backwards.

*stunned*

You hunt deer? And you call yourself pro-life? You. Hunt. And call yourself pro-life? Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

"My heart got callous to against the fact that I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me as to what abortion really was."
~former abortionist Dr. David Brewer

"I want the general public to know what the doctors know- that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue."
~Dr. Anthony Levantino

"I have taken the lives of innocent babies, and I have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful suction machine"
~McArthur Hill, M.D.

"Remember, there is a human being at the other end of the table taking that kid apart. We've had a couple of guys drinking too much, taking drugs, even a suicide or two."
~Dr. Julius Butler, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Minnesota Medical School

"Arms, legs, and chests come out of the forceps. It's not a sight for everybody"
~Dr. William Benbow Thompson at the University of California at Irvine

What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you think you've just enlightened everyone here to the fact that some people are against abortion? I know I'm floored by the notion. Now, would you care to make your argument or are you going to keep spamming with quotes?

You know, when I was young and learning to hunt deer, my Dad taught me that I have to 'know' that the brown color movement I saw in the bush was deer 'before' I shot at it. Because that other persons right to walk through the woods out-wieghed my right to use my license to shoot a deer...


Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it. I think you got your analogy of who has to prove what, before action is carried out, backwards.

Yes, yes, this is exactly the same thing. Oh, wait, it isn't. In your scenario, there are two individual persons who can be shown objectively to have rights. This is not the case with abortion. Would you like to try again?

An embryo isn't aperson, so it doesn't get to enslave the women.


Let us keep in mind that even a fully-fledged person cannot enslave another. Why would a non-person, or an icomplete person, have the right to enslave someone?


Repeat with me: a woman is not a machine.

A woman is not a machine.

And let's not forget part two: a woman has the right to have sex.

Oh, obviously she is, or may as well be, according to some here. We're only good for spawning out babies, don't you know. Our happiness and well-being is of no importance when compared to a lump of cells that may or may not eventually become something more. Doesn't matter that we already are.

Oh, right. Silly me.

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

You are correct my friend, if we allowed ONLY the empirical definitions, we should live in a MUCH different world.

However, our societies impose certain strictures on the empirical... these strictures form of 'societal rights'.

We KNOW they are 'societal', not 'empirical'... when a shark eats a person - there is no 'right to life' that protects us against non-societal factors.

Of course, each society will have it's own, unique, set of 'societal rights'.

The 'right to life' is one of these societal rights.... or, more accurately, the situations under which one HAS the 'right to live' is 'societal'.

So - some societies may have 'death-penalties', for those who violate other societal constraints.

Some societies will not allow an individual to chose his/her time of death, despite levels of suffering, because they consider the 'right of life' to belong to the society, not the individual.

Some societies will allow abortion, because they do not allow 'right to life' to be extended beyond certain limits.

So - when you try to use 'the right to life' as a justification, my friend... just remember, the 'right to life' is ONLY what WE make it.

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.

Not at all, my friend... although it might be fun to see you try.

Although there is no ABSOLUTE 'right to life', we DO institute our own systems of control. In empirical terms, yes, you could murder me with impunity... however, even the attempt is counter to our societal rules, and thus, our society would punish you.

Don't confuse 'no empirical right' with 'so go do it'.

A woman is not a machine.

And let's not forget part two: a woman has the right to have sex.

Cannot be over-emphasized.

Not at all, my friend... although it might be fun to see you try.

Although there is no ABSOLUTE 'right to life', we DO institute our own systems of control. In empirical terms, yes, you could murder me with impunity... however, even the attempt is counter to our societal rules, and thus, our society would punish you.

Don't confuse 'no empirical right' with 'so go do it'.

Well, he also seems to misunderstand that kill or be killed isn't the only situation where one is permitted to take a life. Rape is a perfect example. If someone was trying to rape me and I killed them... on purpose, I would be protected by the law, not incarcerated by it.

What if he is not her husband?

Excellent point... and the reason why I would hotly oppose any law that tried to institute automatically informing husbands/significant others about abortions.

And, this is FROM a married man.

Well, he also seems to misunderstand that kill or be killed isn't the only situation where one is permitted to take a life. Rape is a perfect example. If someone was trying to rape me and I killed them... on purpose, I would be protected by the law, not incarcerated by it.

That is because his agenda relies on the world being UTTERLY black and white. He cannot make arguments about the sanctity of life, or whatever, if he ALSO has to concede that there are sometimes shades of grey.

Perhaps the defenders of the child killers are in superior numbers here...

Appeal to emotion, my friend?

I expected higher quality debating from you...

However, as you have pointed out it is not a "person" but let me ask you this. What gives you the right to declare when it is/isnt a person. No one has that right.

And yet, you are doing exactly the same thing?

Avalon - simple question.... are you a man or a woman?

(I believe those are the two main options).

Appeal to emotion, my friend?

I expected higher quality debating from you...

High expectations? In an internet forum? o.0

*stunned*

You hunt deer? And you call yourself pro-life? You. Hunt. And call yourself pro-life? Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
you know you aren't making a whole lot of sense either, I mean under your logic if a vegetarian thinks it is wrong to eat animals, then they automatically can't be pro-choice?:rolleyes:

I think you are confusing what logic actually means.

*stunned*

You hunt deer? And you call yourself pro-life? You. Hunt. And call yourself pro-life? Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.


Perhaps it's time you opened your logic to include real world ecology and perhaps introduce yourself to some Native American philosophies as well, especially in regards to conservation of natural resources. Life must consume life, it is the nature of existence on this planet we call the Earth. *Fairy tale denial time is over*

Perhaps it's time you opened your logic to include real world ecology and perhaps introduce yourself to some Native American philosophies as well, especially in regards to conservation of natural resources. Life must consume life, it is the nature of existence on this planet we call the Earth. *Fairy tale denial time is over*
Are you saying we should eat embryo's?:p j/k

Are you saying we should eat embryo's?:p j/k


Chicken embryos... Okay.

you know you aren't making a whole lot of sense either, I mean under your logic if a vegetarian thinks it is wrong to eat animals, then they automatically can't be pro-choice?:rolleyes:

I think you are confusing what logic actually means.

A lot of pro-choice people wouldn't get abortions for themselves. The pro-choice encourage other to do just that, choose for themselves. It's the pro-lifers who keep imposing their morals on others. Someone can be a vegetarian and not try to force others to do the same, which makes them for individual conscience decision, not against it.

Now, to have someone who hunts start talking about the sanctity of life??

Perhaps it's time you opened your logic to include real world ecology and perhaps introduce yourself to some Native American philosophies as well, especially in regards to conservation of natural resources. Life must consume life, it is the nature of existence on this planet we call the Earth. *Fairy tale denial time is over*

Native American philosophies? So you're hunting for food, right? And only 'cause there's no markets selling meat anywhere near you. Because, obviously, you wouldn't be hunting for sport. I hardly believe native americans did that.

A lot of pro-choice people wouldn't get abortions for themselves. The pro-choice encourage other to do just that, choose for themselves. It's the pro-lifers who keep imposing their morals on others. Someone can be a vegetarian and not try to force others to do the same, which makes them for individual conscience decision, not against it.

Now, to have someone who hunts start talking about the sanctity of life??
Okay, but that isn't what you said.

and I would assume he is talking about the sanctity of human life, besides under your logic someone who thought it was wrong to kill animals, would automatically have to be against the death penalty and abortion.

just because he is pro-life and is a hunter doesn't make him a hypocrite, in fact the two have nothing to do with eachother.

Chicken embryos... Okay.

Ewwwwwwwwwwww.

I don't know about you, but if I crack an egg and I can tell it's been fertilized, it's going in the trash.

and I would assume he is talking about the sanctity of human life, besides under your logic someone who thought it was wrong to kill animals, would automatically have to be against the death penalty and abortion.

Someone who truly thinks it is absolutely wrong to kill animals *would* have to be against the death penalty. If and only if they believed an embryo/early fetus to be an animal, they would have to also have to oppose abortion.

Of course, this assumes actual logic on the part of the believer. Belief and logic do not always go hand in hand.

Native American philosophies? So you're hunting for food, right? And only 'cause there's no markets selling meat anywhere near you. Because, obviously, you wouldn't be hunting for sport. I hardly believe native americans did that.


Perhaps you don't think there is a difference between free range chicken and factory raised chicken? The same works true for red meat. And yes, we eat it, after giving thanks.

Okay, but that isn't what you said.

and I would assume he is talking about the sanctity of human life, besides under your logic someone who thought it was wrong to kill animals, would automatically have to be against the death penalty and abortion.

just because he is pro-life and is a hunter doesn't make him a hypocrite, in fact the two have nothing to do with eachother.

If he calls himself anti-woman-rights and is a hunter, I won't call him a hypocrite. If he calls himself pro-life and is a hunter, yeah, hypocrite.

Perhaps you don't think there is a difference between free range chicken and factory raised chicken? The same works true for red meat. And yes, we eat it, after giving thanks.

What I think is that there's no reason to go hunting animals unless you enjoy it.

If he calls himself anti-woman-rights and is a hunter, I won't call him a hypocrite. If he calls himself pro-life and is a hunter, yeah, hypocrite.
equating his pro-life veiw to mean that he is anti-woman-rights doesn't make much sense to me, because I assume that he doesn't see killing unborn babies as a woman's right, but more likely equates it with murder.

If he calls himself anti-woman-rights and is a hunter, I won't call him a hypocrite. If he calls himself pro-life and is a hunter, yeah, hypocrite.

I think the real point to be made here is that pro-life is, in and of itself, a bit of a misnomer. People have adopted it because it sounds good. After all, how could you possibly oppose someone who is pro-life?

The thing is, even if they called the general idea what it actually is - anti-abortion or even pro-not-getting-an-abortion or even pro-chance-at-developing-into-a-baby-for-any-embryo/fetus-within-a-woman's-womb -- It still wouldn't be directly opposed to pro-choice. It is perfectly possible (and probably rather common) for a person to espouse all of these ideals and still be pro-choice.

We showed Smunkeeville earlier how, although she didn't like the idea of saying it, she is actually pro-choice. She explictly stated that she does not seek to make abortions illegal - thus, she is actually pro-choice in nature. She is simply anti-abortion, as are many of us. Very few people are gung-ho, "Hey, let's all go out and get abortions!"

Before I express my personal opinion about this topic I must say that I have only read the starting post and none of the other replies. I am not an overly religious person or anything, actually quite secular.

My personal opinion is that abortion should only be allowed if the pregnancy endangers the mother or the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

In the first circumstance the women is at risk for her own life and thus we must allow her the oppurtunity to live. In the second circumstance the pregnancy is a result of a traumatic and unwanted experience and there is no logical reason for why the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term.

In all other circumstances the woman had a CHOICE to use or not to use birth control when having sex. If she neglects her responsibility to use safe sex in order to avoid getting pregnant then, in my eyes, she loses the right to do what she wants with her body, because unfortunately that now involves another person's life which is equally as valued as hers.

My definition of life is the moment at which the sperm combines with the egg because no matter how hard you argue against it, you have to realize thats how EVERY person started out.

I think the real point to be made here is that pro-life is, in and of itself, a bit of a misnomer. People have adopted it because it sounds good. After all, how could you possibly oppose someone who is pro-life?

The thing is, even if they called the general idea what it actually is - anti-abortion or even pro-not-getting-an-abortion or even pro-chance-at-developing-into-a-baby-for-any-embryo/fetus-within-a-woman's-womb -- It still wouldn't be directly opposed to pro-choice. It is perfectly possible (and probably rather common) for a person to espouse all of these ideals and still be pro-choice.

We showed Smunkeeville earlier how, although she didn't like the idea of saying it, she is actually pro-choice. She explictly stated that she does not seek to make abortions illegal - thus, she is actually pro-choice in nature. She is simply anti-abortion, as are many of us. Very few people are gung-ho, "Hey, let's all go out and get abortions!"
I still would like a better term than pro-choice, I don't want to get lumped in with the "abortion is my favorite form of birth control crowd" I know they are in the minority, but as a Christian I am having problems already with being lumped together with the nutty minority there (pat roberts anyone?)

Perhaps it's time you opened your logic to include real world ecology and perhaps introduce yourself to some Native American philosophies as well, especially in regards to conservation of natural resources. Life must consume life, it is the nature of existence on this planet we call the Earth. *Fairy tale denial time is over*
Embyros aren't life. Well they aren't alive by any defination. So is eating them canabalism or what?

I mean if we start eating embryos we won't have to eat life~!
(Sarcasm or not, you decide)


My personal opinion is that abortion should only be allowed if the pregnancy endangers the mother or the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

Bravo, that is sensible.

In the first circumstance the women is at risk for her own life and thus we must allow her the oppurtunity to live. In the second circumstance the pregnancy is a result of a traumatic and unwanted experience and there is no logical reason for why the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term.

Agreed.

In all other circumstances the woman had a CHOICE to use or not to use birth control when having sex. If she neglects her responsibility to use safe sex in order to avoid getting pregnant then, in my eyes, she loses the right to do what she wants with her body, because unfortunately that now involves another person's life which is equally as valued as hers.

Well, at least your argument makes logic.
But than why do you think a woman has to lose her rights? Why is a collection of cells (embryo at most) have same value as the woman?
I mean by any defination it isn't alive (debated 2 pages ago). I found out a embryo is undead (not alive but not dead). They perfer rocks, but embryos aren't hard enough.

My definition of life is the moment at which the sperm combines with the egg because no matter how hard you argue against it, you have to realize thats how EVERY person started out.

Nope, I started in heaven like everyone did.

(skip this if you don't want to read religious stuff)
You see back before the world was created there was a big Council. All the Elder Spirts (most of us) were there.
Heavenly Father wanted to give us the gift of life.
But he feared he needed a way for us to return to be in his presence he didn't want to lose us.
So he asked who would like the job of returning people to heaven.
"Here I am, send me" said Lucifer.
"I'll make sure everyone comes back and all the ptaise will go to me."

Than anither said, " Here I am send me, I'll give everyone the choice to choose, but I get the most part back. All the glory shall be yours father," his name was Jesus.

Heavenly Father chose Jesus. And we were given free Agency to choose to do good or evil. But Satan was upset that he wasn't chosen. He was going to rebel. So he gathered other angels who agreed with him and fought.

He lost and was banished to Outer Darkness. But that wasn't the end of him...
End Religious story

But I understand your beliefs are your own.
I just wanted you to realize some of us believe in premortality.

equating his pro-life veiw to mean that he is anti-woman-rights doesn't make much sense to me, because I assume that he doesn't see killing unborn babies as a woman's right, but more likely equates it with murder.

Meaning he doesn't see women as having the right to decide what happens in their own bodies. Anti-woman-rights. Well, maybe simply anti-civil-rights.

My personal opinion is that abortion should only be allowed if the pregnancy endangers the mother or the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

In other words, you think a woman should be punished for having sex. You obviously don't place value on the embryo/fetus, as you are perfectly ok with a woman who was raped having an abortion. Thus, it is only a woman who voluntarily has sex who should be forced into carrying a pregnancy...

In the second circumstance the pregnancy is a result of a traumatic and unwanted experience and there is no logical reason for why the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term.

If there is no logical reason that a woman who was raped should continue the pregnancy to term, what is the logical reason that a woman who was not raped should be forced to do so? Oh wait! I got it! She chose to have sex so she deserves to be forced into something that someone who is more virtuos does not!

In all other circumstances the woman had a CHOICE to use or not to use birth control when having sex.

Some 60% of elective abortions are women who were using birth control. They made that CHOICE, and the birth control failed. Does that mean you won't force them to carry a pregnancy to term?

If she neglects her responsibility to use safe sex in order to avoid getting pregnant then, in my eyes, she loses the right to do what she wants with her body, because unfortunately that now involves another person's life which is equally as valued as hers.

If you really believe it to be another person with an equal value, you would not allow abortions in the case of rape. Or are you suggesting that a child that is the result of rape is of lesser value than one who was not?

My definition of life is the moment at which the sperm combines with the egg because no matter how hard you argue against it, you have to realize thats how EVERY person started out.

Oh yeah? Well my definition of life is the individual sperm and the individual egg, because no matter how hard you argue against it, you have to realize thats how EVERY person started out.

There is no logical difference between these two statements. Every person "started out" as an individual sperm and an individual egg. Thus, by your exact logic, all sperm and all eggs should be protected as human lives....

I still would like a better term than pro-choice, I don't want to get lumped in with the "abortion is my favorite form of birth control crowd" I know they are in the minority, but as a Christian I am having problems already with being lumped together with the nutty minority there (pat roberts anyone?)

The only people that even create an imaginary "abortion is my favorite form of birth control crowd" are not worth the time worrying about. If someone wants to lump you in with a bunch of imaginary people, I would say, let them - they aren't worth talking to in the first place.

I get "lumped in" with people I don't agree with all the time. I have been "lumped in" with fundamentalist Christians, atheists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, pro-abortion, anti-choice, etc. people - sometimes all in one week. All it demonstrates is a weakness in the person doing the lumping - they are unable to consider, even for a moment, that every issue is not perfectly black and white and that *gasp* there might be more than two sides to a given issue.

Before I express my personal opinion about this topic I must say that I have only read the starting post and none of the other replies. I am not an overly religious person or anything, actually quite secular.

My personal opinion is that abortion should only be allowed if the pregnancy endangers the mother or the pregnancy is a result of a rape.

In the first circumstance the women is at risk for her own life and thus we must allow her the oppurtunity to live. In the second circumstance the pregnancy is a result of a traumatic and unwanted experience and there is no logical reason for why the woman should be forced to carry the baby to term.

In all other circumstances the woman had a CHOICE to use or not to use birth control when having sex. If she neglects her responsibility to use safe sex in order to avoid getting pregnant then, in my eyes, she loses the right to do what she wants with her body, because unfortunately that now involves another person's life which is equally as valued as hers.

My definition of life is the moment at which the sperm combines with the egg because no matter how hard you argue against it, you have to realize thats how EVERY person started out.

Do you *really* think that after 76 pages nobody has already said that?

In all other circumstances the woman had a CHOICE to use or not to use birth control when having sex. If she neglects her responsibility to use safe sex in order to avoid getting pregnant then, in my eyes, she loses the right to do what she wants with her body, because unfortunately that now involves another person's life which is equally as valued as hers.
What if she exercised her CHOICE, used a birth control device, and still got pregnant?

Regardless of whether she may have "lost a right" in your eyes, she still may have it in hers. Why should your opinion rule?

Shouldn't the child of a rape be "equally as valued" as well?

Meaning he doesn't see women as having the right to decide what happens in their own bodies. Anti-woman-rights. Well, maybe simply anti-civil-rights.
and he could argue that by killing a human (fetus) that pro-choicers are anti human rights

you have to realize that you two are not working under the same conditions, things that may be a given for him are not for you and vice-versa

calling him names isn't nice.

and he could argue that by killing a human (fetus) that pro-choicers are anti human rights

you have to realize that you two are not working under the same conditions, things that may be a given for him are not for you and vice-versa

calling him names isn't nice.

Hey, you started it, calling him "hunter".

and he could argue that by killing a human (fetus) that pro-choicers are anti human rights

you have to realize that you two are not working under the same conditions, things that may be a given for him are not for you and vice-versa

calling him names isn't nice.
One can argue the fetus/embryo is not yet human until it is alive.

I mean bacteria steal human dna: are bacteria human now?

What I think is that there's no reason to go hunting animals unless you enjoy it.

I have enjoyed it in the past. I have no qualms with it now.

I am anti-choice in regards to abortion. If a woman and her doctor determine that she 'requires' an abortion, then that is not a 'choice,' and I have no problem with it, the same as a person having an emergency by-pass heart surgery is not a choice, it's a required procedure.

Any other reason for legal abortions are simply advocating that freedom of 'choice' is held over the regard and sanctity of human life, and the regard society holds for the sanctity of human life should out-weigh the regard it has for the 'privacy' to kill ones own offspring. However, that is not the case today. We regard our own personal ambitions to out-weigh all other concerns and advance what should not be an option at all as the quick non-fix to the problems that drove someone to want an abortion in the first place. Instead of allowing abortions we should be concerned with ending the need for abortions.

As a society we kill our own progeny and then compound our shame by trying to deny that it was even a baby in the first place. As we want to deceive our very selves. But if it wasn't a Baby, you didn't need an abortion now did you?

The cycle of life and death is not unrelated to this issue, but your assumption that hunting and eating the meat of the animal you kill yourself is somehow less 'earth' friendly than eating meat from a store is simply naive and childish. Perhaps your parents should have exposed you to the cycles of fertility and death and the rebirth inherent in the seasons of the earth when you were younger so that you wouldn't be so distressed by the reality of existence today, but perchance it's not too late and you can still discover the real world around you instead of sticking to the cartoonish imaginary concept that you disseminate now.

Hey, you started it, calling him "hunter".
hey, I like hunters they bring home deer meat. ;)

One can argue the fetus/embryo is not yet human until it is alive.

I mean bacteria steal human dna: are bacteria human now?
I am not trying to argue either direction on the subject, it is not a scientifically winnable argument either way.

I was commenting on the fact that both sides are working under different circumtances.

The cycle of life and death is not unrelated to this issue, but your assumption that hunting and eating the meat of the animal you kill yourself is somehow less 'earth' friendly than eating meat from a store is simply naive and childish. Perhaps your parents should have exposed you to the cycles of fertility and death and the rebirth inherent in the seasons of the earth when you were younger so that you wouldn't be so distressed by the reality of existence today, but perchance it's not too late and you can still discover the real world around you instead of sticking to the cartoonish imaginary concept that you disseminate now.

You don't have to justify yourself to me. Humans are far removed from nature's cycles. If you wanna reintegrate yourself, that's your business. By the way, I'm not "disseminating" anything. If anyone is disseminating their concepts, it's people who are anti-abortion and want to make their opinion into law.

Ok, here's a new idea in the ring. In Brazil, if somebody breaks into our homes uninvited, the homeowners are allowed to defend themselves and their property, even killing the intruder, if necessary. If my knowlege of the Simpsons serves me well, the US has something similar.

So, if you can kill a human being that enters your home uninvited, why can't you kill one that enters your body??

Ok, here's a new idea in the ring. In Brazil, if somebody breaks into our homes uninvited, the homeowners are allowed to defend themselves and their property, even killing the intruder, if necessary. If my knowlege of the Simpsons serves me well, the US has something similar.

So, if you can kill a human being that enters your home uninvited, why can't you kill one that enters your body??
except in cases of rape you do invite the baby into your body, well to be more technical you invite the sperm in to make baby.

except in cases of rape you do invite the baby into your body, well to be more technical you invite the sperm in to make baby.

No, you don't even necessarily invite the sperm in (condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, pull-out, etc.). And you definitely don't necessarily invite it in to make a baby (all of the above + birth control pill, depo, rhythm method, etc.).

except in cases of rape you do invite the baby into your body, well to be more technical you invite the sperm in to make baby.

I would regard condoms and other contraceptives as the equivalent of a closed and locked door.
It doesn't necessarily keep the trespasser out, so if he still enters the house uninvitedly, you have every right to shoot him.

except in cases of rape you do invite the baby into your body, well to be more technical you invite the sperm in to make baby.

Not if you use birth control.

There is no trespassing involved. It is their home, they live there.

I would regard condoms and other contraceptives as the equivalent of a closed and locked door.
It doesn't necessarily keep the trespasser out, so if he still enters the house uninvitedly, you have every right to shoot him.

Do you have to use a gun? :eek:


No, that is the thing Ph33rdom, they don't live there. They moved there without your permission and you own the territory.

There is no trespassing involved. It is their home, they live there.

It may be their home, but it's my body. On the spirit of Avalon's "pregnant or dead" question, would you prefer to be kicked out of your home or have a parasite take over your body?

There is no trespassing involved. It is their home, they live there.

Actually, still not true... they have no claim to the territory, because it is already owned, and no transaction has granted tenancy.

At best, we are talking 'squatters'.

Not if you use birth control.
pregnancy is a logical consequence of having sex, birth control or not, if you have sex you must know that you could have gotten pregnant and by having sex anyway you accept that consequence.

Actually, still not true... they have no claim to the territory, because it is already owned, and no transaction has granted tenancy.

At best, we are talking 'squatters'.
Well the united States could just take your home, move you to the Trail of tears till they like that land better...

Sorry, every time I tyhink about someone talking land/bodies that isn't theirs I think of my Native American heritage and the theft they endured. :D

pregnancy is a logical consequence of having sex, birth control or not, if you have sex you must know that you could have gotten pregnant and by having sex anyway you accept that consequence.

You accept that there is a - however slim - chance of getting pregnant. There ist also a similar chance of getting infected with an STD. You don't refuse treatment in that case, either, do you?
You never ever agreed to actually carrying out a child. That's why you can have an abortion.

Saying that pregnancy is the logical consequence of sex is like saying that theft is the logical consequence of having private property...

Actually, still not true... they have no claim to the territory, because it is already owned, and no transaction has granted tenancy.

At best, we are talking 'squatters'.

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.

pregnancy is a logical consequence of having sex, birth control or not, if you have sex you must know that you could have gotten pregnant and by having sex anyway you accept that consequence.

Again with the Filthy Whore argument. Having sex does not mean you accept pregnancy. It doesn't mean you accept STDs either. You take precautions and, if they fail, you take corrective measures.

Sex. Is not just for reproduction anymore.

except in cases of rape you do invite the baby into your body, well to be more technical you invite the sperm in to make baby.

Not at all.

The girl in question MIGHT invite a penis in... any sperm that arrive are just an unfortunate side-effect.

Especially, if she took precautions.

All of which is irrelevent.

If I eat food, I am not 'asking to be choked to death'... and if it happens, I'll be pretty miffed.

If a girl has sex, she is not 'asking to be impregnated'... and, if it happens, it is up to her to decide how she wants to deal with that.

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.

They didn't. Or are you trying to tell me I was born pregnant?

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.

No, they didn't. My "territory" is here right now, no aboriginal people in it.

Well the united States could just take your home, move you to the Trail of tears till they like that land better...

Sorry, every time I tyhink about someone talking land/bodies that isn't theirs I think of my Native American heritage and the theft they endured. :D

I'm not Native, but I married a Cherokee. Manifest Destiny is the shame of western 'civilisation'.

It's even more of a shame, that the 'nation' still seems to be following the same path. Some people just cannot learn from history. :(

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.

And, dude, if the Earth itself! wanted me gone, I'd shut the f@#$ up and leave.

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.

Manifest Destiny in two consecutive posts....

No - they didn't come WITH the territory, although they might 'annex' it.

They didn't. Or are you trying to tell me I was born pregnant?

Where did they invade from? Intruders come from outside and 'intrude'

The fetus was never, outside, thus, it can't invade, it's indigenous.

And, dude, if the Earth itself! wanted me gone, I'd shut the f@#$ up and leave.

No you wouldn't, sticking with your analogy the 'earth itself' killed you so you can't 'go' anywhere...

Where did they invade from? Intruders come from outside and 'intrude'

The fetus was never, outside, thus, it can't invade, it's indigenous.
The eggs are terrorist splinter cells made to take over the body. When they fail each month, the area runs red with their blood (Aunt flo).

Threy invaded from the inside: basically they are traitors.

Where did they invade from? Intruders come from outside and 'intrude'

The fetus was never, outside, thus, it can't invade, it's indigenous.

The foetus was never in the uterus, to begin with.

The egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tube, and the blastocyst then proceeds to 'invade' the sovereign territory of the uterus...well, actually, 30% of those that even fertilise fail to implant...

If I own a house, and two people come and have sex there, and give birth to a child there.... though he is BORN there, that child is STILL trespassing.

If a woman has a uterus, and an egg and a sperm meet there, and create a blastocyst there... even though it implants there, that blastocyst is STILL trespassing.

The eggs are terrorist splinter cells made to take over the body. When they fail each month, the area runs red with their blood (Aunt flo).

Threy invaded from the inside: basically they are traitors.

Ova are 5th Columnists, conspiring with external aggressors to annex their Uterine neighbours....

You accept that there is a - however slim - chance of getting pregnant. There ist also a similar chance of getting infected with an STD. You don't refuse treatment in that case, either, do you?
You never ever agreed to actually carrying out a child. That's why you can have an abortion.

Saying that pregnancy is the logical consequence of sex is like saying that theft is the logical consequence of having private property...
saying that pregnancy is a logical consequence of having sex, is like saying breaking your neck is a logical consequence of jumping off the roof of your house, it may not happen but by taking that action you are assuming that could be a consequence.

I said before (about 50 pages ago) that a person always has to weigh the risk of an action with the benifits, just because the risk is low doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and I am tired of people who act like a logical consequence to thier action is somehow "forced" upon them when they chose to commit such action.

The foetus was never in the uterus, to begin with.

The egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tube, and the blastocyst then proceeds to 'invade' the sovereign territory of the uterus...well, actually, 30% of those that even fertilise fail to implant...

If I own a house, and two people come and have sex there, and give birth to a child there.... though he is BORN there, that child is STILL trespassing.

If a woman has a uterus, and an egg and a sperm meet there, and create a blastocyst there... even though it implants there, that blastocyst is STILL trespassing.


Ah, you got too detailed for your own good and forgot the orginal analogy (which was an invader in a house). With the original analogy in mind, you are now declaring the kitchen a separate entity from the dinning room and the bedroom and bathroom have announced their intention to secede from the nation of "house?"

No, it's all one house. There is one 'home' with no intruders. The blastocyst is not intruding, it is just new development. It exists now, it never existed anywhere else before, it is in it's native and natural habitat.

No you wouldn't, sticking with your analogy the 'earth itself' killed you so you can't 'go' anywhere...

Alright, if the Earth itself will kill me in 30 sec. I'll shut up and die.

Again with the Filthy Whore argument. Having sex does not mean you accept pregnancy. It doesn't mean you accept STDs either. You take precautions and, if they fail, you take corrective measures.

Sex. Is not just for reproduction anymore.
sex also is not a required activity, you don't have to have sex, if the risks are greater than the benifits you shouldn't do it.

Where did they invade from? Intruders come from outside and 'intrude'

The fetus was never, outside, thus, it can't invade, it's indigenous.

Erm... did anybody ever tell you what happens during sex? I can assure you, my body isn't full of foetuses...

sex also is not a required activity, you don't have to have sex, if the risks are greater than the benifits you shouldn't do it.

No, it's not required, but intimate contact is an important part of a serious adult romantic relationship.

And are you basically saying that because I don't want to ever have kids I can't ever have sex??

Yes, there are risks, but there are also precautions and corrective measures.

saying that pregnancy is a logical consequence of having sex, is like saying breaking your neck is a logical consequence of jumping off the roof of your house, it may not happen but by taking that action you are assuming that could be a consequence.

I said before (about 50 pages ago) that a person always has to weigh the risk of an action with the benifits, just because the risk is low doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and I am tired of people who act like a logical consequence to thier action is somehow "forced" upon them when they chose to commit such action.

You wouldn't refuse medical attention to somebody who did jump from the roof of the house, would you?

Actually, having safe sex might better be compared with bungee jumping. You do have a rope, but accidents happen. So you would be all for letting them bleed to death instead of trying to correct the effects of the accident?

You wouldn't refuse medical attention to somebody who did jump from the roof of the house, would you?

Actually, having safe sex might better be compared with bungee jumping. You do have a rope, but accidents happen. So you would be all for letting them bleed to death instead of trying to correct the effects of the accident?

If you give medical treatment to someone, what you are doing is attempting to save their live. Not killing someone elses. In the case of your neck being broken you can fix it without killing anyone. Abortion only becomes a medical operation when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die if the embryo is not aborted)

If you give medical treatment to someone, what you are doing is attempting to save their live. Not killing someone elses. In the case of your neck being broken you can fix it without killing anyone. Abortion only becomes a medical operation when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die if the embryo is not aborted)

Yeah, but you're not attempting suicide by having sex either, so the initial example was bad.

Ah, you got too detailed for your own good and forgot the orginal analogy (which was an invader in a house). With the original analogy in mind, you are now declaring the kitchen a separate entity from the dinning room and the bedroom and bathroom have announced their intention to secede from the nation of "house?"

No, it's all one house. There is one 'home' with no intruders. The blastocyst is not intruding, it is just new development. It exists now, it never existed anywhere else before, it is in it's native and natural habitat.

The foetus is the invader... the uterus is the house.

You are saying that the ovaries are part of the same house? I'm saying ovaries are next door... because ova don't 'live' in the uterus.

If the uterus is the house, the whole body is the street. The sperm have been seen lurking around the street, and MIGHT get into the house... they might even make it through to where the ova live next door. Then - the ova and the sperm might form a secret society to home-invade that uterus, next door.

No, it's not required, but intimate contact is an important part of a serious adult romantic relationship.

And are you basically saying that because I don't want to ever have kids I can't ever have sex??

Yes, there are risks, but there are also precautions and corrective measures.


If you 'never' want to have kids, get your tubes tied, end of problem. Unless of course you're just trying to make a point...

Yeah, but you're not attempting suicide by having sex either, so the initial example was bad.

Its an analogy. His point was that in both cases, there may be an outcome you dont desire but you should be prepared for it if it does.

If you give medical treatment to someone, what you are doing is attempting to save their live. Not killing someone elses. In the case of your neck being broken you can fix it without killing anyone. Abortion only becomes a medical operation when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die if the embryo is not aborted)

You are not killing "anyone", as there is no person yet. You are providing medical attention to recreate the normal, healthy, non-pregnant status of her body...

No, it's not required, but intimate contact is an important part of a serious adult romantic relationship. but you have to decide which is more important to you, not having children, or having sex.

And are you basically saying that because I don't want to ever have kids I can't ever have sex?? of course you can have sex, my opinions shouldn't dictate anyones actions (except my own) if however you weigh the risk against the benifit, then you have to decide whether sex it worth it or not.

Yes, there are risks, but there are also precautions and corrective measures.
sure, but I am tired of people who whine (not you maybe) about consequences to the risks they take as if by taking precautions that try to prevent them make the risk non-existent.

The foetus is the invader... the uterus is the house.

You are saying that the ovaries are part of the same house? I'm saying ovaries are next door... because ova don't 'live' in the uterus.

If the uterus is the house, the whole body is the street. The sperm have been seen lurking around the street, and MIGHT get into the house... they might even make it through to where the ova live next door. Then - the ova and the sperm might form a secret society to home-invade that uterus, next door.


The uterus is NOT the house. The shared space, the mother's body/space, is the house. Unless you think women are just walking uterus life support systems, the uterus is the spare room prepared and waiting for the natural development of the anticipated occupant.

You are not killing "anyone", as there is no person yet. You are providing medical attention to recreate the normal, healthy, non-pregnant status of her body...
and again you and Avalon are working from different standards as to what a fetus actually is....

Its an analogy. His point was that in both cases, there may be an outcome you dont desire but you should be prepared for it if it does.

Correct. Be prepared to either have it or abort it.

If you 'never' want to have kids, get your tubes tied, end of problem. Unless of course you're just trying to make a point...

I will get a permanent birth control. Unfortunately, I'm only 20 and no self-respecting doctor is going to sterilize a 20 year-old, so I need to rely on less effective methods for now. But you should know that even tubal ligation isn't 100% effective, and its effectiveness decreases with time.

No, it's not required, but intimate contact is an important part of a serious adult romantic relationship.

And are you basically saying that because I don't want to ever have kids I can't ever have sex??

Yes, there are risks, but there are also precautions and corrective measures.

Agreed. I am not saying (and I suspect neither is the person you are responding to) that you cant have sex. What he is saying is that if you do you should be prepared for the posibility of pregnancy. You can reduce that posibility by using protection, but you must be prepared for a level of posibility. If you role a dice, you must accept that the posibility of the outcome of a 5 is 1/6. If you dont get a 5, you can't crush the dice with a hammer because you didnt get the result you wanted.

If you give medical treatment to someone, what you are doing is attempting to save their live. Not killing someone elses. In the case of your neck being broken you can fix it without killing anyone. Abortion only becomes a medical operation when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die if the embryo is not aborted)
exactly. you know it kinda scares me when we agree :eek:

Its an analogy. His point was that in both cases, there may be an outcome you dont desire but you should be prepared for it if it does.

That's the word! Thanks.

Correct. Be prepared to either have it or abort it.

Again you miss the point. The abortion is not a medical operation seing as it does harm. The hipocratic oath states "Do no harm". Being prepared for pregnancy means just that. Being prepared for the child. Otherwise you will kill it. Being prepared for it means having it. Not destroying it.

but you have to decide which is more important to you, not having children, or having sex.


No, you don't. You can actually have both, no kids and great sex.

of course you can have sex, my opinions shouldn't dictate anyones actions (except my own) if however you weigh the risk against the benifit, then you have to decide whether sex it worth it or not.sure, but I am tired of people who whine (not you maybe) about consequences to the risks they take as if by taking precautions that try to prevent them make the risk non-existent.

The risks are there. But all - apart from AIDS - can be remedied.

Agreed. I am not saying (and I suspect neither is the person you are responding to) that you cant have sex. What he is saying is that if you do you should be prepared for the posibility of pregnancy. You can reduce that posibility by using protection, but you must be prepared for a level of posibility. If you role a dice, you must accept that the posibility of the outcome of a 5 is 1/6. If you dont get a 5, you can't crush the dice with a hammer because you didnt get the result you wanted.

Actually, you can. The rules got changed quite a while back.

Again you miss the point. The abortion is not a medical operation seing as it does harm. The hipocratic oath states "Do no harm". Being prepared for pregnancy means just that. Being prepared for the child. Otherwise you will kill it. Being prepared for it means having it. Not destroying it.

Who's it harm? What's the name of these murdered children harmed by this 'non-medical' procedure? What's their social security number? Face it, they are not recognized as persons (something you yourself said) and thus no person is harmed by the procedure and a person is helped. Has your argument seriously degraded to "I say it, so it must be true."

Not at all.

The girl in question MIGHT invite a penis in... any sperm that arrive are just an unfortunate side-effect.

Especially, if she took precautions.

All of which is irrelevent.

If I eat food, I am not 'asking to be choked to death'... and if it happens, I'll be pretty miffed.

If a girl has sex, she is not 'asking to be impregnated'... and, if it happens, it is up to her to decide how she wants to deal with that.

She can use no protection which is 100% effective. Thus she must be prepared for some chance of a side effect. If a woman has sex it means she must be prepared for some kind of chance of a pregnacy. It is not up to her "what to do with it" because she has no right to kill it.

Again you miss the point. The abortion is not a medical operation seing as it does harm. The hipocratic oath states "Do no harm". Being prepared for pregnancy means just that. Being prepared for the child. Otherwise you will kill it. Being prepared for it means having it. Not destroying it.

It does not do harm. It removes a growth of cells from the uterus, nothing more.
It is not yet a child, it is not yet a human being.

No, you don't. You can actually have both, no kids and great sex. I am aware of that. I was saying that by having sex, you are letting yourself possibly become subject to pregnancy, if you have sex you could get pregnant, that is all I am saying.

but you have to decide which is more important to you, not having children, or having sex.

I don't have to decide, I can have both.

sure, but I am tired of people who whine (not you maybe) about consequences to the risks they take as if by taking precautions that try to prevent them make the risk non-existent.

No, I know the risk is always there. And I know that if I got pregnant and had an abortion, I'd have to deal with the psychological and physical consequences of it. No one else can deal with the consequences of either carrying the child to term or getting an abortion for me, so why should anyone else get to decide what I should do?

She can use no protection which is 100% effective. Thus she must be prepared for some chance of a side effect. If a woman has sex it means she must be prepared for some kind of chance of a pregnacy. It is not up to her "what to do with it" because she has no right to kill it.

If you take a close look at the law of your country, I think you'll find she does have that right.

Agreed. I am not saying (and I suspect neither is the person you are responding to) that you cant have sex. What he is saying is that if you do you should be prepared for the posibility of pregnancy. You can reduce that posibility by using protection, but you must be prepared for a level of posibility. If you role a dice, you must accept that the posibility of the outcome of a 5 is 1/6. If you dont get a 5, you can't crush the dice with a hammer because you didnt get the result you wanted.

It's my die. I'l crush it or not, that's my business, not yours.

Again you miss the point. The abortion is not a medical operation seing as it does harm. The hipocratic oath states "Do no harm". Being prepared for pregnancy means just that. Being prepared for the child. Otherwise you will kill it. Being prepared for it means having it. Not destroying it.

The hipocratic oath also says never to cut on anyone, so is surgery not part of medicine?

I am aware of that. I was saying that by having sex, you are letting yourself possibly become subject to pregnancy, if you have sex you could get pregnant, that is all I am saying.

Ok, that is correct, yes. However, you do not at any stage accept to actually HAVE the baby.

I don't have to decide, I can have both. explain to me the 100% form of birth control..... I would like that, right now mine is sitting at about 1%



No, I know the risk is always there. And I know that if I got pregnant and had an abortion, I'd have to deal with the psychological and physical consequences of it. No one else can deal with the consequences of either carrying the child to term or getting an abortion for me, so why should anyone else get to decide what I should do?
they shouldn't, I think you missed the part where I am pro-choice (somewhat) because I don't think abortion should be illegal.

do I think abortion is wrong? yes
do I believe that it is murdering a child? yes
do I believe that 99% of the time it is completely avoidable? yes
do I realize that others don't believe this? yes
based on the fact that I don't rule the world and my opinions shouldn't be forced on others (I wouldn't want thiers forced on me, I was told with both of my pregnancies that I should abort, but I had the freedom not to)
do I believe that abortion should be legal? yes.

The uterus is NOT the house. The shared space, the mother's body/space, is the house. Unless you think women are just walking uterus life support systems, the uterus is the spare room prepared and waiting for the natural development of the anticipated occupant.

Fine, the entire woman is the house. The owner of the house allows her tenants (the ova) to live there provided they never bring anyone else to live there. Every month one of the tenants moves out and the owner of the house is fine with that. Then one month a tenant decides to marry a man (a man that the owner of the house introduced her to) and she and her new husband take over the living room (just off the front hallway). Now other tenants have met husbands but they decided to move out spontaneously. This one is trespassing, so the mother calls the sherrif. The sheriff removes the tenant for violating the lease and she starves to death on the street. Is that cold? Yes. Does the fact that tenant can't fend for herself mean that the owner of the house is obliged to let her stay? Nope.

Who's it harm? What's the name of these murdered children harmed by this 'non-medical' procedure? What's their social security number? Face it, they are not recognized as persons (something you yourself said) and thus no person is harmed by the procedure and a person is helped. Has your argument seriously degraded to "I say it, so it must be true."

They are alive. You cannot prove they are dead. Having a social security number is not a quality of being alive. It is developing into what you call a "person" but it is already a human. You say that this logic is flawed, as potential is irrelvent, but look at this. You kill a child, you kill an adult. In both cases the person was human, regardless of their age. Age of the child is irrelevent. It is a human life. Just not regocnising it does not change it

It has its own human DNA

It is developing into a "person"

It is a seperate entity (granted dependent on its mother, but people dependant on life support machines do not make the machines and the person one and the same, nor does it make the person on them any less of a person)

It is alive (IE not dead. The cells are living)

Now if someone can show me something that has ALL of these charterstics (not just one or two because I know cancer satisfys some of these) then I will enter into debate. But you cannot say that these are not true.

If you take a close look at the law of your country, I think you'll find she does have that right.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law?

explain to me the 100% form of birth control..... I would like that, right now mine is sitting at about 1%

So's mine. If it fails, I have a backup plan. So, still having sex, still not having a baby. No need to choose.

The hipocratic oath also says never to cut on anyone, so is surgery not part of medicine?

Show me where the hipocratic oath says dont cut someone. It means ultimate harm. Sugurey may have cuts and scars etc as a basic harm but ultimatley it does more good than harm. However abortion is more harm than good seeing as it leaves the embryo dead.

So's mine. If it fails, I have a backup plan. So, still having sex, still not having a baby. No need to choose.
as long as when you get pregnant(if would be better) you don't whine about how it was "forced" upon you, like you were innocently sitting there and turned up pregnant through no fault of your own (those are the people that annoy me not the ones who realize the risk and have a contengiency plan)

So's mine. If it fails, I have a backup plan. So, still having sex, still not having a baby. No need to choose.

Abortion is not a preventative form of birth control as you have it after sex. You are destroying a human life. The only time you have that is in a kill or be killed situation. Thus abortion is justified only when the mothers life is threatened by the existance of the embryo (IE she will die if it continues to develop)

Show me where the hipocratic oath says dont cut someone. It means ultimate harm. Sugurey may have cuts and scars etc as a basic harm but ultimatley it does more good than harm. However abortion is more harm than good seeing as it leaves the embryo dead.

Show me where the hippocratic oath says "don't harm anyone". =b

Oh, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath): "I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest"

They are alive. You cannot prove they are dead. Having a social security number is not a quality of being alive. It is developing into what you call a "person" but it is already a human. You say that this logic is flawed, as potential is irrelvent, but look at this. You kill a child, you kill an adult. In both cases the person was human, regardless of their age. Age of the child is irrelevent. It is a human life. Just not regocnising it does not change it

It has its own human DNA

It is developing into a "person"

It is a seperate entity (granted dependent on its mother, but people dependant on life support machines do not make the machines and the person one and the same, nor does it make the person on them any less of a person)

It is alive (IE not dead. The cells are living)

Now if someone can show me something that has ALL of these charterstics (not just one or two because I know cancer satisfys some of these) then I will enter into debate. But you cannot say that these are not true.

You still don't get the difference between "living" and "alive", do you?
Your spleen is alive, too, but it doesn't have any rights.

It is not a seperate entity, as it doesn't have an independent organism.

The chances that it might develop into something cannot be taken into account, as we are talking present situations, not future possibilities. Every sperm cell and every ovum has a possibility of developing into a human being, and yet masturbation and menstruation are not mass-murder.

Nobody ever said the a foetus is a lump of dead cells. It is a lump of living tissue, just like the entire rest of your body.

as long as when you get pregnant(if would be better) you don't whine about how it was "forced" upon you, like you were innocently sitting there and turned up pregnant through no fault of your own (those are the people that annoy me not the ones who realize the risk and have a contengiency plan)

I won't whine. I'll cry and curse the makers of my contraceptive, then go fix it. And deal.

They are alive. You cannot prove they are dead. Having a social security number is not a quality of being alive. It is developing into what you call a "person" but it is already a human. You say that this logic is flawed, as potential is irrelvent, but look at this. You kill a child, you kill an adult. In both cases the person was human, regardless of their age. Age of the child is irrelevent. It is a human life. Just not regocnising it does not change it

An egg is developing into what will be a chicken, but I didn't have chicken for breakfast. Being alive does not qualify you for being a person and you know it. I murdered my tonsils when I was seven. I'm evil like that.

Rights are granted to persons not to things with potential to become a person. Children and adults are persons. An adult isn't more of a person than a child. However, if you really want to go down this path would you care to explore of the potential rights that are denied a child because they are not yet an adult? According to you, we must give these children those rights because of their potential to become an adult. 'Could be' does not mean 'is', no matter how much you want it to.

It has its own human DNA

It is developing into a "person"

Hey, let's start trying to find people who might develop into a serial killer and punish them because they are developing into a serial killer. Yes, we may not be 100% accurate but we could certainly have odds that are equal to or better than the chance a zygote will become a baby.

It is a seperate entity (granted dependent on its mother, but people dependant on life support machines do not make the machines and the person one and the same, nor does it make the person on them any less of a person)

False analogy. We do not enslave the life support machines. It is also not a separate entity. It is attached to the mother and if removed from the mother it dies, just like her heart, or her finger.

It is alive (IE not dead. The cells are living)

So were my tonsils.

Now if someone can show me something that has ALL of these charterstics (not just one or two because I know cancer satisfys some of these) then I will enter into debate. But you cannot say that these are not true.

You haven't shown that a zygote has all these characteristics. Show me something that has all of these characteristics and then I will enter into debate. But you cannot say this is not true.

I can say that the potential to become a person is VERY limited. Would you care to travel down the path of addressing potential in law? Hmmm... I find that your father was child abuser. Given the likelihood that you will become a child abuser (much better than the likelihood an ovum will become a baby), we're going to sterilize you to prevent you from doing that. We have to protect that potential child from your potential attack on them.

You still don't get the difference between "living" and "alive", do you?
Your spleen is alive, too, but it doesn't have any rights.

It is not a seperate entity, as it doesn't have an independent organism.

The chances that it might develop into something cannot be taken into account, as we are talking present situations, not future possibilities. Every sperm cell and every ovum has a possibility of developing into a human being, and yet masturbation and menstruation are not mass-murder.

Nobody ever said the a foetus is a lump of dead cells. It is a lump of living tissue, just like the entire rest of your body.

We arent talking about chances to develop. We are talking about actual development. A fertilised egg (Zygote) develops into an embryo which then develops into a fetus. My spleen is not developing or growing or changing in anything like the same way that the Zygote does. The fetus is not like the rest of my body. It has its own DNA, and is growing into its own body.

Abortion is not a preventative form of birth control as you have it after sex. You are destroying a human life. The only time you have that is in a kill or be killed situation. Thus abortion is justified only when the mothers life is threatened by the existance of the embryo (IE she will die if it continues to develop)

There's more to "life" than continuing to breathe, Avalon. I have plans, dreams, a future, the things that make me a person, and, yes, having a baby would kill me. Even if I carry on breathing.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law?

As Smunkeeville said, no law should force the views of others onto a person, therefore abortion must be legal, but under no circumstances compulsory. As far as I understand, we are debatting the moral aspects, not the possibility of changing the law.

So were my tonsils.

You aborted your tonsils??!? Oh, the humanity!!

Abortion is not a preventative form of birth control as you have it after sex. You are destroying a human life. The only time you have that is in a kill or be killed situation. Thus abortion is justified only when the mothers life is threatened by the existance of the embryo (IE she will die if it continues to develop)

You keep making this assertion though it is patently false and has been shown to be false. I can name a number of situation where I am permitted to kill someone while not being in danger of dying. You have heard of rape, no?

We arent talking about chances to develop. We are talking about actual development. A fertilised egg (Zygote) develops into an embryo which then develops into a fetus. My spleen is not developing or growing or changing in anything like the same way that the Zygote does. The fetus is not like the rest of my body. It has its own DNA, and is growing into its own body.

We ARE talking about chances. A foetus normally get aborted within the first trimester. A large number of fertilised eggs and foetuses are lost naturally in this stage, often without the mother even noticing. So, no, not every fertilised egg develops into a foetus, not every foetus develops into an embryo, and not every embryo develops into a human being.

Same as not ever sperm gets to fertilise an egg, the probability is just different, that's all.

I won't whine. I'll cry and curse the makers of my contraceptive, then go fix it. And deal.
well, then you are obviously not the type of person that annoys me.;)

If you 'never' want to have kids, get your tubes tied, end of problem. Unless of course you're just trying to make a point...Where are you from? I never want to have kids, but I'm only 22. The UK's health service won't steralise me until I'm at least 25, and even then I have to go through all their sickeningly patronising "counselling".

I am in a long-term, loving relationship, and just because there's some small risk of getting up the duff does not mean I am going to relinquish one natural, intimate and ultimately enjoyable part of that simply because the NHS aren't going to fool-proof me against it just yet.

Okay, then. Avalon answered this already, but I feel like a little emphasis. Address the newborn argument. A newborn does not have more awareness of itself or its surroundings than a sophisticated animal. Why is this thing a person, if it only has the potential to develop further?

This isn't on point to my argument that you can't define a thing by its potential, but I will bite anyway. Two reasons:

1) As TCT has mentioned, at the time that the baby is born we no longer have a conflict of rights. The baby is alive and no longer (usually) endangers the life of the mother. If we allow abortion, then we can impose a legal duty on the mother to secure the care of her child whether or not she can do so herself when the child is born.

2) I would argue that we aren't totally knowledgeable about this peculiar phenomenon of self-awareness. The only thing we know is that we have it and thus healthy humans should also have it. Animals may be self-aware, but we can't be sure that they are or not. A fetus may be self-aware in the womb, but we can't be sure. So where do we draw the line? Well another thing we know is that you can't possibly be self-aware without a brain. A mother should be free to abort a fetus that doesn't have a fully functioning brain. That is a moving restriction depending on the individual fetus. In my reading the restriction would occur from 20-30 weeks of pregnancy. You are of course free to offer evidence of a fully functioning brain before then.

The fetus needs substinence to survive, as all of us do. Many people on artificial breathing aparatuses are still considered people, yet they rely on modern medical science. I repeat: conjoined twins rely on each other, but they are considered two people instead of one.

My argument isn't that independence is personhood or not relying on others is a qualification of personhood. I was simply stating that, with regards to my bricks analogy, the difference that bricks must be built up and that fetuses must grow isn't a real difference because a fetus also requires outside labor in order to grow. Basically, you are helping to confirm the validity of my first analogy. Thank you.

Anyway, your post went on about fallacy arguments for a while here... apparently you had little faith in my ability/desire to answer it.

Nah, just presorting the chaff from the wheat.

And here we go: Children are not adults; children only have the potential to be adults. If children simply remained children, then perhaps they would not have any arguable right to life over others. However, the children’s potential to grow into adults makes them HUMAN PEOPLE. Yes, children are people too!

Children have rights because they are self-aware. Furthermore, they can reason and have free will to a limited degree and so have limited rights.

You are missing the point here. I am not talking about the differences between the rights of children and adults. I am using another analogy to demonstrate why you can't define a thing by its potential.

“Adult” like “child” like “person” is an arbitrary category; these are all distinctions between states of being. If we follow your rule of defining things by their potential then a child is an adult because it will one day develop into an adult. It ignores the temporal reality that a child is not an adult and so has different rights and duties. This is like defining a fetus as a person. It is not enough to say that because a fetus can become a person it must be treated as a person because it ignores the temporal reality that a fetus does not possess the characteristics of a person and so should not be afforded the rights and duties of a person.

Keep the following in mind: All of my posts responding to you so far have not been about the definition of personhood but the untenable position that you can define a thing by its potential.

But I can see you want to talk about personhood, which is good. If someone hasn't pointed this out already, I have to take issue with your definition:

1) Human
2) Living
3) Individual

Individual is too broad. What does that mean? A separable identity? Independence? I am not refuting it but you must expand on it.

Human is arbitrary. Our humanity is determined by an ever so slight section of our DNA. Furthermore there is nothing inherently special about our DNA that separates us from animals. It’s the same DNA, just different pairings in an insignificant span of the code.

Humanity may have a unique gift/characteristic that is derived from that DNA, and that is sentience. We can also include rationality here. The point is though that the key characteristic is not the DNA but the ability to reason and the heightened awareness. It is not enough that a fetus has human DNA; it must demonstrate the special human characteristic of sentience. Until it does so it cannot have any rights that conflict with the rights of the mother.

Where are you from? I never want to have kids, but I'm only 22. The UK's health service won't steralise me until I'm at least 25, and even then I have to go through all their sickeningly patronising "counselling".
yeah, I couldn't find anyone to "fix" me at 21 either, so luckily my husband was old enough and he got "fixed";)

I think it's crap that they wouldn't do it, I was an adult, I already had two kids it should have been my choice.

well, then you are obviously not the type of person that annoys me.;)

Oh good. I annoy enough people already. :D

An egg is developing into what will be a chicken, but I didn't have chicken for breakfast. Being alive does not qualify you for being a person and you know it. I murdered my tonsils when I was seven. I'm evil like that.

Acatually, eggs you eat are unfertilised.


Rights are granted to persons not to things with potential to become a person. Children and adults are persons. An adult isn't more of a person than a child. However, if you really want to go down this path would you care to explore of the potential rights that are denied a child because they are not yet an adult? According to you, we must give these children those rights because of their potential to become an adult. 'Could be' does not mean 'is', no matter how much you want it to.

We give rights out on the basis of what the person has. The reason a child does not have all the rights of an adult is that it is felt that they would not be able to refrain from abusing them or not using them in the manner they should be (in the case of children, most proberbly unintentionaly). In the case of the embryo, it has a right to life because it is alive. It is not a person, but it is human


Hey, let's start trying to find people who might develop into a serial killer and punish them because they are developing into a serial killer. Yes, we may not be 100% accurate but we could certainly have odds that are equal to or better than the chance a zygote will become a baby.

Flawed analogy. Firstly, letting the embryo's live is not a punishment, it is their salvation. Secondly, if the zygote does not develop into a baby it was not of our doing. Thirdly, we are giving rights to the embryo, not taking them away. You may argue that we are taking them away from the woman, but the embryo's right to life is more important than the right to bodily control. Being preangnant is better than being dead.


False analogy. We do not enslave the life support machines. It is also not a separate entity. It is attached to the mother and if removed from the mother it dies, just like her heart, or her finger.

We do not enslave women either. The analogy stands. A person on a life support machine is no less or more of a person than one who is not. Also, you would rot and die if all your food and water was taken away. Are you not a life either then? The womans body is providing the embryo with nutrients etc. Hence arguing that it would not suvive on its own is true of all humans.


You haven't shown that a zygote has all these characteristics. Show me something that has all of these characteristics and then I will enter into debate. But you cannot say this is not true.

You havent shown that they dont. A zygote does have its own individual DNA, made up of that of the mother and father. It also is a seperate organism, as any biologist can tell you. It may be dependant on the mother for nutrients, but you are dependent on your local Tesco's for food. Does that mean you are not alive


I can say that the potential to become a person is VERY limited. Would you care to travel down the path of addressing potential in law? Hmmm... I find that your father was child abuser. Given the likelihood that you will become a child abuser (much better than the likelihood an ovum will become a baby), we're going to sterilize you to prevent you from doing that. We have to protect that potential child from your potential attack on them.

I am not talking about potiential to be a person. I am talking about the fact that it is a human life. You cannot disprove that. It will become one if we dont interfeare or if a natural circumstance doesnt stop it. We dont have the right to end its life. No one does. The only time we do is when it threatens to end the life of the mother.

There's more to "life" than continuing to breathe, Avalon. I have plans, dreams, a future, the things that make me a person, and, yes, having a baby would kill me. Even if I carry on breathing.

So your dreams superceede its life. Surely it has the right to have those dreams at all. Your case here is emotional and unfounded. And people say its the pro-lifers who always appel to emotionality.

yeah, I couldn't find anyone to "fix" me at 21 either, so luckily my husband was old enough and he got "fixed";)

I think it's crap that they wouldn't do it, I was an adult, I already had two kids it should have been my choice.On this we most certainly agree then. I understand that some people may change their mind and wish to have children later in life, but that's not the health service's choice to make.

As Smunkeeville said, no law should force the views of others onto a person, therefore abortion must be legal, but under no circumstances compulsory. As far as I understand, we are debatting the moral aspects, not the possibility of changing the law.

By that logic, we should not allow murder to be illegal since it being wrong would be imposing a view that it is on people

We are debating the morality of it itself. But also the morality of a change in the law.

By that logic, we should not allow murder to be illegal since it being wrong would be imposing a view that it is on people

We are debating the morality of it itself. But also the morality of a change in the law.
The difference being we have in fact proven that the party being effected by murder is in-fact a human person

Oh good. I annoy enough people already. :D
not that anyone should worry about whether or not they annoy me anyway, I am not that important.......... well, maybe my husband should worry but that is about it.:D

I am not talking about potiential to be a person. I am talking about the fact that it is a human life. You cannot disprove that. It will become one if we dont interfeare or if a natural circumstance doesnt stop it. We dont have the right to end its life. No one does. The only time we do is when it threatens to end the life of the mother.

How many damn times does it have to be said? Let me highlight it for you:

1) Human isn't enough. Only persons get rights. Humans are not automatically persons.

2) You can't define a thing by its potential, only its current state. If its state is developing then you demonstrably do not have the end result. A fetus, as a developing person, may have more rights than a cow but must have less rights than a person.

However, "developing as a person" is meaningless. We can't protect the rights of something that hasn't qualified for those rights. You may have an argument for restricting abortion at the time a fetus has a fully functioning brain. But before then its "development" into a person is nothing more than bare potential.

Show me where the hippocratic oath says "don't harm anyone". =b

Oh, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath): "I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest"

LOL, Oh no.



From your link to the modern day Hippocratic Oath

5. To never attempt to induce an abortion.
The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.


Don't you hate it when that happens?!?!

Ah, you got too detailed for your own good and forgot the orginal analogy (which was an invader in a house). With the original analogy in mind, you are now declaring the kitchen a separate entity from the dinning room and the bedroom and bathroom have announced their intention to secede from the nation of "house?"

No, it's all one house. There is one 'home' with no intruders. The blastocyst is not intruding, it is just new development. It exists now, it never existed anywhere else before, it is in it's native and natural habitat.
*applauds*

We ARE talking about chances. A foetus normally get aborted within the first trimester. A large number of fertilised eggs and foetuses are lost naturally in this stage, often without the mother even noticing. So, no, not every fertilised egg develops into a foetus, not every foetus develops into an embryo, and not every embryo develops into a human being.

Same as not ever sperm gets to fertilise an egg, the probability is just different, that's all.

So why does the unliklyhood mean that it should be ok to kill them. We cant control wheter or not they die naturally but we can control whether or not they die by our interviening. What your saying here is that "they die natrually early on anyway, so its ok to kill them". Thats like saying "Most people dont live to 80 so killing them at 79 is ok". The fact that it is alive, individual and human means we cant kill it. It may die naturally and thats very sad, but we can stop us killing it.

However, "developing as a person" is meaningless. We can't protect the rights of something that hasn't qualified for those rights. You may have an argument for restricting abortion at the time a fetus has a fully functioning brain. But before then its "development" into a person is nothing more than bare potential.

We are not giving it all the rights of a person. Just the right to life.

So your dreams superceede its life. Surely it has the right to have those dreams at all. Your case here is emotional and unfounded. And people say its the pro-lifers who always appel to emotionality.

I want to point out another misconception here, I am quoting Avalon but others have committed it as well.

The issue here isn't mother's liberty v. fetus life. It's mother's life v. fetus life even if the mother can safely give birth.

You can't live in the abstract as a process seperate from physical manifestation. The right to life is the right to control your body. The fetus is directly interfering with the mother's body, her right to life, and may only be sustained by the consent of the mother.

LOL, Oh no.



From your link to the modern day Hippocratic Oath

5. To never attempt to induce an abortion.
The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.


Don't you hate it when that happens?!?!
Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use this ancient version, which praises pagan gods, advocates teaching of men but not women, and forbids cutting, abortion, and euthanasia.

In the paragraph at the top of the list

So your dreams superceede its life. Surely it has the right to have those dreams at all. Your case here is emotional and unfounded. And people say its the pro-lifers who always appel to emotionality.

It's life would be horrible having a mother that didn't want it. How would you like to find out the only reason your mother didn't abort you is that it was illegal to do so?

We are not giving it all the rights of a person. Just the right to life.

But as I stated, development without achievement of the necessary characteristics of personhood is nothing but bare potential.

We don't have to give it the right to life.

We give rights out on the basis of what the person has. The reason a child does not have all the rights of an adult is that it is felt that they would not be able to refrain from abusing them or not using them in the manner they should be (in the case of children, most proberbly unintentionaly). In the case of the embryo, it has a right to life because it is alive. It is not a person, but it is human.
Nope we don't give rigd on the basis of something being alive. Because if we did then shit I couldn't have a delicious steak dinner. We give rights on the basis of what you are. People's rights have been determined over time because not simply because they are alive but because we are human beings that deserve protections. Now until you can objectively prove that an embryo is human in the battle between a woman's right to choose and an embryo which may or may not have rights we have to side with the woman by default because we know she has rights.

I am not talking about potiential to be a person. I am talking about the fact that it is a human life. You cannot disprove that. It will become one if we dont interfeare or if a natural circumstance doesnt stop it. We dont have the right to end its life. No one does. The only time we do is when it threatens to end the life of the mother.
Can you objectivly prove that it is a human life? Because if you can't the woman's right to choose what to do trumps the embryo because we don't know if its human or not.

Also I asked the question awhile ago about you saying when a woman has sex she consents to giving up the right to choose what to do with her body. I want to know where this is written in the USA's system of laws. Because if it isn't well then she doesn't consent unless she specifies it herself.

I don't have to decide, I can have both.

No, I know the risk is always there. And I know that if I got pregnant and had an abortion, I'd have to deal with the psychological and physical consequences of it. No one else can deal with the consequences of either carrying the child to term or getting an abortion for me, so why should anyone else get to decide what I should do?
That's the best argument on this thread.

/peanut gallery

LOL, Oh no.



From your link to the modern day Hippocratic Oath

5. To never attempt to induce an abortion.
The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.


Don't you hate it when that happens?!?!

The oath says don't cut and don't abort, but doctors cut people and perform abortions. Why would I hate that?

LOL, Oh no.



From your link to the modern day Hippocratic Oath

5. To never attempt to induce an abortion.
The wide availability of abortions in much of the world suggests that many physicians no longer feel bound by this.


Don't you hate it when that happens?!?!
Wait you may want to re read that ... if you will knotice that LIST you quoted are the things that have been CHANGED in the hipocratic oath

lol dont you hate when that happens?

We are not giving it all the rights of a person. Just the right to life.

If we aren't giving it all the rights of a person why does it deserve the right to life but a cow does not?

By the way, you still haven't answered my money question. You stated before that it should be legal if to force a person (if not one is willing to do it) to donate an organ to save a life. Many people starve to death, and obvoiusly not enough people are willing to do something about it. Who should we force to donate money to charities to feed the poor?

The oath says don't cut and don't abort, but doctors cut people and perform abortions. Why would I hate that?
it no longer says that ... if you knotice what that list is about on wikpedia it is the things that have been CHANGED or REMOVED from the oath

That's the best argument on this thread.

/peanut gallery

Aw, thanks. *blushes* :D

1) Human isn't enough. Only persons get rights. Humans are not automatically persons.

Human is enough to give it human rights. Thats why they are called as such. Granted not all rights, but just the right to life. An embryo is definable as human. Can you show me a good reason why it should not be given rights, not just your arbitary definiton. I've already explained that an embryo is human, individual and growing


2) You can't define a thing by its potential, only its current state. If its state is developing then you demonstrably do not have the end result. A fetus, as a developing person, may have more rights than a cow but must have less rights than a person.


The fact that it is developing into a person shows that it is human.

They are alive. You cannot prove they are dead. Having a social security number is not a quality of being alive. It is developing into what you call a "person" but it is already a human. You say that this logic is flawed, as potential is irrelvent, but look at this. You kill a child, you kill an adult. In both cases the person was human, regardless of their age. Age of the child is irrelevent. It is a human life. Just not regocnising it does not change it
Nothing we do in the present "changes" the future, because the future is not set. A better analogy is that the future is written by what we do in the present.

Human is enough to give it human rights. Thats why they are called as such. Granted not all rights, but just the right to life. An embryo is definable as human. Can you show me a good reason why it should not be given rights, not just your arbitary definiton. I've already explained that an embryo is human, individual and growing

DEFINITIONS ARE ARBITARY!!! Stem cells can be individual (at least as individual as identical twins), human (DNA wise) and growing. Do adult stem cells havested deserve a right to life too?



The fact that it is developing into a person shows that it is human.

Each and every one of us is devoleping into worm food. Death is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we're worm food right now.

Can you objectivly prove that it is a human life? Because if you can't the woman's right to choose what to do trumps the embryo because we don't know if its human or not.

So why do you jump to the negative. Surely if we dont know if its human or not abortion should be outlawed because the consequences of us being wrong and they are human if we allow abortion means thousands of deaths.


Also I asked the question awhile ago about you saying when a woman has sex she consents to giving up the right to choose what to do with her body. I want to know where this is written in the USA's system of laws. Because if it isn't well then she doesn't consent unless she specifies it herself.

1. Something doesnt have to be writen in the USA's system of laws for it to be true

2. The USA is not the world

3. We are arguing for a change in the law

4. A women gives up her right to control her body by having sex becasue a possible consequnce of sex is that of a child. If she is unwilling to accept that consequence she can use protection but that only lowers the posibility. Abortion means killing the embryo. It is better for one human woman to be pregnant than for one human of either sex to be dead.

The fact that it is developing into a person shows that it is human.

Is a catipiller a butterfly?

DEFINITIONS ARE ARBITARY!!! Stem cells can be individual (at least as individual as identical twins), human (DNA wise) and growing. Do adult stem cells havested deserve a right to life too?

They do not have their own individual DNA, nor are they developing into a seperate being. Your definiton of a person is abrbitary. My definiton of a life is not


Each and every one of us is devoleping into worm food. Death is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we're worm food right now.

No. To be delvoping into worm food we would have to be dead and decomposing.

Is a catipiller a butterfly?

They are the same species. One is a larve of the other. So yes

So why do you jump to the negative. Surely if we dont know if its human or not abortion should be outlawed because the consequences of us being wrong and they are human if we allow abortion means thousands of deaths.

But we do know that the woman is human, so we can't take away her rights for something that may or may not be human

4. A women gives up her right to control her body by having sex becasue a possible consequnce of sex is that of a child.

So says the mighty Avalon.

It is better for one human woman to be pregnant than for one human of either sex to be dead.

Yeah, and once she's done being pregnant everything goes back to the way it was like nothing happened, right? Having a child changes a person's life completely and irreversibly. It's not just 9 months work.

We give rights out on the basis of what the person has. The reason a child does not have all the rights of an adult is that it is felt that they would not be able to refrain from abusing them or not using them in the manner they should be (in the case of children, most proberbly unintentionaly). In the case of the embryo, it has a right to life because it is alive. It is not a person, but it is human

We often don't give children rights because it endangers them, but we also don't give them rights that would endanger others. Remember endanger doesn't mean kill. We have a long established history of limiting individual rights when it damages another person. For example, one's right to life does not supercede my right to not be raped. In the case of abortion, we are limiting 'potential' rights because they damage another person. One actual person definitely has rights. The other entity by your own admission CANNOT be shown to be a person and therefore gets no protection. Or maybe I should get arrested for assaulting an officer because I got in fight as a teenager with a guy who eventually became a cop.

Flawed analogy. Firstly, letting the embryo's live is not a punishment, it is their salvation. Secondly, if the zygote does not develop into a baby it was not of our doing. Thirdly, we are giving rights to the embryo, not taking them away. You may argue that we are taking them away from the woman, but the embryo's right to life is more important than the right to bodily control. Being preangnant is better than being dead.

It's a punishment to the mother. And I see you admit that we cannot treat a zygote as a baby because it may never reach that stage. A correllary (sp?) to that would be that if it may never reach that stage we forced the mother to go through unnecessary trauma for a potential that may never be reached. You admit the embryo is not a person, we don't give rights to potential people, which is why having sperm or ova or being pregnant doesn't allow a person to drive in the carpool lane.

We do not enslave women either. The analogy stands. A person on a life support machine is no less or more of a person than one who is not. Also, you would rot and die if all your food and water was taken away. Are you not a life either then? The womans body is providing the embryo with nutrients etc. Hence arguing that it would not suvive on its own is true of all humans.

Oh, the analogy stands because you say so. You admit that in your analogy there are only the rights of one person. The machines have no rights so there is no trumping of rights going on. I suspect if a child being on life support required his mother to carry him around in a sack strapped to her belly that there would be a lot less people on life support.

I love you extension of the analogy. Um, last I checked no one is forced by the government to give me food or water. Did I miss the sign that said check your logic at the door. Are you actually comparing my dependance on food and water (which I can acquire myself) to a baby's dependence on the mother while damaging many of her organs and putting her through nine months of illness and pain? If we're just making up analogies then I say outlawing abortion is just like outlawing care for veterans. Why do you hate veterans? Why don't you want them to have benefits? They fought to keep this country free. I know it doesn't make any sense, but neither does yours, so I figured it was okay.

You havent shown that they dont. A zygote does have its own individual DNA, made up of that of the mother and father. It also is a seperate organism, as any biologist can tell you. It may be dependant on the mother for nutrients, but you are dependent on your local Tesco's for food. Does that mean you are not alive

No, actually it's not a separate organism and any biologist won't say that it is. Since you've made the assertion, would say that you've been shown to just be making stuff up if I find a biologist that does not consider a zygote a separate organism? And, oh, how cute, you've used the false analogy again. My turn. Children have died because you didn't donate the money you spent on the pants you're wearing to their cause. Murderer. Think of the children! Won't anyone think of the children?!?

I am not talking about potiential to be a person. I am talking about the fact that it is a human life. You cannot disprove that. It will become one if we dont interfeare or if a natural circumstance doesnt stop it. We dont have the right to end its life. No one does. The only time we do is when it threatens to end the life of the mother.
And you can't prove it. We don't grant rights based on being human. You have to be a person. My hands are human and alive. Now, I'm off to go get a driver's license for my eight-year-old nephew. He has the potential to turn 16 so they have no right to deny him a license.