NationStates Jolt Archive

I may not like abortions, but I will not force my view of it on another person. If someone would like to legally get one so be it, it is their choice to make not mine.

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.
I don't jump on the negative. I choose the option where a woman is free to exercise her right to choose what to do with her body. As you said yourself we can't objectively prove if its human or not so I can't worry about either the negative or positive side of wheter a embryo is a human or not. I must side with the womans rights on this because by default we know that she has that right.



1. Something doesnt have to be writen in the USA's system of laws for it to be true
I agree but we are talking about consent here. You are offering up a statement as if it is a fact when it is certainly not. Now since its not codified in the law your opinion does not hold any more wieght in the discussion then my opinion that a woman does not give consent to have a child when she has sex.

2. The USA is not the world
I'm not going to disagree with you on this point.

3. We are arguing for a change in the law
Being as such you have to PROVE that an embryo is a human to make sure it has the right to life. But unfortunately you've already stated in posts that we can't prove it. So you can't change the law. Though luck there.

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.
I disagree. Just because there is the possibilty to become pregnant from having sex does not mean that when a woman has sex she consents to carrying a child. The possibility of something happening and consenting to something happening are two different things. And also it is better to protect a woman's right to choose what to do with her body rather then forcing her to carry a child that she does not want because of the possibility that an embryo might become a human. I prefer freedom rather then authoritarian crap.

Is a catipiller a butterfly?

My nephew is a father. I give him gifts on father's day. I mean he doesn't have any kids and he's eight, but he will become a father, barring any natural interference or intentional interference by people.

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

It is the larve but it is not considered to be a butterfly until it develops into one.

A catipiller can become a butterfly but it is not one. I don't suppose a catipiller has wings and drinks nectar does it?

Do you think this argument will work with my life insurance?

"I owe money to a bookie and if you don't give me my life insurance I will die. Even if you give me the money that is meant to be given on my death I have the potential to die. And since a very wise man convinced that potential is no different than being something, then consider me dead. Now give me the money."

See, it has all the elements. Upon signing the contract they knew there was a possibility they would have to give me the money. If they don't give it to me I'll die. And I have the potential to die even if they give me the money.

Do you think this argument will work with my life insurance?

"I owe money to a bookie and if you don't give me my life insurance I will die. Even if you give me the money that is meant to be given on my death I have the potential to die. And since a very wise man convinced that potential is no different than being something, then consider me dead. Now give me the money."

See, it has all the elements. Upon signing the contract they knew there was a possibility they would have to give me the money. If they don't give it to me I'll die. And I have the potential to die even if they give me the money.

No I'm pretty sure the insurance company will deny the claim and the bookie will break both your kneecaps.

No I'm pretty sure the insurance company will deny the claim and the bookie will break both your kneecaps.

Dang. Maybe I can find someone like Avolon there. My sister got mad at me because I just gave the eight-year-old condoms and explained how to use them. I mean, he will most likely have sex, so isn't it responsible of me to treat him like he is now? I don't want to make the mistake of infringing on his rights as a potential adult.

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

The stem cells do have individual DNA as much as identical twins do. There are a seperate being right then, completely cut off from their host. My deffinition of a person (human brain waves) is not arbitrary, any more than your definition of life. We would not call a human body with a computer brain a person would we?



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

And we are developing closer and closer to death every day. Or do you not plan on dying?

And you still haven't answered my questoin on money.

And you still haven't answered my questoin on money.

Do you still have any expectation that he will?

... My deffinition of a person (human brain waves) is not arbitrary, any more than your definition of life....


Human brain waves? Put them on a very slow read spectrometer, wait three months and check again, maybe they're hibernating. But I bet you get a readout...

Human brain waves? Put them on a very slow read spectrometer, wait three months and check again, maybe they're hibernating. But I bet you get a readout...

Hibernation would not effect whether brain waves are indestinguishable from other animals or not. Besides, as people have said, just because something turns into something (like how we turn into worm food) doesn't mean it's that right now.

You mean like beer, before it's fermented, somehow isn't beer?

Sure it is, if it's all brewed and in the keg, it just needs a little 'aging,' much like a fetus...

You mean like beer, before it's fermented, somehow isn't beer?

Sure it is, if it's all brewed and in the keg, it just needs a little 'aging,' much like a fetus...

I mean that my grandfather, who isn't dead right now, is still human and not dead. (Check back in three months and there won't be brain waves). By your argument he is... all he needs is a little aging.

You mean like beer, before it's fermented, somehow isn't beer?

Sure it is, if it's all brewed and in the keg, it just needs a little 'aging,' much like a fetus...

Anyone work at a brewery that can clear this up? Also free samples from said brewery would be a plus.

You mean like beer, before it's fermented, somehow isn't beer?

Sure it is, if it's all brewed and in the keg, it just needs a little 'aging,' much like a fetus...
Never invite me to a keg party.

I mean that my grandfather, who isn't dead right now, is still human and not dead. (Check back in three months and there won't be brain waves). By your argument he is... all he needs is a little aging.

Nope.. he's like old wine, he’s past it's prime and turning into vinegar... you aren't very good at this analogy stuff are you?

Never invite me to a keg party.


Awww, you never made home brew before? That's too bad.

Nope.. he's like old wine, he’s past it's prime and turning into vinegar... you aren't very good at this analogy stuff are you?

So is wine the same as vinegar? Is grape juice the same as wine? The differences between them are pretty much the same.

Anyone work at a brewery that can clear this up? Also free samples from said brewery would be a plus.
I am not sure about beer, but my family used to make our own wiskey and it isn't wiskey until it is, if you get it too early, it is something really nasty and it doesn't even get you drunk.

So is wine the same as vinegar? Is grape juice the same as wine?


Yes, and yes (IF the grape juice is not 'halted' grape juice, like welch's grape juice is stopped from fermenting, if it's not fermenting, then it's not like wine or vinegar because unless you add something to it it will never be wine or vinegar).

It's all the same stuff at a different age.

Yes, and yes (IF the grape juice is not 'halted' grape juice, like welch's grape juice is stopped from fermenting, if it's not fermenting, then it's not like wine or vinegar because unless you add something to it it will never be wine or vinegar).

It's all the same stuff at a different age.

So my grandfather is worm food right now.... he will die (it is not that sad, he has lived a good life and is prepared for it) and turn into worm food. Same stuff different age.

So my grandfather is worm food right now.... he will die (it is not that sad, he has lived a good life and is prepared for it) and turn into worm food. Same stuff different age.


Nope, you're still missing it. He's 'still aging,' once you stop the 'aging' you begin the 'decomposing' that becomes the worm food.

Nope, you're still missing it. He's 'still aging,' once you stop the 'aging' you begin the 'decomposing' that becomes the worm food.

I think the point he's trying to get at is more of that just because the feotus has the potential to be a human, that does not mean it is a human. What your doing now is arguing over a poorly chosen analogy.

Anyone work at a brewery that can clear this up? Also free samples from said brewery would be a plus.

Oooh samples, yes, please! Then we can all get drunk and have wild unprotected sex and fight to the death over whether or not the women can get abortions! Think of the fun!!

Nope, you're still missing it. He's 'still aging,' once you stop the 'aging' you begin the 'decomposing' that becomes the worm food.


The stuff that makes him up will continue to be aging. The only difference will be different chemical changes much like fermenting.

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.

What are the consequences of us being wrong?
Warmer families from parents who plan their pregnancies?
Less criminals in our already heavily populated prison system?
A more intelligent population due to young mothers being able to finish schooling and their progeny having better chance to access health care and a better education?
A start to solving the problem of over population?
Guaranteeing a woman's right to have full control over her own biological process?
Yes, the consequences of us being wrong are troublesome indeed.

Awww, you never made home brew before? That's too bad.
Well... just make sure it's done.

I think the point he's trying to get at is more of that just because the feotus has the potential to be a human, that does not mean it is a human. What your doing now is arguing over a poorly chosen analogy.

Poorly chosen analogy because it doesn't help you?

Who agreed that a fetus wasn't a human? It's as human as every other human ever was at that age (provided we are talking about 'average' healthy specimens here).

Like fresh pressed juice from the grape is done when it is poured in the bottle and the bottle is capped, it's completed. The fetus is done, it is completed.

So some people pull the cork and dump the wine and claim that it wasn't juice from the grape because it didn't finish aging? That's nonsense.

Poorly chosen analogy because it doesn't help you?

Who agreed that a fetus wasn't a human? It's as human as every other human ever was at that age (provided we are talking about 'average' healthy specimens here).

Like fresh pressed juice from the grape is done when it is poured in the bottle and the bottle is capped, it's completed. The fetus is done, it is completed.

So some people pull the cork and dump the wine and claim that it wasn't juice from the grape because it didn't finish aging? That's nonsense.
Are you saying that a grape is fine wine?

What are the consequences of us being wrong?
Warmer families from parents who plan their pregnancies?
Less criminals in our already heavily populated prison system?
A more intelligent population due to young mothers being able to finish schooling and their progeny having better chance to access health care and a better education?
A start to solving the problem of over population?
Guaranteeing a woman's right to have full control over her own biological process?
Yes, the consequences of us being wrong are troublesome indeed.

Ah, you mean like the way it's done all those wonderful things for the inner cities of America, where most abortions are performed by a higher than 2 to 1 ratio. But then, it hasn't done those things in thirty two years, when will we start to see the improvements you've promised?

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.

Which right is greater. The right to live? or the right not to be pregnant. If you believe the latter you are execptionally twisted

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.

Which right is greater. The right to live? or the right not to be pregnant. If you believe the latter you are execptionally twisted. The embryo is certian to live unless we do something to it or it dies by natural causes/accident. But that is true of all humans. All humans will only die of natural causes, accident or disease. We cant outlaw against natural causes, we can do our best to prevent accidents using laws (health and safty etc) but we cant stop them, but we can legislate agianst killing the embryo. Unlike your example of the police officer, not all teenagers will become cops, where as all embryos will live (except for natural causes/accidents, but since thats true of all humans anyway, it doesnt give you an excuse to single them out)


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 give it the rights that it needs. It needs the right to life. Else people like you would allow for them to be killed.


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.

My point is do you consider someone on life support less of a person than someone who isnt?


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.

Last time I checked, the government isnt entitled to cut off food or water supplies from the supermarkets/water supply etc, nor is anyone else. If you are unable financially to support yourself the government gives you benefits on which to live. No one is entitled to cut you off comptletly from resorces without which you would need to live.


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?

Question, if it has its own DNA which is unique to it and is growing and developing in the fashion of a seprerate organism then what is it?


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?!?

If you can objectively prove that its my specific money and the specific ammout that my trousers cost and that I knew it was that specific ammount and I did it out of mallace, it would be acceseeory to murder, but not murder itself.


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.

The reason we dont give a driving lisence to your 8 year old is that he does not have the proper capacity to use it properly. However the embryo does have the proper capacity to a life since it is alive. Thus we give it a right to life.

Yes and who said humans weren't worm food. The only difference is we are walking and talking, the atoms are precisely the same.

Poorly chosen analogy because it doesn't help you?
Poorly chosen analogy in the same sense of a pile of bricks being used as one as well.

Who agreed that a fetus wasn't a human? It's as human as every other human ever was at that age (provided we are talking about 'average' healthy specimens here).
So a bunch of cells without a nervous system, capable of eating by itself, etc. is a human being?

Like fresh pressed juice from the grape is done when it is poured in the bottle and the bottle is capped, it's completed. The fetus is done, it is completed.
Ahh but if that juice isn't going to develop a nervous system and other vital organs that a human has its just aging. An embryo/feotus does more then just age.

So some people pull the cork and dump the wine and claim that it wasn't juice from the grape because it didn't finish aging? That's nonsense.
I'm not claiming that. I find the analogy of a catipiller and a butterfly better then the analogy of wine.

Are you saying that a grape is fine wine?


Nope, I already said after it's been pressed and bottled. Follow the analogy here, I know you're struggling with it...

and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal

your sperm cells are not alive.

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

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

These are the scientific characterictics of life, but I think to be alive is to have a concsiousness.

Ah, you mean like the way it's done all those wonderful things for the inner cities of America, where most abortions are performed by a higher than 2 to 1ratio. But then, it hasn't don't those things in thirty two years, when will we start to see the improvements you've promised?

More recently, in Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner reprinted the original warning that the findings of the 2001 study should not be misinterpreted as "an endorsement of abortion" [p.115]. The authors further made clear that their intentions in highlighting the paper's conclusions were not to celebrate abortion as a crime-fighting tool:

To discover that abortion was one of the greatest crime-lowering factors in American history is, needless to say, jarring. It feels less Darwinian than Swiftian; it calls to mind a long ago dart attributed to G.K. Chesterton: when there aren't enough hats to go around, the problem isn't solved by lopping off some heads. The crime drop was, in the language of economists, an "unintended benefit" of legalized abortion. But one need not oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds to feel shaken by the notion of a private sadness being converted into a public good. [p. 141]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510060011

Now, before people get on the whole Freakonomics issue, I understand full well that this is not meant to be an argument for or against abortion. But I was asked to show improvements.

Which right is greater. The right to live? or the right not to be pregnant. If you believe the latter you are execptionally twisted. The embryo is certian to live unless we do something to it or it dies by natural causes/accident. But that is true of all humans. All humans will only die of natural causes, accident or disease. We cant outlaw against natural causes, we can do our best to prevent accidents using laws (health and safty etc) but we cant stop them, but we can legislate agianst killing the embryo. Unlike your example of the police officer, not all teenagers will become cops, where as all embryos will live (except for natural causes/accidents, but since thats true of all humans anyway, it doesnt give you an excuse to single them out).

Well... yeah, all embryos are going to be born, except for the ones that won't. And all teens are going to be cops, except for the ones that won't. What's your point?

Nope, I already said after it's been pressed and bottled. Follow the analogy here, I know you're struggling with it...
So, if I knocked that bottle over before it was done fermenting, I wasted a good bottle of wine? Maybe it was a bad bottle of wine. A naughty bottle of wine and I did the public a greater good by knocking it over.

Unless she is raped no abortion end topic.

I'm not claiming that. I find the analogy of a catipiller and a butterfly better then the analogy of wine.

Please look up the word caterpillar in a dictionary already.

Unless she is raped no abortion end topic.

Roe v. Wade. End topic :p

Please look up the word caterpillar in a dictionary already.

So I misspelled it. Instead of correcting gramar worry about the arguement. I'm sure we'll all live.

So a bunch of cells without a nervous system, capable of eating by itself, etc. is a human being?

The cystoblast is a stage of human 'aging' and development, like infanthood and toddler and teen and senior citizen... different ages of the same thing, yes.


Ahh but if that juice isn't going to develop a nervous system and other vital organs that a human has its just aging. An embryo/feotus does more then just age.

It is the same. Splitting cells.


I'm not claiming that. I find the analogy of a catipiller and a butterfly better then the analogy of wine.

There you are mistaken, we do not go through a metamorphosis after development.

Unless she is raped no abortion end topic.

Who died and made you king of the thread?

Who died and made you king of the thread?
I think he thinks this thread is his girlfriend.

The stuff that makes him up will continue to be aging. The only difference will be different chemical changes much like fermenting.


No. You are talking about the aging of things like, rocks and inanimate objects. But fermentation requires life, like aging requires cells splitting.

Our cells divide, we are alive. Our cells stop dividing, we are dead and decomposing. Entirely different.

The cystoblast is a stage of human 'aging' and development, like infanthood and toddler and teen and senior citizen... different ages of the same thing, yes.
Aside from puberty and physical growth of the body I do believe the major development is mental. Thats much different then the development an embryo goes through.



It is the same. Splitting cells.
Its more then just splitting cells. I don't suppose developing a nervous system is just splitting cells?



There you are mistaken, we do not go through a metamorphosis after development.
And I suppose we go through all the steps that wine goes through when it ferments. I'm more comparing the fact that a caterpiller has the possibility to become a butterfly but that does not make it one.

I think he thinks this thread is his girlfriend.

How can he just waltz in and say that?? Where was he 5 pages ago? I been here since page 23, buddy, and it ain't over till the fat lady sings!!

How can he just waltz in and say that?? Where was he 5 pages ago? I been here since page 23, buddy, and it ain't over till the fat lady sings!!
Are you sure that fat lady isn't just pregnant?

So, if I knocked that bottle over before it was done fermenting, I wasted a good bottle of wine? Maybe it was a bad bottle of wine. A naughty bottle of wine and I did the public a greater good by knocking it over.


Yes, that's right. But we'll never know if it was a good or a bad bottle of wine, we will only know for sure that you are the clumsy goof who spilled our wine and killed it before we were able to enjoy it.

Yes, that's right. But we'll never know if it was a good or a bad bottle of wine, we will only know for sure that you are the clumsy goof who spilled our wine and killed it before we were able to enjoy it.

Five second rule?

Yes, that's right. But we'll never know if it was a good or a bad bottle of wine, we will only know for sure that you are the clumsy goof who spilled our wine and killed it before we were able to enjoy it.
(Adopts a perfectly good bottle of wine that was already there and wanted a home anyway) There. All better?

Well... yeah, all embryos are going to be born, except for the ones that won't. And all teens are going to be cops, except for the ones that won't. What's your point?

Are you being intentionally stupid. I would have thougt it was obvious. The embryo is certian to live unless there is an accient or it dies of natural causes. That is the same for all humans. So what is the diffrence which makes it right for you to kill it earlier on? His point about Cops was that a kid who became a policeman could then arest him for beating up a police officer later, but it wasnt certian that he would become a police officer. However it is certian that an embryo will live, bar natural causes and accidents, which are true of all humans anyway so therefore does not merit anything special

Are you being intentionally stupid. I would have thougt it was obvious. The embryo is certian to live unless there is an accient or it dies of natural causes. That is the same for all humans. So what is the diffrence which makes it right for you to kill it earlier on? His point about Cops was that a kid who became a policeman could then arest him for beating up a police officer later, but it wasnt certian that he would become a police officer. However it is certian that an embryo will live, bar natural causes and accidents, which are true of all humans anyway so therefore does not merit anything special
Actually, it could be argued that an unwanted child would be on the opposite end of the law.

Aside from puberty and physical growth of the body I do believe the major development is mental. Thats much different then the development an embryo goes through.

Nope, same thing, different stages of a process that is continuous.

Its more then just splitting cells. I don't suppose developing a nervous system is just splitting cells?

Sure it is. It's exactly splitting cell’s that builds the nervous system.


And I suppose we go through all the steps that wine goes through when it ferments. I'm more comparing the fact that a caterpiller has the possibility to become a butterfly but that does not make it one.

At no stage do humans metamorph. We do not, like the butterfly, go through a process of forming a chrysalis to change the fundamental structure of our physical entities 'after' it has been formed once.

Five second rule?

:D

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.



Alrighty, here goes.


I feel that, while in the fetus, the baby is not alive, and, in fact, is part of the mother. The exception to this is in the last three months, and I feel that a ban on abortion there would be appropriate.

I also feel that if a poor woman gets pregnant acidently and she cannot care for the baby, she has a right to abort it. I personaly believe, on the other hand, that abortion should never be done and that adoption is a resonable alternative.

Nope, same thing, different stages of a process that is continuous.
The process may be continuous but the organism itself is developing into a human. It doesn't start out as a concious being with a nervous system and can survive itself.



Sure it is. It's exactly splitting cell’s that builds the nervous system.
So there is no making of proteins, having stem cells becoming specific cells for the nervous system and there is no building material that goes back and forth? Its just cells splitting...


At no stage do humans metamorph. We do not, like the butterfly, go through a process of forming a chrysalis to change the fundamental structure of our physical entities 'after' it has been formed once.
Once again I am not talking about the actual process here. Its about as relevant as the actual process of fermenting wine is to the discussion of the developing embryo. What is important is the fact that the developing organism is not the same thing as the final stages. A catepiller may be the larva stage for a butterfly but at that point it is not a buterfly.

Which right is greater. The right to live? or the right not to be pregnant. If you believe the latter you are execptionally twisted

Doesn't matter. We don't grant rights to things that MAY one day become a child. And what I believe doesn't matter. I don't expect everyone to honor my beliefs. Women should be treated as people who should be permitted to protect their person rather than life support for a baby. If you believe the latter you are exceptionally twisted.

Which right is greater. The right to live? or the right not to be pregnant. If you believe the latter you are execptionally twisted. The embryo is certian to live unless we do something to it or it dies by natural causes/accident. But that is true of all humans. All humans will only die of natural causes, accident or disease. We cant outlaw against natural causes, we can do our best to prevent accidents using laws (health and safty etc) but we cant stop them, but we can legislate agianst killing the embryo. Unlike your example of the police officer, not all teenagers will become cops, where as all embryos will live (except for natural causes/accidents, but since thats true of all humans anyway, it doesnt give you an excuse to single them out)

You keep missing it. The right to life IS the right to not be pregnant. Women have a right to protect their person.

That's a great statement you have there - "The embryo is certain to live unless it doesn't." When a woman has sex she is certain to get pregnant unless natural processes interfere or we do something to stop it. Potential isn't a factor, because if we are talking about potential, there is no end to it. I mean if we're going by potential then birth control is murder too. In fact that's the same arguments that were used when that was a widespread belief. Unless you can show a fundamental difference, then your line is as arbitrary as ours.

We give it the rights that it needs. It needs the right to life. Else people like you would allow for them to be killed.

Rights aren't given, first of all. Second, you may not enslave a person in order to protect the life of another person. You've admitted what you want to enslave the woman to protect is not even a person. Sorry, bud, no dice.

My point is do you consider someone on life support less of a person than someone who isnt?

If it was necessary to decide whether to protect the person of a healthy person or a person on life support, absolutely. Would I give a kidney to a person who was healthy versus someone on life support? Yessirree, Bob. It's still a false analogy because we don't have to weigh the rights of two people in either scenario. In both cases, there is only one person. In your scenario there is only the person on life support, and in an abortion scenario there is only the 'life support'.

Sadly, you have continually compared a woman to life support. You have suggested that a zygote should cause a woman to have the same rights as the life support. Now which of us is sick?

Last time I checked, the government isnt entitled to cut off food or water supplies from the supermarkets/water supply etc, nor is anyone else. If you are unable financially to support yourself the government gives you benefits on which to live. No one is entitled to cut you off comptletly from resorces without which you would need to live.

Nor can we force someone to provide you with that level of support, particularly to your own detriment.

Question, if it has its own DNA which is unique to it and is growing and developing in the fashion of a seprerate organism then what is it?

Wait, I thought you had all these biologists to support you. You must have checked before you made that statement, no? If you've done all this research I would think you would need to ask the question. Is an egg an organism. The eggs are unique. Is the sperm an organism? Equally unique. An embryo is a growth in the woman that has the potential to become an organism.

If you can objectively prove that its my specific money and the specific ammout that my trousers cost and that I knew it was that specific ammount and I did it out of mallace, it would be acceseeory to murder, but not murder itself.

Perfect. If you can objectively prove that the embryo is a person then it would be murder. As you said, unless you can objectively prove that they are guilty then there is no place for interference.

The reason we dont give a driving lisence to your 8 year old is that he does not have the proper capacity to use it properly. However the embryo does have the proper capacity to a life since it is alive. Thus we give it a right to life.

If the embryo had the proper capacity for life then taking it out of womb would not kill it. Except in the case of severe danger to the mother we don't perform abortions on fetuses once they have the proper capacity for life. Now like the eight-year-old we look at what is and not what has the potential to be. The embryo has a potential to have the proper capacity to live, but it doesn't have it yet.

Are you being intentionally stupid. I would have thougt it was obvious. The embryo is certian to live unless there is an accient or it dies of natural causes. That is the same for all humans. So what is the diffrence which makes it right for you to kill it earlier on? His point about Cops was that a kid who became a policeman could then arest him for beating up a police officer later, but it wasnt certian that he would become a police officer. However it is certian that an embryo will live, bar natural causes and accidents, which are true of all humans anyway so therefore does not merit anything special

Exactly. Everything is good, except for things that are bad. Everyone is alive except for the people that are dead. Every embryo will be born, except the ones that are miscarried or aborted. Every teen will be a cop, except the ones that choose not to. Every teen will also be an astronaut, except for the ones that choose not to or don't pass the tests. And every teen will be a nurse, except for the ones that won't.

You state the obvious then accuse me of being intentionally stupid?

The cystoblast is a stage of human 'aging' and development, like infanthood and toddler and teen and senior citizen... different ages of the same thing, yes.



It is the same. Splitting cells.



There you are mistaken, we do not go through a metamorphosis after development.

Hey, metamorphosis is just splitting cells.

:D

That post reminded me of the skit from the daily show where Ed Helms(it could have been another one but I can never remember specific daily show cast members past the first season) was talking about the anti french feelings in the country and when they showed the video of people dumping the wine they had him on the ground trying to get the wine before it hit the ground.

The thread seems to be dying, but...
Let's be realistic. "No abortion, unless it was rape... ???" And who is going to make the judgement, I say it was rape by unknown man, how can you prove it was not?...
And here is your solution: if the lady wants to have an abortion - donate her fetus to a couple who can't conceive (with lady's concent, of course). No adoption fees, the couple pays for procedure ;)) Everyone's happy ever after. Like that?

Exactly. Everything is good, except for things that are bad. Everyone is alive except for the people that are dead. Every embryo will be born, except the ones that are miscarried or aborted. Every teen will be a cop, except the ones that choose not to. Every teen will also be an astronaut, except for the ones that choose not to or don't pass the tests. And every teen will be a nurse, except for the ones that won't.

You state the obvious then accuse me of being intentionally stupid?

I was dealing with his analogy. It IS certian that embryos will live except for miscarage or accidnent. It is not certian that kids will develop into police officers. I was showing why his analogy was invalid. Look next time not only at what I write, but what I am doing it in response to. Just for your beneift, seeing as you are incapable of reading, I will show you the conversation.

Jocabia: 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.

Avalon: The embryo is certian to live unless we do something to it or it dies by natural causes/accident. But that is true of all humans. All humans will only die of natural causes, accident or disease. We cant outlaw against natural causes, we can do our best to prevent accidents using laws (health and safty etc) but we cant stop them, but we can legislate agianst killing the embryo. Unlike your example of the police officer, not all teenagers will become cops, where as all embryos will live (except for natural causes/accidents, but since thats true of all humans anyway, it doesnt give you an excuse to single them out)

(and yes I can use the quote system, I chose not to however since the person who I am quoting in the first part of this post didnt seem to understand it)

I was dealing with his analogy. It IS certian that embryos will live except for miscarage or accidnent. It is not certian that kids will develop into police officers. I was showing why his analogy was invalid.

And I'm showing you that, no, you are not certain the embryo will live, since there can be accidents, just like he isn't certain of whether or not the teen will turn into a cop.

I was dealing with his analogy. It IS certian that embryos will live except for miscarage or accidnent. It is not certian that kids will develop into police officers. I was showing why his analogy was invalid. Look next time not only at what I write, but what I am doing it in response to.

If a person developes into a cop, it is certain that he became a cop. The probability of cop-dom is 100%. Looking from after the fact.

You list out the possible prevention agents, and then you state that it is certain to become a baby. With the prevention agents will it become a baby? Not necessarily. If one removes all of the prevention agents for becoming a cop then the kid will become a cop.

What if it's a kid whose brothers, father, uncles, aunts, etc. were all cops and the kid has been telling me his whole life, then I'd say the probability of him becoming a cop is better than the probability of a zygote becoming a baby, but that still doesn't make me guilty of assaulting an officer. Admit it, we don't define laws by the potential of the 'victim'.

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.

Why not. The life of the mother is not at risk. No one is putting a gun to her head. However you are (effectively) putting a gun to the fetus's head. The right to control your own body and the right to life are obviously two seperate rights. The latter obviously outweighs the former.

The process may be continuous but the organism itself is developing into a human. It doesn't start out as a concious being with a nervous system and can survive itself.

Of course it doesn't have a consciousness yet, it's only 1 day or 3 weeks or 2 months old (as the case may be), it's not suppose to be conscious yet... We can tell how old people are by how their body’s age; it never ends until all cell splitting stops. They are young and small, but they are finished. They are aging and their cells are splitting, they are completed. And like any other stage of human existence, it (we) can be killed.

So there is no making of proteins, having stem cells becoming specific cells for the nervous system and there is no building material that goes back and forth? Its just cells splitting...

Cells splitting do all those things, except the nutrients going back and forth, that's sustenence, food. Our bodies ARE splitting cells.



Once again I am not talking about the actual process here. Its about as relevant as the actual process of fermenting wine is to the discussion of the developing embryo. What is important is the fact that the developing organism is not the same thing as the final stages. A catepiller may be the larva stage for a butterfly but at that point it is not a buterfly.

The actual process is the only relevant aspect. The Cystoblast and the Senior citizen are both human splitting cell entities, only at different stages of 'aging.'

If a person developes into a cop, it is certain that he became a cop. The probability of cop-dom is 100%. You list out the possible prevention agents, and then you state that it is certain to become a baby. With the prevention agents will it become a baby? Not necessarily. If one removes all of the prevention agents for becoming a cop then the kid will become a cop.

What if it's a kid whose brothers, father, uncles, aunts, etc. were all cops and the kid has been telling me his whole life, then I'd say the probability of him becoming a cop is better than the probability of a zygote becoming a baby, but that still doesn't make me guilty of assaulting an officer. Admit it, we don't define laws by the potential of the 'victim'.

You are missing the point. The fact is that the potential for it being alive is certian bar accident and natural causes. That is the same for all humans. Thus you cannot treat Embryos any diffrently from the rest of us in those regards.

And I'm showing you that, no, you are not certain the embryo will live, since there can be accidents, just like he isn't certain of whether or not the teen will turn into a cop.

Yes, but the embryoys uncertianty of living is not grounds for us to say its ok for us to kill it. The embryo will live, bar natural causes/accident. But natural causes/accident are not the only variables that deterimine if a child becomes a police officer or not. Hence we cannot be certian all children will become police officers. We can be reasonably certian that all embryos will live bar natural causes/accident. This is true of all humans however, and thus you dont have any cause to say anything diffrent about them.

[QUOTE=Smunkeeville]and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal




Umm the unwanted circumstances of not allowing women to make the choice far outways the pros. If a baby is born into an unwanted home it can live a horrible life which is unfair to the living child. Whereas if the mother decides to have an abortion the non-sentient mass of cells will never know the difference. Saying that women shouldn't have the choice to abort a mass of cells is like saying people shouldn't be able to use antibacterial soap. After all, bacteria is alive people.

You are missing the point. The fact is that the potential for it being alive is certian bar accident and natural causes. That is the same for all humans. Thus you cannot treat Embryos any diffrently from the rest of us in those regards.

You suck at being consistent. "The potential for being alive" is not something we grant rights to regardless if it has potential. We don't deal with potential, because we are not seers. You can suggest women can fairly be compared to life support, but I'll accepted no such twisted argument. You're going to have to do better than this. Remember you have to objectively prove that it is murder according to your own criteria.

Saying that women shouldn't have the choice to abort a mass of cells is like saying people shouldn't be able to use antibacterial soap. After all, bacteria is alive people.
I didn't ever say that abortion should be illegal, I was replying to someones flawed logic, with more flawed logic. you really should read the whole thred.

You are missing the point. The fact is that the potential for it being alive is certian bar accident and natural causes. That is the same for all humans. Thus you cannot treat Embryos any diffrently from the rest of us in those regards.

And that should matter because.... ? Oh, right. Because you said so. How silly of me to question your wisdom.

His point is that is that he can't be charged with assaulting a cop for hitting a teen who will later become a cop, so a woman isn't committing murder for killing something that will later become a person.

Why not. The life of the mother is not at risk. No one is putting a gun to her head. However you are (effectively) putting a gun to the fetus's head. The right to control your own body and the right to life are obviously two seperate rights. The latter obviously outweighs the former.
Things you call obvious are obvious to you using your own personal moral system. Your morals are different and you have every right to practice them. People who are pro-choice operate under a different set of morals which are no less geared towards what we believe are both right and good. From what I've read, your strongest arguments depend on looking at the world from your moral view point. The right for a woman to control her body and the right to life for a potential baby are not obviously two seperate rights.

Hey, metamorphosis is just splitting cells.


Not human cells. Unless you believe in werewolves.

[QUOTE=Smunkeeville]and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.
Just because there are unwanted circumstances to the illegalization of something doesn't mean it should be legal




Umm the unwanted circumstances of not allowing women to make the choice far outways the pros. If a baby is born into an unwanted home it can live a horrible life which is unfair to the living child. Whereas if the mother decides to have an abortion the non-sentient mass of cells will never know the difference. Saying that women shouldn't have the choice to abort a mass of cells is like saying people shouldn't be able to use antibacterial soap. After all, bacteria is alive people.

Like the argument. What's the big deal with killing people when we kill animals legally and make money on it (yes, I do like meat)? If we kill animals, we kill people (at war, criminals), why not kill embryos as well. That is life, we all have a right to die, including the fetuses...

Yes, but the embryoys uncertianty of living is not grounds for us to say its ok for us to kill it. The embryo will live, bar natural causes/accident. But natural causes/accident are not the only variables that deterimine if a child becomes a police officer or not. Hence we cannot be certian all children will become police officers. We can be reasonably certian that all embryos will live bar natural causes/accident. This is true of all humans however, and thus you dont have any cause to say anything diffrent about them.

And a person's uncertainty of becoming a cop doesn't make it ok to hit them. His argument, as I understood it, was that abortion is not murder because the embryo isn't a person yet.

Yes, but the embryoys uncertianty of living is not grounds for us to say its ok for us to kill it. The embryo will live, bar natural causes/accident. But natural causes/accident are not the only variables that deterimine if a child becomes a police officer or not. Hence we cannot be certian all children will become police officers. We can be reasonably certian that all embryos will live bar natural causes/accident. This is true of all humans however, and thus you dont have any cause to say anything diffrent about them.

What are the odds of the child being alive in a year? You treat an unlikely event like it's a certainty. It's not, no matter how often you assert that it is. The embryo will become a living provided it is healthy enough, the woman is healthy enough and the woman grants the embryo access to her uterus for nine months while the mother takes irreversible damage to her body. The boy will become a cop provided he wants to and he's healthy enough to do so. Not really that different.

I love how anti-choice people like to ignore all the other reasons it is ridiculous to jump on an analogy for several pages. You and Ph33r have both done that for the last several pages. Why don't you try addressing the points instead of arguing about the small inconsistencies in the analogies.

Not human cells. Unless you believe in werewolves.

I think you're missing something here. If you simplify biological processes enough, all of it is just splitting cells. You did so in a previous post to avoid addressing the point. Hmmmm... I wonder why.

You suck at being consistent. "The potential for being alive" is not something we grant rights to regardless if it has potential. We don't deal with potential, because we are not seers. You can suggest women can fairly be compared to life support, but I'll accepted no such twisted argument. You're going to have to do better than this. Remember you have to objectively prove that it is murder according to your own criteria.

Again you miss the point. I said the same potential to life as us all. IE It will live aside from natural causes/accidents. That is true OF US ALL. We all already have right to life so there is no reason for it to not be granted here. The cells are alive, they are not dead cells. The cells are a seperate entity to the mother on the grounds that you have so often stated that it takes resorces from the mother and the mother cannot take resorces from herself, ergo it is not part of her. If it were not a seprate entity then it would not have been created in a seperate manner, and would have only come into existance as a part of her (IE a blood cell, skin cell etc) but it is clear that its creation came about seperately. It has its own unique human DNA which is completely diffrent to its mother and not just marginly diffrent like say a Cancer cell (which only has the diffrence of the replciation rate genes malfunctioning) and it is developing in the fashion of any other life forms cell development process IE the cells are dividing just like yours and mine to grow

Of course it doesn't have a consciousness yet, it's only 1 day or 3 weeks or 2 months old (as the case may be), it's not suppose to be conscious yet... We can tell how old people are by how their body’s age; it never ends until all cell splitting stops. They are young and small, but they are finished. They are aging and their cells are splitting, they are completed. And like any other stage of human existence, it (we) can be killed.
Your right its not supposed to be concious yet because it lacks all the vital organs that a human being has. I'm not arguing here that an embryo is not part of the developmental process of a human being. I am arguing that the embryo itself is not a person yet. It lacks all the things that we define humanity as.


Cells splitting do all those things, except the nutrients going back and forth, that's sustenence, food. Our bodies ARE splitting cells.
Our bodies are much more then just splitting cells. Splitting cells is part of growth on the cellular and on a much bigger level but that not the only part. The process is much more complex then just splitting cells.




The actual process is the only relevant aspect. The Cystoblast and the Senior citizen are both human splitting cell entities, only at different stages of 'aging.'
Splitting cells is not the only way of developing. You simplfy it as if all thats going on is splitting cells. There is so much more going on and the differences between the development of a embryo and that of a senior citizen is different. Not only that but the actual process of development is not the only relevant aspect. If that were the case we wouldn't be looking at issues like when it becomes a concious being or the rights of the mother. You also fail to adress the fact about the catepiller not being a butterfly until it becomes one.

Like the argument. What's the big deal with killing people when we kill animals legally and make money on it (yes, I do like meat)? If we kill animals, we kill people (at war, criminals), why not kill embryos as well. That is life, we all have a right to die, including the fetuses...
:confused: what?

Again you miss the point. I said the same potential to life as us all.

I am already alive.

What are the odds of the child being alive in a year? You treat an unlikely event like it's a certainty. It's not, no matter how often you assert that it is. The embryo will become a living provided it is healthy enough, the woman is healthy enough and the woman grants the embryo access to her uterus for nine months while the mother takes irreversible damage to her body. The boy will become a cop provided he wants to and he's healthy enough to do so. Not really that different.

It may be unlikly but it will happen asside from natural cases/accident. That is true of ALL HUMANS. The only other form of death is intentional human intervention, which is wrong in the other humans case and in this one


I love how anti-choice people like to ignore all the other reasons it is ridiculous to jump on an analogy for several pages. You and Ph33r have both done that for the last several pages. Why don't you try addressing the points instead of arguing about the small inconsistencies in the analogies.

I love it how Pro-choice people go on and on about a persons debating tatics rather than adressing the actual points.

Hey, and have you anti-choicers considered how many times it happens that an unhappy kid (poor, sick, unloved, abused or just spoiled kid) cries out to his Mom "I did not ask to be born!!!". And he really means it!...
Would it not be good and moral to have children only if you can provide them with a good life or at least there is a probability for a happy family, food and shelter?
And did you notice that there is too many people on Earth anyway? May be we should not have babies just because we can.

Again you miss the point. I said the same potential to life as us all. IE It will live aside from natural causes/accidents. That is true OF US ALL. We all already have right to life so there is no reason for it to not be granted here. The cells are alive, they are not dead cells. The cells are a seperate entity to the mother on the grounds that you have so often stated that it takes resorces from the mother and the mother cannot take resorces from herself, ergo it is not part of her. If it were not a seprate entity then it would not have been created in a seperate manner, and would have only come into existance as a part of her (IE a blood cell, skin cell etc) but it is clear that its creation came about seperately. It has its own unique human DNA which is completely diffrent to its mother and not just marginly diffrent like say a Cancer cell (which only has the diffrence of the replciation rate genes malfunctioning) and it is developing in the fashion of any other life forms cell development process IE the cells are dividing just like yours and mine to grow
I think you should look at this link.

1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

I am already alive.

So is the fetus. It is not dead. You cannot point at an objective time to which it "turns alive". The cells are living always. They are not like the cells of your skin, hair etc because they are growing and dividing in the manner of an individual human life, which is what it is.

The cells are a seperate entity to the mother on the grounds that you have so often stated that it takes resorces from the mother and the mother cannot take resorces from herself, ergo it is not part of her.

I just want to adress this part. What do you mean a entity does not take resources from itself? The body stores resources all the time and we as entities use these resources all the time. Thats why we have fat or why a body that doesn't get nourishment will feed off itself. We take resources from ourselves all the time.

I think you should look at this link.

1. Is it alive?

Yes. Pro Choice supporters who claim it isn't do themselves and their cause a disservice.

2. Is it human?

Yes. Again, Pro Choice defenders stick their feet in their mouths when they defend abortion by claiming the zygote-embryo-fetus isn't human. It is human. Its DNA is that of a human. Left to grow, it will become a full human person.

3. Is it a person?

No. It's merely a potential person
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

It doesnt need to be a person to have a right to life. It merely needs to be a living human. Life is a human right

It doesnt need to be a person to have a right to life. It merely needs to be a living human. Life is a human right
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. Did you read the longer answers?

I love it how Pro-choice people go on and on about a persons debating tatics rather than adressing the actual points.

I think he was addressing your point. You said that, since the embryo will become a person someday, killing it is murder. He said it wasn't, just like if you punch someone who will become a cop, you're not punching a cop. The embryo may become a person eventually, but it's not yet a person, so killing it isn't murder.

I just want to adress this part. What do you mean a entity does not take resources from itself? The body stores resources all the time and we as entities use these resources all the time. Thats why we have fat or why a body that doesn't get nourishment will feed off itself. We take resources from ourselves all the time.

No we give off waste. We do not have the waste taken from us. To imply that something is taken means there has to be another entity to take it. If I throw rubish in the bin, the bin hasnt taken my rubish. If I go to the toliet the toliet has not taken my urine.

So is the fetus. It is not dead. You cannot point at an objective time to which it "turns alive". The cells are living always. They are not like the cells of your skin, hair etc because they are growing and dividing in the manner of an individual human life, which is what it is.

Hey, you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9903906&postcount=1331) are the one who said the embryo has "potential to life".

I think he was addressing your point. You said that, since the embryo will become a person someday, killing it is murder. He said it wasn't, just like if you punch someone who will become a cop, you're not punching a cop. The embryo may become a person eventually, but it's not yet a person, so killing it isn't murder.

He wasnt. If you punch a kid you are not certian it will become a cop or not. There are a great mass of factors that apply to whether it becomes a cop or not. Not all of these factors apply to all children, it is very complicated

However an embryo will develop into a person unless we stop it. The only things that stop it besides that are natural causes and accidents. However these factors are true over everyones lives. The only legimate restriction on peoples living are natural causes and accidents. Murder is illigamate, IE wrong. Human intervention to end a human life is wrong. That is what murder is. Thus abortion is wrong.

No we give off waste. We do not have the waste taken from us. To imply that something is taken means there has to be another entity to take it. If I throw rubish in the bin, the bin hasnt taken my rubish. If I go to the toliet the toliet has not taken my urine.

He wasn't talking about waste, he was talking about the body using stored fat for energy.

Hey, you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9903906&postcount=1331) are the one who said the embryo has "potential to life".

No, I say the embryo has the same potential to life as we all do. It is certian to live asside from accident or natural causes. That is true of all humans.

It doesnt need to be a person to have a right to life. It merely needs to be a living human. Life is a human right
Sorry to sound so negative,
but life is taken away every so often and many times people who do it, go unpunished. At war. In self-defense. If someone made me do it by putting a gun to MY head. If a woman chooses abortion, chances are, there is a "gun' to her head - no family support, no money, health risks etc. Seriously, only stupid ones think of abortion as a contraception methos, and they are punished for it by nature, when later then want to have children and they can't.

He wasn't talking about waste, he was talking about the body using stored fat for energy.

That fat isnt taken away either so the point is moot.

However an embryo will develop into a person unless we stop it.

Or it stops by itself. Since it can stop, we can't be sure it won't.

Sorry to sound so negative,
but life is taken away every so often and many times people who do it, go unpunished. At war. In self-defense. If someone made me do it by putting a gun to MY head.

Just because it happens and goes unpunished doesnt make it right

If a woman chooses abortion, chances are, there is a "gun' to her head - no family support, no money, health risks etc. Seriously, only stupid ones think of abortion as a contraception methos, and they are punished for it by nature, when later then want to have children and they can't.

So its better for a woman to not be pregnant and have a human dead? Someone should die to keep her status quo? And dont say its not dieing because it is. The cells stop devleoping, the entity is destroyed. Its life ends.

No we give off waste. We do not have the waste taken from us. To imply that something is taken means there has to be another entity to take it. If I throw rubish in the bin, the bin hasnt taken my rubish. If I go to the toliet the toliet has not taken my urine.

Not really. My body can take the fat stored in my body and use it to make energy to allow celular resperation. The body takes things all the time. We are made up of so many different creatures. We aren't just one giant organism.

That fat isnt taken away either so the point is moot.
Yes it is. Does it magically disapear to the magical happy place where fat dances upon lollypop hills with cherry soda rivers? The fat is stored in numerous parts in the body like the stomach area or ass and the body takes that fat and uses it.

No, I say the embryo has the same potential to life as we all do. It is certian to live asside from accident or natural causes. That is true of all humans.

Yeah, we're all alive unless we die. Thanks for stating the obvious.

Or it stops by itself. Since it can stop, we can't be sure it won't.

Notice how you've not quoted the rest of that paragraph the sentance is a part of which deals with your point. Have you reduced to quoting out of context because you cant win.


However an embryo will develop into a person unless we stop it. The only things that stop it besides that are natural causes and accidents. However these factors are true over everyones lives. The only legimate restriction on peoples living are natural causes and accidents. Murder is illigamate, IE wrong. Human intervention to end a human life is wrong. That is what murder is. Thus abortion is wrong.

That fat isnt taken away either so the point is moot.

You started talking about waste for no reason at all. What the heck does it have to do with the topic?

Notice how you've not quoted the rest of that paragraph the sentance is a part of which deals with your point. Have you reduced to quoting out of context because you cant win.

I'm snipping your "arguments" 'cause there's no one in this thread that hasn't read them 364 times already, since you keep repeating them.

Yeah, we're all alive unless we die. Thanks for stating the obvious.

You said earlier (much earlier becuase you and Jocabia spent so much time quibling with cemantics) that the embryos potnetial to live is very small. I argue that it is exactly the same as all of us.

We are all alive unless we die. And what are the three possible causes of death

Natural (disease, old age etc)
Accident (car crash, industial fault etc)
Murder (humans killing another human - war, etc)

Only two of those are legiamate causes of death.

You started talking about waste for no reason at all. What the heck does it have to do with the topic?

Read the people I am quoting FROM. You are doing it again.

You said earlier (much earlier becuase you and Jocabia spent so much time quibling with cemantics) that the embryos potnetial to live is very small. I argue that it is exactly the same as all of us.

We are all alive unless we die. And what are the three possible causes of death

Natural (disease, old age etc)
Accident (car crash, industial fault etc)
Murder (humans killing another human - war, etc)

Only two of those are legiamate causes of death.

Those are the only ways to die for everything that's alive, including animals and plants. Doesn't mean that killing them is murder.

Read the people I am quoting FROM. You are doing it again.

I did. He was talking about the body using stored fat and you replied with waste and urine.

# Living things are made of cells.

An embryo is made up of cells, human ones too. With their own unique DNA

# Living things obtain and use energy.

Indeed the embryo does.

# Living things grow and develop.

Indeed the embryo does

# Living things reproduce.

Granted it is unable to at presnet but then again new borns do not have that ability either, so the point is moot.

# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

Comatose people are alive but can do neither of these things

Those are the only ways to die for everything that's alive, including animals and plants. Doesn't mean that killing them is murder.

Notice how I said "humans killing other humans"

# Living things are made of cells.

An embryo is made up of cells, human ones too. With their own unique DNA

# Living things obtain and use energy.

Indeed the embryo does.

# Living things grow and develop.

Indeed the embryo does

# Living things reproduce.

Granted it is unable to at presnet but then again new borns do not have that ability either, so the point is moot.

# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

Comatose people are alive but can do neither of these things

Thus proving it's a living thing, but not that it's a person. Living things that aren't people get killed by people all the time, because it's not murder.

Again you miss the point. I said the same potential to life as us all. IE It will live aside from natural causes/accidents.

Not the same. For one thing it is a parasite at that time. For another it has a potential for life and we current have a life. Regardless, you've avoided the point to avoid addressing the analogy.

That is true OF US ALL. We all already have right to life so there is no reason for it to not be granted here. The cells are alive, they are not dead cells. The cells are a seperate entity to the mother on the grounds that you have so often stated that it takes resorces from the mother and the mother cannot take resorces from herself, ergo it is not part of her. If it were not a seprate entity then it would not have been created in a seperate manner, and would have only come into existance as a part of her (IE a blood cell, skin cell etc) but it is clear that its creation came about seperately. It has its own unique human DNA which is completely diffrent to its mother and not just marginly diffrent like say a Cancer cell (which only has the diffrence of the replciation rate genes malfunctioning) and it is developing in the fashion of any other life forms cell development process IE the cells are dividing just like yours and mine to grow
You dropped all of the other arguments. No shock there. Can't reason your way out, drop the argument, right?

Care to address why you think comparing a woman to life support is apt? Care to address the fact that you have admitted it is not yet a person? Care to give a single example of a law that is based on potential? Has anyone ever been arrested for thier potential to commit a theft? By your own admission, the mother isn't committing murder she has the potential to commit murder. Unless the definition a murder extends to potential people. Care to cite where that is in the code?

Most importantly, you are being disingenuous, so is Ph33r. You didn't come into this debate willing to be convinced. There is no data that will appear that will convince you that abortion is acceptable. I'll admit that I am against abortions. I would prefer that not another abortion was performed. I also would like there to be no teen pregnancy and for liver to taste like cherries. It's simply not going to happen. Now, unless I have objective evidence (just as you required for the case of murder against you) then I will not support forcing my opinion on others. At the point when a fetus can be succesfully removed from the womb and survive (as early as six months), I support making abortion illegal because at that point it is no longer potential. I suspect as the science progresses that will become earlier and earlier. And I will continually support earlier bans on abortion. Thus I'm willing to change my position. What would it take for you two to change yours?

I did. He was talking about the body using stored fat and you replied with waste and urine.

That was a mistake. But the point remains however. The body cannot take resorces from itself. You cannot steal from yourself. You have to have a seperate entity. The embryo is a seperate entity. It was created seperately also, and is unique in its DNA.

No, I say the embryo has the same potential to life as we all do. It is certian to live asside from accident or natural causes. That is true of all humans.

Same with sperm and ova. Show how this is different.

Notice how I said "humans killing other humans"

Well, I wasn't going to mess with your quote, but let's just reconsider those 3 ways to die as such:

1- Natural (organ failure, whether as a result of old age or deficiency)
2- Accident (choking, being struck by lightning, drowning, or being killed by anything that isn't alive)
3- Being killed (either by a person or an animal or a disease, which is caused by living things such as viruses and bacteria)

Everything that is alive dies in one of these ways. If it's #1 or #2, or if #3 was caused by something not human, there's no-one to blame for murder.

Well, on #2 I suppose you could blame God.

You said earlier (much earlier becuase you and Jocabia spent so much time quibling with cemantics) that the embryos potnetial to live is very small. I argue that it is exactly the same as all of us.

We are all alive unless we die. And what are the three possible causes of death

Natural (disease, old age etc)
Accident (car crash, industial fault etc)
Murder (humans killing another human - war, etc)

Only two of those are legiamate causes of death.

Your groups are intentionally vague and all encompasing in an attempt to quiet disention with your definition. Self defense, negligent homicide, and the other legal terms for deaths that occur either in defense of one's self or when the killing is not planned and could be accidental. Remember murder is illegal while killing in war, self defense, etc. is not considered illegal. Your three possible causes are too vague.

That fat isnt taken away either so the point is moot.

Circular argument. You use terminogy that reflects your belief that it is a separate organism so you use your use of that terminology as evidence that it is a separate entity. Try again.

Not the same. For one thing it is a parasite at that time. For another it has a potential for life and we current have a life. Regardless, you've avoided the point to avoid addressing the analogy

It is alive already. It is not dead. It is simply at an increadably early stage in its life


Care to address why you think comparing a woman to life support is apt?

I am not saying women are "just" life support. But they are that to the embryo. They keep it alive, and there is no justification to take them away from that support. In the same way there is no justicfaction for me to not allow you to buy any food or to get any water.


Care to address the fact that you have admitted it is not yet a person?

Its not yet a person but it doesnt need to be a person to have the right to life. It is human and it is alive. Ergo it has the right to life. Since the right to life is a human right and it is human and it is alive. Unless you can prove to me that it is dead.


Care to give a single example of a law that is based on potential?

Conspiricy to murder/burgle/defraud etc. Planning to commit an act of terrorism.

But my point is not based on potential. It IS alive.


The mother isn't committing murder she has the potential to commit murder. Unless the definition a murder extends to potential people. Care to cite where that is in the code?


Firstly, we are arguing for a change in the law

Secondly, it may not be a person but it is alive. It is human and it is alive and therefore has access to the human right of life.

Most importantly, you are being disingenuous, so is Ph33r. You didn't come into this debate willing to be convinced.

Then again, neither did I. Not like the anti-abortion arguments could've done it anyway.

You said earlier (much earlier becuase you and Jocabia spent so much time quibling with cemantics) that the embryos potnetial to live is very small. I argue that it is exactly the same as all of us.

We are all alive unless we die. And what are the three possible causes of death

Natural (disease, old age etc)
Accident (car crash, industial fault etc)
Murder (humans killing another human - war, etc)

Only two of those are legiamate causes of death.

Circular argument. You again use terminology that reflects your beliefs and then argue that your terminology validates your beliefs.

Also, the argument even if it weren't circular disregards probability, in which case we can say the same of sperm and ova.

Wrong. You've forgotten self defense, negligent homicide, and the other legal terms for deaths that occur either in defense of one's self or when the killing is not planned and could be accidental. Remember murder is illegal while killing in war, self defense, etc. is not considered illegal. Your three possible causes are too vague.

Murder is only acceptable when killing to protect yourself from being killed. Thus abortion is allowed when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die unless she has an abortion)

Those are the only ways to die for everything that's alive, including animals and plants. Doesn't mean that killing them is murder.
In Dungeons and Dragoms plants (unless it is a sentient plant) are not considered creatures. Thus you can kill them without murder. One can only murder a creature. :D


It is alive already. It is not dead. It is simply at an increadably early stage in its life

No, it is un-dead. Not living enough to be alive; not dead so like a Virus it is un-dead.


I am not saying women are "just" life support. But they are that to the embryo. They keep it alive, and there is no justification to take them away from that support. In the same way there is no justicfaction for me to not allow you to buy any food or to get any water.

Difference is personal responsibility. The fetus should stop mucing off the mother and get its own food.

There is justification for youto stop buying me food. Because I have no right to expect you to feed me unless your my parent/caregiver. But to be a caregiver one must choose to be it.

It is alive already. It is not dead. It is simply at an increadably early stage in its life
My hand is alive. A pig is alive. They have no right to life.



I am not saying women are "just" life support. But they are that to the embryo. They keep it alive, and there is no justification to take them away from that support. In the same way there is no justicfaction for me to not allow you to buy any food or to get any water.
So then if a woman is going to die because of childbirth she can't have an abortion?


But my point is not based on potential. It IS alive.
Once again being alive is not enough. Pigs are alive and they have no rights.


Firstly, we are arguing for a change in the law
Which is why you have to show objectively that its a person. Otherwise you can't change the law.

Murder is only acceptable when killing to protect yourself from being killed. Thus abortion is allowed when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die unless she has an abortion)

As someone mentioned before, no, that's not true. You can kill someone who's trying to rape you. You can kill someone who breaks into your house. Even if that person wasn't about to kill you.

Circular argument. You again use terminology that reflects your beliefs and then argue that your terminology validates your beliefs.

You do the same with your whole "person" arguement. Arguing that rights are only given to "persons" and then you decide what is and isnt a person. Who are you to make such a distinction. You dont know for a fact when it becomes a person. There is no agrred obvious nature. Some say when it has a heartbeat, some say when it has a brain etc. There is no univeral definion. Thus even without my logic of the right to life and it being alive, abortion should not be allowed seing as we dont know when it is alive and if we get it wrong we will kill masses of people, which we cannot risk.


Also, the argument even if it weren't circular disregards probability, in which case we can say the same of sperm and ova.

I'm not sure I fully take your meaning. Can you elaborate.

As someone mentioned before, no, that's not true. You can kill someone who's trying to rape you. You can kill someone who breaks into your house. Even if that person wasn't about to kill you.

No, you can use "reasonable force". It is not reasonable force to abort a child if it is not threatening your life. The child is not a siginificent enough detremental effect to the female's health to warrant its death

In Dungeons and Dragoms plants (unless it is a sentient plant) are not considered creatures. Thus you can kill them without murder. One can only murder a creature. :D

He called it murder, but I'm sure he meant "being killed", because otherwise people who were killed in self-defense can't be dead, since that's not murder.

Let me start off by saying that i don't approve of abortion. I think that if you don't want the child, give it up for adoption, don't just kill it. However, i do support the right to choose. Until a child is born, it's life is physically dependant on the mother's; it feeds off of the mother's nutrients, it's blood is oxygenated by her breath, etc. Therefore, though this may sound cold or cruel, the fetus is part of her body, and it hers to do with however she pleases. If the woman feels it is a threat (like swollen tonsils or a faulty appendix in danger of rupturing), of even if she simply doesn't want it (like a wart or a hangnail), she should have the right to remove it.

P.S.: Before you start, i am in no way trying to say that a human life is equal in value to a wart or an appendix; i was merely using these as examples.

Murder is only acceptable when killing to protect yourself from being killed. Thus abortion is allowed when the mothers life is at risk (IE she will die unless she has an abortion)

Well lets look at this opinion here. There are numerous individuals who disagree with you. If you accidentally kill someone people argue that it was acceptable and that you are not at fault. Numerous people and nations argue that when in a combat situation it is okay to take a life.

Also your definition of murder seems to be different from others.

In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Killing to protect oneself is not murder.

Nope, I already said after it's been pressed and bottled. Follow the analogy here, I know you're struggling with it...

And a person will eventually die and become worm food. It is a natural thing that is unavoidable. What is the physical difference between an alive person and a dead one? (Answer: different chemical reactions) How is this different between grape juice and wine? (Answer: there is none)

It is alive already. It is not dead. It is simply at an increadably early stage in its life

Again, you are playing games. First of all, it's not a stage of its life. If pregnancy is a part of my life then I am actually 32. You yourself have referred to it as having the potential to live in those words reflecting that you understand that we are using living in different ways. Sperm is alive as well. It's not dead.

I am not saying women are "just" life support. But they are that to the embryo. They keep it alive, and there is no justification to take them away from that support. In the same way there is no justicfaction for me to not allow you to buy any food or to get any water.

You compared the baby to a person on life support and asked if I would value that life but it doesn't work because the woman is not the same as a machine. Then you used it again. For the second time comparing her to life support machines.

Your second analogy is not even close to an apt analogy. Unless you can show that embryo can get its own food, you should avoid such distant analogies. Why do you hate veterans?

Its not yet a person but it doesnt need to be a person to have the right to life. It is human and it is alive. Ergo it has the right to life. Since the right to life is a human right and it is human and it is alive. Unless you can prove to me that it is dead.

I love when you make assertions as if they are more than just your beliefs. Sperm are human and they are alive. Therefore they have a right to life. I am a mass murderer.

Conspiricy to murder/burgle/defraud etc. Planning to commit an act of terrorism.

You aren't convicted of a potential crime. You are convicted of the crime you already committed. Planning and conspiracy are the actual crime.

But my point is not based on potential. It IS alive.

So are sperm.

Firstly, we are arguing for a change in the law

Badly.

Secondly, it may not be a person but it is alive. It is human and it is alive and therefore has access to the human right of life.
And so do sperm.

No, you can use "reasonable force". It is not reasonable force to abort a child if it is not threatening your life. The child is not a siginificent enough detremental effect to the female's health to warrant its death

Says you. And just what would you consider "reasonable force" to remove a creature that intruded my body? I certainly would remove it more gently, if it were possible, not killing it. But it's not possible to do so, then how is it unreasonable use of force?

In Dungeons and Dragoms plants (unless it is a sentient plant) are not considered creatures. Thus you can kill them without murder. One can only murder a creature. :D


No, it is un-dead. Not living enough to be alive; not dead so like a Virus it is un-dead.

Don't get me wrong, i love DnD like all sane nerds. However, using it to explain a position on abortion just seems kinda... extreme and retarded.

My hand is alive. A pig is alive. They have no right to life.

Once again being alive is not enough. Pigs are alive and they have no rights.

I am going to say this once and once only DO NOT TAKE MY ARGUEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT. I have argued throught the entire thread that the embryo is a human life and a seperate organism. The fact that I didnt mention it there means you pick me up on it. If I dont mention it in one space and I mention it in every other and it deals with the point you raise, assume it. Dont just repeat an arguement so as to get the same response.


Which is why you have to show objectively that its a person. Otherwise you can't change the law.

It is alive. It is a human life. Thus it is granted the human right - right to life.


So then if a woman is going to die because of childbirth she can't have an abortion?

Again I have answered this question before. The situation you describe is kill or be killed. Hence it is accptable

You do the same with your whole "person" arguement. Arguing that rights are only given to "persons" and then you decide what is and isnt a person. Who are you to make such a distinction. You dont know for a fact when it becomes a person. There is no agrred obvious nature. Some say when it has a heartbeat, some say when it has a brain etc. There is no univeral definion. Thus even without my logic of the right to life and it being alive, abortion should not be allowed seing as we dont know when it is alive and if we get it wrong we will kill masses of people, which we cannot risk.


You do the same thing, how do you know other animals are not people? There is a universal deffinition if you think of it: Is a person still a person if it has an artificial heart? Yes. Artificial liver? Yes Artificial kidney? Yes. Artificial brain? No. Therefore a person is a person if and only if it has a human brain.

It is alive. It is a human life. Thus it is granted the human right - right to life.

Technically speaking, it's an embryonic life, not a human one. Not arguing your point, just being a bastard.

Don't get me wrong, i love DnD like all sane nerds. However, using it to explain a position on abortion just seems kinda... extreme and retarded.

If you've got anything against extreme and retarded arguments, you better leave this thread now.

If you've got anything against extreme and retarded arguments, you better leave this thread now.
Point taken, i retract my statement :)

You do the same with your whole "person" arguement. Arguing that rights are only given to "persons" and then you decide what is and isnt a person. Who are you to make such a distinction. You dont know for a fact when it becomes a person. There is no agrred obvious nature. Some say when it has a heartbeat, some say when it has a brain etc. There is no univeral definion. Thus even without my logic of the right to life and it being alive, abortion should not be allowed seing as we dont know when it is alive and if we get it wrong we will kill masses of people, which we cannot risk.

Only are argument is that rights are only given to persons. It's been upheld. You have to show the difference in potential of sperm and ova and an embryo and you haven't other than with terminology. We have shown a clear and evident difference between a child and an embryo. That difference being that the child is no longer physically harming the mother.

I'm not sure I fully take your meaning. Can you elaborate.
If you ignore probability of outcome like you do when you compare an embryo to a baby, then you introduce sperm and ova. You've ignored that point for several pages. Your arguments is almost word for word the argument against birth control.

As you admitted unless you can objectively prove the act is murder, which you've admitted can't be done, then you can't infringe on the rights of a sovereign person. Would you like me to quote you? You've already argued the case of pro-choice, you don't acknowledge that you did so.

If you've got anything against extreme and retarded arguments, you better leave this thread now.
Hear, hear! :cool:

I just thought it would be fun to see the result of arguing from a fun game's standpoint.

I am going to say this once and once only DO NOT TAKE MY ARGUEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT. I have argued throught the entire thread that the embryo is a human life and a seperate organism. The fact that I didnt mention it there means you pick me up on it. If I dont mention it in one space and I mention it in every other and it deals with the point you raise, assume it. Dont just repeat an arguement so as to get the same response.
Hey avalon I'm only going to say this once and once only so listen up. YOU HAVE MADE STATEMENTS THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT AN EMBRYO BEING A HUMAN LIFE AND A SEPERATE ORGANISM. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE, NO OBJECTIVE LINKS, AND HAVE CONSTANTLY REPEATED BAD ARGUEMENTS. So don't sit there and say that I'm repeating an arguement just to get a response when you are the one just repeating stuff without providing the proof. Out of all the people in this thread debating I respect Jacobia, P33r, Smunk, but I do not respect you. You make repeatitive statements, make unsubstanciated claims calling them facts, and take arguements out of context.



It is alive. It is a human life. Thus it is granted the human right - right to life.
Really it fits the criteria of what we constitute a human? From what I've seen you have yet to show it has.



Again I have answered this question before. The situation you describe is kill or be killed. Hence it is accptable

I am not saying women are "just" life support. But they are that to the embryo. They keep it alive, and there is no justification to take them away from that support. In the same way there is no justicfaction for me to not allow you to buy any food or to get any water.
In this post you say there is no justification to take an embryo away from the support of the mother. That is a direct contradiction there Avalon. Either you say there are justifications to take them away from that support or you don't.

Point taken, i retract my statement :)

Welcome aboard :D

Just in time for the witch trial we have scheduled for later, and the big fire. We've got marshmallows. Grab a seat.

Again, you are playing games. First of all, it's not a stage of its life. If pregnancy is a part of my life then I am actually 32. You yourself have referred to it as having the potential to live in those words reflecting that you understand that we are using living in different ways. Sperm is alive as well. It's not dead.

Stop this thing with the sperm/hair/skin arguement. Sperm/hair/skin etc are not entitys unto themselves. They are part of other entitys. The embryo is an entity unto itself. Hence it is a human. A skin cell does not classify as a human, but part of a human.


You compared the baby to a person on life support and asked if I would value that life but it doesn't work because the woman is not the same as a machine. Then you used it again. For the second time comparing her to life support machines.


In so far as the preangcy alone is concerned, she is the baby's life support machine. Without her the baby would die in the same way that without a life support machine certian criticlally ill people would die. Aborting an embryo is as much killing as switching off a life support machine on someone who only needs that machine for 9 months, after that will be ok.


Your second analogy is not even close to an apt analogy. Unless you can show that embryo can get its own food, you should avoid such distant analogies. Why do you hate veterans?

People on drip feeds are unable to get their own foods, are they not alive. My analogy stands. You do not have the right to cut people off from the resorces they need to stay alive


So are sperm.

I love when you make assertions as if they are more than just your beliefs. Sperm are human and they are alive. Therefore they have a right to life. I am a mass murderer.

And so do sperm.

Again taking the arguement out of context. As I have said, throught the thread, sperm are not developing and not growing thus they are not seperate human lives. If you leave a sperm by itself given the resorces and conditions it needs to remanin alive, it will reamin a sperm. If however you leave an embryo alive and give it the resorces and conditions it needs to remain alive, then it will develop and grow. It is a seperart entity, not like a sperm which is a part of you. The embryo is not a part of something. It is itslef. A whole

Welcome aboard :D

Just in time for the witch trial we have scheduled for later, and the big fire. We've got marshmallows. Grab a seat.
Sweet, i can either bring s'more stuff or weenies, which would you prefer?

Really it fits the criteria of what we constitute a human? From what I've seen you have yet to show it has.

It has its own human DNA

It is a seperate entity (we know this because it was created seperately etc)

It is alive

All of these are true

Well lets look at this opinion here. There are numerous individuals who disagree with you. If you accidentally kill someone people argue that it was acceptable and that you are not at fault. Numerous people and nations argue that when in a combat situation it is okay to take a life.

In a combat situation, it is regarded that the entire situation is kill or be killed. Acciedntally killing someone I agree is not your fault but it still considered manslaughter and a crime.


Also your definition of murder seems to be different from others.

In law, murder is the crime of a human being causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Killing to protect oneself is not murder.

You dont have lawful excuse to abort an embryo. The embryo has done nothing to you that warrants its death.

Technically speaking, it's an embryonic life, not a human one. Not arguing your point, just being a bastard.

The embryo is human

Stop this thing with the sperm/hair/skin arguement. Sperm/hair/skin etc are not entitys unto themselves. They are part of other entitys. The embryo is an entity unto itself. Hence it is a human. A skin cell does not classify as a human, but part of a human.

You seem to need these things explained word by word. The hair/skin argument is, -whatchamacallit- an analogy. They're trying to point out to you that the embryo is not an entity unto itself, but is a part of the woman. Until the point where it can be definitively distinguished from the mother, she has the right to do with it whatever she wants, just like her hair/skin/hand/whatever.

In so far as the preangcy alone is concerned, she is the baby's life support machine. Without her the baby would die in the same way that without a life support machine certian criticlally ill people would die. Aborting an embryo is as much killing as switching off a life support machine on someone who only needs that machine for 9 months, after that will be ok.

As far as the embryo is concerned, yes, the woman is its life support. She is not, however, a machine. Machines are not, as of yet, sentient. They don't get to choose who they're plugged to, or in fact, anything at all. It's a machine. Doesn't have an opinion, it's not alive, it doesn't have any rights. The woman, while she does nourish the embryo, does have rights. And she shouldn't be obligated to keep nourishing it if she doesn't want to.

In a combat situation, it is regarded that the entire situation is kill or be killed. Acciedntally killing someone I agree is not your fault but it still considered manslaughter and a crime.



You dont have lawful excuse to abort an embryo. The embryo has done nothing to you that warrants its death.
If someone attacked me in a way that caused me to have permanent damage and made me go through what a woman goes through for nine months, I would be permitted to use any force necessary to stop them.

Sweet, i can either bring s'more stuff or weenies, which would you prefer?

Bring everything you got.

The embryo is human
It's still an embryonic structure, like all mammals. If a squirrel opted to abort it's fetus, would you protest? When an alligator eats it's own young, do you cry in rage?

Bring everything you got.
Awesome, now we can make weenie-s'mores.

And a person will eventually die and become worm food. It is a natural thing that is unavoidable. What is the physical difference between an alive person and a dead one? (Answer: different chemical reactions) How is this different between grape juice and wine? (Answer: there is none)

Welch's grape juice does not have live organisms in it fermenting, thus it is not wine. However, IF you mean new wine, then I agree, as I said before, new wine grape juice, wine and vinegar are all the same thing at different ages. The same as cystoblast, adult and senior citizen are different ages of the human.

However, once the yeast dies in the vinegar, or the cells stop splitting in the human, the organism (entity in the case of human and yeast colony in the case of vinegar) after that is just a shell, a dead body. Life, death, two different things. Decomposition does not begin during life (outside of devastating diseases anyway)...

Hey avalon I'm only going to say this once and once only so listen up. YOU HAVE MADE STATEMENTS THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT AN EMBRYO BEING A HUMAN LIFE AND A SEPERATE ORGANISM. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE, NO OBJECTIVE LINKS, AND HAVE CONSTANTLY REPEATED BAD ARGUEMENTS. So don't sit there and say that I'm repeating an arguement just to get a response when you are the one just repeating stuff without providing the proof. Out of all the people in this thread debating I respect Jacobia, P33r, Smunk, but I do not respect you. You make repeatitive statements, make unsubstanciated claims calling them facts, and take arguements out of context.


I have provided evidence, explanations based on true evidence

The embryo is alive and a sperate organism for the following reasons

1) It has its own DNA which is completly unique from its mother, and is not a result of a mutation from one of the mothers cells.

2) It was created by a method that is diffrent to the method of cell creation for any other cell which is considered part of the body.

3) It is alive. It is not dead. The cells are alive and developing and growing. If you take a sperm cell and leave it alone with the resorces and conditions of its natural state it will not devlop or grow. If however you leave an embryo with the resorces and conditions of its natural state (which is in a womens womb) then it will develop and grow

4) It is an entity unto itself. It has parts of its own. Sperm etc are parts of another life form. The embryo is a part of itself.

5) It takes resorces from the mother. To have something take resorces from you there has to be something else there to take them

6) It's DNA is that of human. Homo sapien. (proberbly spelt wrong, but true none the less)

7) Some here regard it as a parasite and some of its behaivor patterns suggest so. However the paraiste is human and thus should not be disposed of in the same way as others. Furthermore, if a parasite becomes attached to another organism, there is no doubt that the parasite and the organism are seperate creatures, just that one is attached to the other for its own benefit.

There is no "logical" argument save for the fact that it IS the woman's body and that's all there is to it.

Give me one other instance, at ALL, where another "human being" - at ANY stage of biological development - is lawfully permitted to 1) inhabit the body of another person and 2) cause potential harm to that person. Give me one precedent where anything has a "right" to inhabit another person's body against his or her will.

There isn't one. The fact that the woman had sex is totally irrelevant. A foetus is basically nothing more than a parasite. It holds NO benefit for the woman whatsoever, but certainly BENEFITS - it uses her nutrients, her vital organs, everything else. And there are cases CONSTANTLY of pregnancy severely injuring or even killing women. Sorry if that clashes with anyone else's romanticised concept of a "baby in the womb", but it's true. Foetii are parasites. That doesn't change the fact that a good deal of women WELCOME them - but it doesn't negate the fact that a foetus' relationship with a woman is a parasitic one. A potentially dangerous one. For the doubtful, a definition:

par·a·site, n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Taken from dictionary.com.

A foetus does all of those things - it grows, feeds, and is sheltered inside a woman. It contributes absolutely nothing to the survival of the woman, and in more cases than none, it can cause her death.

Such is why anti-abortion legislature will never have a leg to stand on, ever. You cannot force someone to keep something in his or her body that is a potential detriment. Debate the moral principles all you want; from a strict biological standpoint, you're dealing with an organism that isn't viable on its own, at least not until a certain point in gestation. Not even a fully matured adult with rights as a human citizen has the right to inhabit anyone else's body against his or her will. What gives a barely formed collection of cells or tissue that right? That's like saying a TUMOUR has a right to my body, which is quite obviously malarkey.

There is no "logical" argument save for the fact that it IS the woman's body and that's all there is to it.

Give me one other instance, at ALL, where another "human being" - at ANY stage of biological development - is lawfully permitted to 1) inhabit the body of another person and 2) cause potential harm to that person. Give me one precedent where anything has a "right" to inhabit another person's body against his or her will.

There isn't one. The fact that the woman had sex is totally irrelevant. A foetus is basically nothing more than a parasite. It holds NO benefit for the woman whatsoever, but certainly BENEFITS - it uses her nutrients, her vital organs, everything else. And there are cases CONSTANTLY of pregnancy severely injuring or even killing women. Sorry if that clashes with anyone else's romanticised concept of a "baby in the womb", but it's true. Foetii are parasites. That doesn't change the fact that a good deal of women WELCOME them - but it doesn't negate the fact that a foetus' relationship with a woman is a parasitic one. A potentially dangerous one. For the doubtful, a definition:

par·a·site, n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

Taken from dictionary.com.

A foetus does all of those things - it grows, feeds, and is sheltered inside a woman. It contributes absolutely nothing to the survival of the woman, and in more cases than none, it can cause her death.

Such is why anti-abortion legislature will never have a leg to stand on, ever. You cannot force someone to keep something in his or her body that is a potential detriment. Debate the moral principles all you want; from a strict biological standpoint, you're dealing with an organism that isn't viable on its own, at least not until a certain point in gestation. Not even a fully matured adult with rights as a human citizen has the right to inhabit anyone else's body against his or her will. What gives a barely formed collection of cells or tissue that right? That's like saying a TUMOUR has a right to my body, which is quite obviously malarkey.


Intresting arguement never thought of it that way

Stop this thing with the sperm/hair/skin arguement. Sperm/hair/skin etc are not entitys unto themselves. They are part of other entitys. The embryo is an entity unto itself. Hence it is a human. A skin cell does not classify as a human, but part of a human.People on drip feeds are unable to get their own foods, are they not alive. My analogy stands. You do not have the right to cut people off from the resorces they need to stay alive

Um, you're missing it. Sperm has as much potential and as much seperation as the embryo does. Show that it doesn't.

Again taking the arguement out of context. As I have said, throught the thread, sperm are not developing and not growing thus they are not seperate human lives. If you leave a sperm by itself given the resorces and conditions it needs to remanin alive, it will reamin a sperm. If however you leave an embryo alive and give it the resorces and conditions it needs to remain alive, then it will develop and grow. It is a seperart entity, not like a sperm which is a part of you. The embryo is not a part of something. It is itslef. A whole

If not for birth control a sperm would be subject to either natural causes or accident or it is going to become a human. Now you may argue that it hasn't met the ova yet, but during sex it will either be subject to natural prevention or it will meet it unless we prevent it. Same arguement as the embryo. Now, the embryo needs to have access to the placenta just as the sperm has to have access to the egg. You haven't demonstrated otherwise. There is no qualitative difference between your argument and the argument against birth control. Your line is arbitrary.

Alright, but does the punishment fit the crime? Having to raise an unwanted child for years because... one night of heavy intoxication? A condomn breaking? A rape?

Are you a man or a woman? Generally gender doesn't matter in a debate, but in this case it does. As a man you would not have to suffer such risk as a result of unprotected sex.

Oh ho ho ho ho ho, the gender trump card eh? We men can play it just as easily. If we men cannot have opinions on abortion because we can't experience it, then women cannot have opinions on Selective Service because it doesn't effect them.... So all the female hippies can take their rhetoric and shove it with that logic. But the simple fact is, both genders should be allowed to have opinions on it even though it doesn't effect them.

It has its own human DNA
So does every cell within my body. Now your going to argue that because that DNA is different it is a different entity. But the problem with this is there are also cells within my body which have mutated DNA which is different from the overall code. Does this make that cell a seperate entity?

It is a seperate entity (we know this because it was created seperately etc)
Its attached to the mother. It requires the mother for shelter, food, and to develop. How is that a seperate entity?

It is alive
Being alive isn't enough for something to have rights. Pigs are alive and they have no rights. Being "alive" isn't enough.


Here are some weaknesses with the arguement that an embryo is a person.

University of British Columbia bioethicist Walter Glannon, PhD, describes one view, writing: "The criteria of being a person, which consist of mental states caused by certain brain and bodily functions, are more complex than the criteria of being human, which involve brain and bodily functions but not those necessary to generate and sustain mental life. This implies that persons are not identical to human organisms, or human beings. Although the two terms sometimes are used interchangeably, person is a psychological concept, while human is a biological concept." (Walter Glannon, Genes and Future People. Cambridge, Mass.: Westview Press, 2001, page 22, italics added.)



There are at least five weaknesses in the assertion that the blastocyst is a fully human person:

1. Until the blastocyst actually implants in the uterus (seven to eight days after conception), it cannot possibly develop into a person.
2. Even after implantation, up until about 14 days' gestation, natural "monozygotic twinning" can occur. In this case there would be two "persons" rather than just one.
3. Even after implantation, spontaneous abortions can occur. In the normal course of human reproduction, about 60 percent of embryos spontaneously abort and are simply flushed in the course of the menstrual cycle. In in vitro fertilization, about 75 percent of the blastocysts either fail to implant or are lost through spontaneous abortions.
4. Even after implantation, in rare cases the blastocyst can develop, not into a human being, but into a tumor called a hydatiform mole.
5. A biological concept (being human) is being used as equivalent to a psychological concept (being a person).


From Stanford Medicine Magazine.
http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2004fall/young.html

Give me one other instance, at ALL, where another "human being" - at ANY stage of biological development - is lawfully permitted to 1) inhabit the body of another person and 2) cause potential harm to that person. Give me one precedent where anything has a "right" to inhabit another person's body against his or her will.

Firstly consentual sex means it is in her will for it to inhabit. Or at least have a posibility of it inhabitng (that posibilty lowered by using contrception but still there). Secondly, a lack of another example doesnt mean this one isnt valid. Thirdly, if the embryo is going to kill the woman I believe abortion to be justified. But untill the no. You are killing the fetus.


There isn't one. The fact that the woman had sex is totally irrelevant. A foetus is basically nothing more than a parasite. It holds NO benefit for the woman whatsoever, but certainly BENEFITS - it uses her nutrients, her vital organs, everything else. And there are cases CONSTANTLY of pregnancy severely injuring or even killing women. Sorry if that clashes with anyone else's romanticised concept of a "baby in the womb", but it's true. Foetii are parasites. That doesn't change the fact that a good deal of women WELCOME them - but it doesn't negate the fact that a foetus' relationship with a woman is a parasitic one. A potentially dangerous one. For the doubtful, a definition:

They may be parasites, but they are still human beings. Thus they are entitled to the right of life, which is a human right.


A foetus does all of those things - it grows, feeds, and is sheltered inside a woman. It contributes absolutely nothing to the survival of the woman, and in more cases than none, it can cause her death.

If it will cause her death then you are right to abort it (kill or be killed) but other than that, does it have to contribute to have the right to life? No.


Such is why anti-abortion legislature will never have a leg to stand on, ever. You cannot force someone to keep something in his or her body that is a potential detriment. Debate the moral principles all you want; from a strict biological standpoint, you're dealing with an organism that isn't viable on its own, at least not until a certain point in gestation. Not even a fully matured adult with rights as a human citizen has the right to inhabit anyone else's body against his or her will. What gives a barely formed collection of cells or tissue that right? That's like saying a TUMOUR has a right to my body, which is quite obviously malarkey.

The embryo is not a tumour for the following reasons

1. It has its own DNA which is completley seperate and not the product of a mutation

2. It is not created by the method of a tumour

The fact that it isnt viable IE cannot feed itself does not make it not alive. Babies cannot feed themselves, people on life support machines cannot often feed themselves. Does that mean it is morally justifable to kill them?

University of British Columbia bioethicist Walter Glannon, PhD, describes one view, writing: "The criteria of being a person, which consist of mental states caused by certain brain and bodily functions, are more complex than the criteria of being human, which involve brain and bodily functions but not those necessary to generate and sustain mental life. This implies that persons are not identical to human organisms, or human beings. Although the two terms sometimes are used interchangeably, person is a psychological concept, while human is a biological concept." (Walter Glannon, Genes and Future People. Cambridge, Mass.: Westview Press, 2001, page 22, italics added.)



There are at least five weaknesses in the assertion that the blastocyst is a fully human person:

1. Until the blastocyst actually implants in the uterus (seven to eight days after conception), it cannot possibly develop into a person.
2. Even after implantation, up until about 14 days' gestation, natural "monozygotic twinning" can occur. In this case there would be two "persons" rather than just one.
3. Even after implantation, spontaneous abortions can occur. In the normal course of human reproduction, about 60 percent of embryos spontaneously abort and are simply flushed in the course of the menstrual cycle. In in vitro fertilization, about 75 percent of the blastocysts either fail to implant or are lost through spontaneous abortions.
4. Even after implantation, in rare cases the blastocyst can develop, not into a human being, but into a tumor called a hydatiform mole.
5. A biological concept (being human) is being used as equivalent to a psychological concept (being a person).


From Stanford Medicine Magazine.

Please get an unbias scource before you present such information. Stanford (along with most Universities) are overwhelmingly liberal so bias is stuck in all over the place.

Such is why anti-abortion legislature will never have a leg to stand on, ever. You cannot force someone to keep something in his or her body that is a potential detriment. Debate the moral principles all you want; from a strict biological standpoint, you're dealing with an organism that isn't viable on its own, at least not until a certain point in gestation. Not even a fully matured adult with rights as a human citizen has the right to inhabit anyone else's body against his or her will. What gives a barely formed collection of cells or tissue that right? That's like saying a TUMOUR has a right to my body, which is quite obviously malarkey.
Why shouldn't a tumor have rights? It is alive (more so than a Embryo), is human tissue (thus human rights), and isn't a parasite. :(

Who are you to hurt that Tumor! :mad: (Sarcasm)


The embryo is not a tumour for the following reasons

1. It has its own DNA which is completley seperate and not the product of a mutation

2. It is not created by the method of a tumour

What is not created by the method of a tumor that a embryo is not? The Embryro isn't growing?!

Hey Avalon, may i ask a question? Just out of curiosity, is your opposition to abortion a religious-based argument, or an ethics-based argument? Don't worry, i won't post any follow-ups, i won't try to insult your religion or anything, i'm just curious.

In so far as the preangcy alone is concerned, she is the baby's life support machine. Without her the baby would die in the same way that without a life support machine certian criticlally ill people would die. Aborting an embryo is as much killing as switching off a life support machine on someone who only needs that machine for 9 months, after that will be ok.

Again, you compare the case of rights as if the woman is just a life-support machine. Obviously, you aren't a feminist.

People on drip feeds are unable to get their own foods, are they not alive. My analogy stands. You do not have the right to cut people off from the resorces they need to stay alive

Wait, we don't? Strange. And here I thought we were able to turn off life support. I seem to remember a famous case about this. If a person on life support did not have brain activity (like an embryo) and the chance of recovery were the same as the chance for an embryo to reach birth, we would be permitted to shut off the life support. And that is in the case where there is no damage to a person (the mother). Now in the case of abortion all of those conditions are met AS WELL the right for the mother to protect herself, her right to life. You picked a poor analogy.

So does every cell within my body. Now your going to argue that because that DNA is different it is a different entity. But the problem with this is there are also cells within my body which have mutated DNA which is different from the overall code. Does this make that cell a seperate entity?

Own unique human DNA. It is not a part of the whole of you


Its attached to the mother. It requires the mother for shelter, food, and to develop. How is that a seperate entity?

You require your house for shelter, local supermarkets for food. Does that mean you are not a seperate entity to those things.


Being alive isn't enough for something to have rights. Pigs are alive and they have no rights. Being "alive" isn't enough.

It is a human life.

What you have done is taken apart my arguements individually and found diffrent problems with each one. However in order to disprove it completely, you have to use the same arguement for each one. I am not saying that each of those points alone make up the reason why it should not be aborted. All together they do. You have to find an arguement that deals with all of them.

Why shouldn't a tumor have rights? It is alive (more so than a Embryo), is human tissue (thus human rights), and isn't a parasite. :(

Who are you to hurt that Tumor! :mad: (Sarcasm)


What is not created by the method of a tumor that a embryo is not? The Embryro isn't growing?!
I agree, the Tumor is a noble species, and has been denied sovereignty for far too long.

Again, you compare the case of rights as if the woman is just a life-support machine. Obviously, you aren't a feminist.

Only in the context of the pregnancy is she a life support machine for the embryo. In the context of other things she is many things.


Wait, we don't? Strange. And here I thought we were able to turn off life support. I seem to remember a famous case about this. If a person on life support did not have brain activity (like an embryo) and the chance of recovery were the same as the chance for an embryo to reach birth, we would be permitted to shut off the life support. And that is in the case where there is no damage to a person (the mother). Now in the case of abortion all of those conditions are met AS WELL the right for the mother to protect herself, her right to life. You picked a poor analogy.

No, because we know that the embryo will be seperate in 9 months time (aside from natural causes/accident which again is true of all people) so the analogy is this. Aborting a fetus is like turning off the life support machine on someone who needs it now but we know will not need it in 9 months time.

Hey Avalon, may i ask a question? Just out of curiosity, is your opposition to abortion a religious-based argument, or an ethics-based argument? Don't worry, i won't post any follow-ups, i won't try to insult your religion or anything, i'm just curious.

Both. I am religious but I dont believe you need religion to oppose it.

Own unique human DNA. It is not a part of the whole of you
The cells DNA would be unique because its been altered and no longer the same as mine. Also what determines if something is not a part of the whole of me? Would that be brain activity? Would that be a set of fully functional vital organs?



You require your house for shelter, local supermarkets for food. Does that mean you are not a seperate entity to those things.
As far as those things are not living entities yes. But the mother is a living breathing entity the last time I checked. The embryo is part of the womans body and does not have any brain activity.



It is a human life.

What you have done is taken apart my arguements individually and found diffrent problems with each one. However in order to disprove it completely, you have to use the same arguement for each one. I am not saying that each of those points alone make up the reason why it should not be aborted. All together they do. You have to find an arguement that deals with all of them.
Wrong. I have taken your arguement apart piece by piece. I don't have to just look at the whole arguement. Hell you present your arguements in pieces so its logical for me to take the arguement and attack it at the points you have presented. If I can disprove the points individually then your arguement falls flat on its face on the whole as well.

Firstly consentual sex means it is in her will for it to inhabit. Or at least have a posibility of it inhabitng (that posibilty lowered by using contrception but still there).

Again, the Filthy Whore argument. I won't even address it. Your point is moot since you think rape victims shouldn't be allowed to abort either, so consensuality doesn't enter into it.

Secondly, a lack of another example doesnt mean this one isnt valid. Thirdly, if the embryo is going to kill the woman I believe abortion to be justified. But untill the no. You are killing the fetus.

They may be parasites, but they are still human beings. Thus they are entitled to the right of life, which is a human right.

They may be humans, but they are parasites. Being human doesn't give a person the right to parasitism of another person's body.

If it will cause her death then you are right to abort it (kill or be killed) but other than that, does it have to contribute to have the right to life? No.

You can't know for sure if it'll kill her until she's already dead, in which case, it's a bit late to save her, and probably too late for the child too.

The embryo is not a tumour for the following reasons

1. It has its own DNA which is completley seperate and not the product of a mutation

2. It is not created by the method of a tumour

The fact that it isnt viable IE cannot feed itself does not make it not alive. Babies cannot feed themselves, people on life support machines cannot often feed themselves. Does that mean it is morally justifable to kill them?

No one says it is a tumor, only that both share enough characteristics that, if a woman isn't ever allowed to remove an embryo, she can't remove a tumor either. So we need to be more specific about what can or cannot be removed.


No snips this time, see?

Wrong. I have taken your arguement apart piece by piece. I don't have to just look at the whole arguement. Hell you present your arguements in pieces so its logical for me to take the arguement and attack it at the points you have presented. If I can disprove the points individually then your arguement falls flat on its face on the whole as well.

No I am right you are wrong. You see you dealt with each point as an indvidual, treating it as if on its own it argues for the right to the embryo to not be aborted. For example

I said the embryo was alive in one point

You countered that by saying that so are your sperm

I said that the embryo was an entity unto itself, which itself deals with your sperm point seing as how sperm is a part of you

However you then delt with the embryo being a part of itself in a diffrent way, ignoring the fact that your sperm arguemrent is defunct. You need to take out the whole with a whole. Each of the points I raised works in a network. If you look, when you used one point to take out one arguement, another of my points takes out the point that you just raised. And if you try to take that one out etc. You have to do the enitre thing in one go. Not bits an pieces

Look, I'm going to be frank with all of you. Roe vs. Wade has little to do with Abortion, it deals more with the right to privacy. Infact, the only REAL thing it had to do with Abortion is make it so no state can criminalize it. I recommend that you read the case rather than pick and choose. My personal view is that abortion is murder, but at the very least it should fall under the 10th amendment, which means that it falls to the states to decide. However, the dastardly (love hate relationship) 9th Amendment gets in the way too since it states that just because the Founders didn't put something in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean we're not entitled to it.... People fear a conservative court so much, needlessly I say. Yes, the court will chip away at, but it will become a state issue again.

Give me one other instance, at ALL, where another "human being" - at ANY stage of biological development - is lawfully permitted to 1) inhabit the body of another person and 2) cause potential harm to that person. Give me one precedent where anything has a "right" to inhabit another person's body against his or her will.

There isn't one. ...*snip*

Outside of the fact that every single person that can read this post or has ever existed has been and done the exact same thing or else they couldn't be here. We are a parasitic species, in that regard.

I'm sorry you don't approve of the condition and methodology of the human species on the planet earth, but that's how it's done. We don't exist without it.

Perhaps you should take up your concern with the 'evolutionary' process itself, or perhaps the 'deity' of your choice, whomever you think is responsible for having created us as organisms in the mammal family whom incubate and gestate in the womb of our mothers instead of in eggs under a heat lamp...

The basis for my support of the pro-choice movement is actually somewhat more utilitarian than most.

Basically, the legal precendent of considering a fetus a human life welcomes too many ramifications that, quite frankly, are unjustified. Does a woman who drinks during pregnancy, leading to her child getting Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, get charged with gross negligence and endangerment? Does a woman who, while running down the stairs, trips and falls, leading to a miscarriage, get charged with accidental homicide? Does a man who loses his cart in the grocery store, only to have it roll into a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage get charged with manslaughter?

On more philosophical grounds, I believe we humans are very little more than the sum of our experiences, defined by the connections we've made with ourselves and others. A fetus has no experiences, and beyond the mother, has no real connections with anyone else in the world. Can something like that really be considered a member of society, subject to the rules we provide ourselves with?

Please get an unbias scource before you present such information. Stanford (along with most Universities) are overwhelmingly liberal so bias is stuck in all over the place.
Studies by Universities can no longer be used?

Maybe we should just ask Kansas. They can vote on it.

Again, the Filthy Whore argument. I won't even address it. Your point is moot since you think rape victims shouldn't be allowed to abort either, so consesuality doesn't enter into it.

There is a diffrent arguement for rape victims than there is for consentual sex. Both points still stand.


They may be humans, but they are parasites. Being human doesn't give a person the right to parasitism of another person's body.

However, it being human means you dont have the right to kill it. Unless it is threatening the mothers life


You can't know for sure if it'll kill her until she's already dead, in which case, it's a bit late to save her, and probably too late for the child too.

You can make an educated medical guess. If the doctor thinks its certian, thats as far as we can know.


No one says it is a tumor, only that both share enough characteristics that, if a woman isn't ever allowed to remove an embryo, she can't remove a tumor either. So we need to be more specific about what can or cannot be removed.


A tumour and an embryo are completely diffrent in there development paths. One's DNA leads it to become a sentient being, the other does not. One is its own human, the other is not.

It is a human life.

Nope, it's no more a "human" life then an unborn-monkey is a "human" life, or if we go back further in the growth phase then a dog embryo is a "human" life, or if we go back even further then a fish embryo is a "human" life or if we go back further than that then an amoeba is a "human" life.

Humanity is a whole lot more than a string of DNA, which is the only thing an embryo shares with a real human.

The basis for my support of the pro-choice movement is actually somewhat more utilitarian than most.

Basically, the legal precendent of considering a fetus a human life welcomes too many ramifications that, quite frankly, are unjustified. Does a woman who drinks during pregnancy, leading to her child getting Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, get charged with gross negligence and endangerment? Does a woman who, while running down the stairs, trips and falls, leading to a miscarriage, get charged with accidental homicide? Does a man who loses his cart in the grocery store, only to have it roll into a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage get charged with manslaughter?

On more philosophical grounds, I believe we humans are very little more than the sum of our experiences, defined by the connections we've made with ourselves and others. A fetus has no experiences, and beyond the mother, has no real connections with anyone else in the world. Can something like that really be considered a member of society, subject to the rules we provide ourselves with?

Pro-choice: No, so it doesn't have rights.
Anti-abortion: But it probably will someday, so it's a crime to kill it.

Pro-choice: No, so it doesn't have rights.
Anti-abortion: But it probably will someday, so it's a crime to kill it.

What the hell did that have to do with my post?

There is a diffrent arguement for rape victims than there is for consentual sex. Both points still stand.

The argument is the same. A person has something in her body that she wants removed. She should be legally allowed to do so without endangering herself more than necessary.

However, it being human means you dont have the right to kill it. Unless it is threatening the mothers life

No, it doesn't. There more factors that allow us to use force on a person than our lives being threatened, and having our very bodies invaded should be one of them.

You can make an educated medical guess. If the doctor thinks its certian, thats as far as we can know.

But the doctor can't be "certain". He can give a probability, and the woman chooses whether to abort or take her chances and carry it to term.

A tumour and an embryo are completely diffrent in there development paths. One's DNA leads it to become a sentient being, the other does not. One is its own human, the other is not.

Yes, but they're very similar in the sense of using a person to grow, so the reasons given to outlaw the removal of one can be used to outlaw the removal of the other.

No I am right you are wrong. You see you dealt with each point as an indvidual, treating it as if on its own it argues for the right to the embryo to not be aborted. For example
Duh. Each point is used to express the opinion that an embryo is a potential human and has the right to life. Now when I take out each point the overall arguement that you are using is debunked. For example

I said the embryo was alive in one point

You countered that by saying that so are your sperm
Acutally I never said that. I said that being alive in itself was not enough a reason for something to be given rights. I used the example of a pig which is an entity unto itself and is alive yet it has no rights.

I said that the embryo was an entity unto itself, which itself deals with your sperm point seing as how sperm is a part of you
Once again I did not use the sperm point that was Jacobia. Now I asked you before how do we define an entity unto itself. You have yet to answer it.

However you then delt with the embryo being a part of itself in a diffrent way, ignoring the fact that your sperm arguemrent is defunct. You need to take out the whole with a whole.
You keep confusing me with Jacobia so try to keep up with me avalon. Once again I ask you how do we define something as a seperate entity?

What the hell did that have to do with my post?

It ended with a question (which, in retrospect, might have been rethorical), so I answered from both points of view.

One's DNA leads it to become a sentient being, the other does not.

The DNA is actually completely the same, all non-gamete cells have the entire set of DNA. The only difference is one cell fails to undergo apopotosis and the other doesn't.

There are at least five weaknesses in the assertion that the blastocyst is a fully human person:

1. Until the blastocyst actually implants in the uterus (seven to eight days after conception), it cannot possibly develop into a person.

In which case (if it never implants), an abortion won't be requested because the mother was never pregnant

2. Even after implantation, up until about 14 days' gestation, natural "monozygotic twinning" can occur. In this case there would be two "persons" rather than just one.

But certainly not 'None.'

3. Even after implantation, spontaneous abortions can occur. In the normal course of human reproduction, about 60 percent of embryos spontaneously abort and are simply flushed in the course of the menstrual cycle. In in vitro fertilization, about 75 percent of the blastocysts either fail to implant or are lost through spontaneous abortions.

I've read estimation in the range of 25%. But nobody can count 'unimplanted' blastocyst... Either way though, the mother won't then be seeking an abortion, as she's likely to be unaware.

4. Even after implantation, in rare cases the blastocyst can develop, not into a human being, but into a tumor called a hydatiform mole.

Then in fact, it was never a fully functioning/healthy blastocyst at all now was it?

5. A biological concept (being human) is being used as equivalent to a psychological concept (being a person).


Much like people have used a myriad of reasons to claim one group of people are more or less humans than themselves since the dawn of time...

After all of that, the mother will only be seeking an abortion IF the infant fetus has survived and overcome all those obstacles already.

If I weren't a man, I'd have an abortion right now.

Firstly consentual sex means it is in her will for it to inhabit.

Wrong. Show me anywhere that such a precedent exists. When I have sex, it's for sex. Unless I'm intentionally trying to become pregnant, and even then, there are women who purposefully become pregnant who end up having to terminate because of health risks.

Secondly, a lack of another example doesnt mean this one isnt valid.

It's called precedent. If in no other instances, even in different areas that nontheless run by the same parameters, would another organism be given the "right" to inhabit another person's body (genetically unique or not), there is nothing that makes this a special case except for the over-romanticised concepts that have been held for centuries simply because pregnancy is seen as some sacred duty to propagate the human species. The only difference is that an emotionally based argument can be made about the "sanctity" of a zygote/embryo/foetus' life, and emotion is the LAST thing that belongs in the legislative process.


Thirdly, if the embryo is going to kill the woman I believe abortion to be justified. But untill the no. You are killing the fetus.

No, you're removing the foetus. Because it isn't viable, it dies. The death is incidental. The first priority is removal. The point is, a woman isn't obligated to house something in her body just because it needs her to live. Tumours need their hosts to continue living. Parasites need their hosts to continue living.

They may be parasites, but they are still human beings. Thus they are entitled to the right of life, which is a human right.

Not within someone else's body. By the time a foetus hits viability, it is legally protected because it COULD live without the support of the woman. Like I said, not even a living, fully developed human being has the "right" to inhabit my body. Take for instance a rapist. If someone were to rape me, I'd have every right to use the minimum force necessary to remove the rapist from my body. If the minimum force winds up in that rapists death, so be it. Once again, the purpose of abortion is removal. The foetus dies because it is not yet viable.

If it will cause her death then you are right to abort it (kill or be killed) but other than that, does it have to contribute to have the right to life? No.

So that means that, if the cysts on my ovaries won't kill me, I don't have a right to remove them? If I had a tapeworm sucking the nutrients from my food for its own use won't kill me (and it wouldn't), I have no right to remove it? If a rapist isn't going to kill me, only have himself a little fun, I have no right to try to remove him? That's crap. Say "but but but, it's a HUMAN LIFE!" all you want. I just gave you three valid examples, one also involving a "human life", where, just because something lives doesn't mean it has a right to my body. And regardless of what you think, sex isn't an automatic invite to pregnancy. Consent to sex is consent to sex. Consent to pregnancy is a consent to pregnancy.

The embryo is not a tumour for the following reasons

1. It has its own DNA which is completley seperate and not the product of a mutation

2. It is not created by the method of a tumour

Tumours aren't "created". They are rapidly replicating, fully functional cells that multiply at a rate so fast that they crowd in on each other and begin dying, along with the original health cells it grows off of.

Besides, I never said that foetus = tumour. Foetus = foetus. But the foetus does not have a RIGHT to my body anymore than does a tumour. Regardless of its origin, a tumour is still genetically human ("human" as in an adjective). It's still a collection of living cells. Most importantly, they require a host to live and pose a detriment to that host. So do foetii. Now, in most pregnancies, the detriments are small - swollen ankles, bowel problems, stretch marks, etc. But they're still detriments. And a woman should have that choice as to whether or not she'll submit to that.

The fact that it isnt viable IE cannot feed itself does not make it not alive. Babies cannot feed themselves, people on life support machines cannot often feed themselves. Does that mean it is morally justifable to kill them?

The foetus isn't viable, but at the stages where abortion is legal, there is nothing except the woman's body that will sustain that foetus - life support, oxygen machines, nothing available in medical technology today will sustain a foetus that hasn't reached viability. Once again, the point of abortion is removal. The death is incidental to the removal because it isn't viable. An INFANT is viable. If the woman no longer wants to assume the tasks of feeding it, another person can easily assume its care. The same applies the terminally incapacitated who lie in comas. And, as far as I'm concerned, no person in a coma ever needed to inhabit MY body in order to live. That's where your rationale is lacking.

If I weren't a man, I'd have an abortion right now.

Just to spite them? :eek:

In which case (if it never implants), an abortion won't be requested because the mother was never pregnant
I know. However Avalon keeps making the point that if an blastocyst is left alone it will become a human which isn't 100% true.



But certainly not 'None.'
The arguement here is that this embryo is a person. Now if that is true and there is a split in the blastocyst resulting in identical twins does that mean that the twins are 1 person?


I've read estimation in the range of 25%. But nobody can count 'unimplanted' blastocyst... Either way though, the mother won't then be seeking an abortion, as she's likely to be unaware.
Once again going at the arguement that an blastocyst left alone will become a person. It just shows that the previous statement isn't entirly true.



Then in fact, it was never a fully functioning/healthy blastocyst at all now was it?
1. Well not once it became a tumor but up until then it was.
2. Its against that arguement that if left alone a blastocyst will become a person.



Much like people have used a myriad of reasons to claim one group of people are more or less humans than themselves since the dawn of time...
Ahh nice strawman.

After all of that, the mother will only be seeking an abortion IF the infant fetus has survived and overcome all those obstacles already.
Its against that arguement that if left alone a blastocyst will become a person.

Outside of the fact that every single person that can read this post or has ever existed has been and done the exact same thing or else they couldn't be here. We are a parasitic species, in that regard.

I'm still waiting for the part where you tell me the precedent (as in judicial, legislative, where the point of the pro-choice/pro-life argument essentially lies) where people are FORCED to do this, where any human is forced to house another life against his or her will, human or not.

No law says you must breed or propagate the human species and there's a reason for that. We're, for the most part, here because someone wanted us here.

The foetus isn't viable, but at the stages where abortion is legal, there is nothing except the woman's body that will sustain that foetus - life support, oxygen machines, nothing available in medical technology today will sustain a foetus that hasn't reached viability. Once again, the point of abortion is removal. The death is incidental to the removal because it isn't viable.

Much like throwing someone from an airplane at thirty thousand feet without a parachute.

It's not your fault they don't have wings and they aren't viable at 30,000 feet. You only 'removed' them from the plane, the lack of viability killed them... :rolleyes:

It's not your fault they don't have wings and they aren't viable at 30,000 feet. You only 'removed' them from the plane, the lack of viability killed them... :rolleyes:

Is their being in the plane going to harm me? Is that plane another person's body (a person with rights to govern their own welfare and protect their own interests)? No. And I find it amusing that you're comparing another human being's body with a machine - women become nothing more than incubators on legs to the people who believe they should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want.

Next.

I'm still waiting for the part where you tell me the precedent (as in judicial, legislative, where the point of the pro-choice/pro-life argument essentially lies) where people are FORCED to do this, where any human is forced to house another life against his or her will, human or not.

No law says you must breed or propagate the human species and there's a reason for that. We're, for the most part, here because someone wanted us here.


The Law doesn't make a person pregnant. It didn't 'force' anything, it only stipulates that IF a person becomes two entities, one cannot kill the other without just cause. Much like everyone else.

Much like throwing someone from an airplane at thirty thousand feet without a parachute.

It's not your fault they don't have wings and they aren't viable at 30,000 feet. You only 'removed' them from the plane, the lack of viability killed them... :rolleyes:

And if that person boarded the plane without a ticket and is hurting the other passengers... Sure, the flight attendants could restrain him, but we just don't have that option with embryos. A better analogy would be if you were the pilot in one of those old, 2-seat planes and someone boarded and got pushed off the plane in a struggle.

The Law doesn't make a person pregnant. It didn't 'force' anything, it only stipulates that IF a person becomes two entities, one cannot kill the other without just cause. Much like everyone else.
Except in the case of pregnance one of them is not a person

Though this is an intresting thoughts ... if a baby killes a mother during birth can the infant be charged with manslaughter?

The Law doesn't make a person pregnant. It didn't 'force' anything, it only stipulates that IF a person becomes two entities, one cannot kill the other without just cause. Much like everyone else.

How does a "person become two entities"? We're not hydra.

You're dealing with two gametes that fuse and start replicating. For much of its development BEFORE it's a human being, it is nothing but cells that are genetically human. What you're saying by claiming that inviable zygotes, embryoes and foetii are "human beings" is that, if I eat scrambled eggs, I'm really eating fried chicken. Development counts.

And once more, sex is consent to sex. Pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.

Is their being in the plane going to harm me? Is that plane another person's body (a person with rights to govern their own welfare and protect their own interests)? No. And I find it amusing that you're comparing another human being's body with a machine - women become nothing more than incubators on legs to the people who believe they should be forced to carry a pregnancy they don't want.

Next.


It might be harmful if it's a lifeboat lost at sea and there isn't enough fresh water for everyone. Should the big people decide to start throwing the small people off the boat so that they don’t have to share the resources... The big people survive longer and are rescued because of it, we understand 'why' they did it, should we make it legal? I think not.

How does a "person become two entities"? We're not hydra.

In case you missed it, it's called pregnancy.

You're dealing with two gametes that fuse and start replicating. For much of its development BEFORE it's a human being, it is nothing but cells that are genetically human. What you're saying by claiming that inviable zygotes, embryoes and foetii are "human beings" is that, if I eat scrambled eggs, I'm really eating fried chicken. Development counts.

And once more, sex is consent to sex. Pregnancy is consent to pregnancy.

All humans are nothing but cells that are genetically 'human' cells. Some are just bigger and older than others.


EDIT: p.s., If you eat eggs, you are not eating a chicken. If you crack open an incubating chicken embryo, you are eating a chicken.

If you eat meat from the fetus of a slaughtered cow is it not veal/beef? Of course it is, age is irrelevant.

It might be harmful if it's a lifeboat lost at sea and there isn't enough fresh water for everyone. Should the big people decide to start throwing the small people off the boat so that they don’t have to share the resources... The big people survive longer and are rescued because of it, we understand 'why' they did it, should we make it legal? I think not.

Your analogy reminds me of the case of an aunt of mine who was pregnant with identical twins up to a point where one of the twins continued to develop and "get big" while the other stopped, and was eventually absorbed by her body.

So, did my aunt's living daughter murder her sister? I think not.

Except in the case of pregnance one of them is not a person

Though this is an intresting thoughts ... if a baby killes a mother during birth can the infant be charged with manslaughter?

No, the doctor should be charged with malpractice. The infants actions were likely self preservation, not negligent nor malicious.

Your analogy reminds me of the case of an aunt of mine who was pregnant with identical twins up to a point where one of the twins continued to develop and "get big" while the other stopped, and was eventually absorbed by her body.

So, did my aunt's living daughter murder her sister? I think not.

Then she didn't need an abortion did she? The unified purpose of communal survival between the three biological entities determined their own courses...

No, the doctor should be charged with malpractice. The infants actions were likely self preservation, not negligent nor malicious.

So how is being in a different position that is usefull for birth or the fact that a child could tear the uterous for either being too big or moving when in the wrong position causing septic shock killing the mother were for the self preservation of the infant?

It might be harmful if it's a lifeboat lost at sea and there isn't enough fresh water for everyone. Should the big people decide to start throwing the small people off the boat so that they don’t have to share the resources... The big people survive longer and are rescued because of it, we understand 'why' they did it, should we make it legal? I think not.

Rationing water in a crisis is dumb. If you're not drinking the amount needed, and instead dividing it out amongst people so that everyone gets an insubstancial amount, you're essentially killing everyone slowly.

And once again, a boat isn't another person's body, so the boat analogy is still a bit moot. A person would have have no right to throw them off the boat, but they also have no obligation to share their resources. So whoever is in possession of the resources could just easily say, "I'm not sharing with you because I want to survive." And in that case, he'd be completely within his rights. Now, he may be labelled a heartless asshole, but that's still his right.

That's essentially what abortion is, in a statement: "I'm not sharing my resources with you." If the foetus still inhabits your body, however, the sharing of resources is involuntary. To prevent it, you HAVE to remove it. You can begrudge someone your personal possessions without having to "throw them off the boat." Pregnancy is a different animal, but still operates under the same premise of resource-sharing.

Next.

Then she didn't need an abortion did she?

The point of the story is that your analogy was bad. The mother would've been the lifeboat, not a big person in the lifeboat with a small person.

The unified purpose of communal survival between the three biological entities determined their own courses...

Right, three biological entities, which includes the mother. She gets a say in what happens. And being the one with rational faculties, her word is the last word.

So how is being in a different position that is usefull for birth or the fact that a child could tear the uterous for either being too big or moving when in the wrong position causing septic shock killing the mother? How is that action for self preservation?

The doctor should have take the baby out before then. Malpractice again.

In case you missed it, it's called pregnancy.

Pregnancy is when a PERSON becomes two entities? Go back to high school.

Pregnancy is when two fused gametes implant into the uterine wall. One person isn't "becoming" anything. Two gametes are becoming something.

All humans are nothing but cells that are genetically 'human' cells. Some are just bigger and older than others.

Except, they don't need my body to continue living, do they? A human doesn't have to live in my body and use my nutrients and vital organs to continue living, do they? Apparently, the concept of personal liberty just really isn't permeating.

Typical of a mindset that, once again, views women as walking incubators rather than someone with the right to govern her own body and what goes in or comes out of it.

The point of the story is that your analogy was bad. The mother would've been the lifeboat, not a big person in the lifeboat with a small person.

See below..

Right, three biological entities, which includes the mother. She gets a say in what happens. And being the one with rational faculties, her word is the last word.


Big person, power of might? Perhaps the lifeboat analogy was good afterall.

Big person, power of might? Perhaps the lifeboat analogy was good afterall.

I didn't say "big", I said "rational". The woman can think and make an informed decision for the best.

Pregnancy is when a PERSON becomes two entities? Go back to high school.

Go math! :p Arithmetic class. 1 old one + 1 new one = 2. Pregnant women is murdered by a mugger, husband wants the person charged with two cases of homicide and you're going to argue? nice. :rolleyes:

Pregnancy is when two fused gametes implant into the uterine wall. One person isn't "becoming" anything. Two gametes are becoming something.

If they are already fused and implanted and the mother's pregnancy test is coming back positive, the ‘fusion is finished’ it has 'already' become something, something human.

Except, they don't need my body to continue living, do they? A human doesn't have to live in my body and use my nutrients and vital organs to continue living, do they? Apparently, the concept of personal liberty just really isn't permeating.

Umm, yes they do need to stay inside the body to stay living, that's what this whole thread is about isn't it? Personal liberty should end before it allows us to devalue someone else’s very right to life...

Typical of a mindset that, once again, views women as walking incubators rather than someone with the right to govern her own body and what goes in or comes out of it.

Strawman. I don't advocate for putting anything in it by force, or taking anything out of it by force. I advocate for ending the unnecessary surgery that results in the death of a secondary human entity.

The doctor should have take the baby out before then. Malpractice again.

Thats not always true. It depends on the standards of practice in the hospital where it is done. If the standards are followed and this still occurs its not malpractice. So if thats the case then whose fault is it?

Go math to arithmatic class. 1 old one + 1 new one = 2. Pregnant wome is murdered by a mugger, husband wants them charged with two cases of homiced, your are going to argue? nice. :rolleyes:

QUOTE=Erisianna Pregnancy is when two fused gametes implant into the uterine wall. One person isn't "becoming" anything. Two gametes are becoming something. [/quotes]

If they are already fused and implanted and the mother's pregnancy test is coming back positive, the ‘fusion is finished’ it has 'already' become something, something human.



Umm, yes they do need to stay inside the body to stay living, that's what this whole thread is about isn't it? Personal liberty should end before it allows us to devalue someone elses very right to life...



Strawman. I don't advocate for putting anything in it by force, or taking anything out of it by force. I advocate for ending the unnecessary surgery that results in the death of a secondary human entity.

I think you meant to quote Iscarion, 'cause I never said any of that -- not that I disagree.

You require your house for shelter, local supermarkets for food. Does that mean you are not a seperate entity to those things.

You cannot force them to provide those things to you. In fact, it is actually their hope that you come to them for those things. Kind of like a woman that wants to be pregnant. False analogy.

Thats not always true. It depends on the standards of practice in the hospital where it is done. If the standards are followed and this still occurs its not malpractice. So if thats the case then whose fault is it?


Then medical technology still needs to improve. We die, we die of complications, it sucks, but it's the human condition we live in.

I think you meant to quote Iscarion, 'cause I never said any of that -- not that I disagree.


Fixed, terribly sorry.

Go math to arithmatic class. 1 old one + 1 new one = 2. Pregnant wome is murdered by a mugger, husband wants them charged with two cases of homiced, your are going to argue? nice. :rolleyes:

Most likely, it was a wanted pregnancy. If someone kicked me in the stomach with a WANTED pregnancy, I'd surely want him charged with SOMETHING. However, the last I heard, the death of a foetus didn't end up with a double muder charge. The charge was manslaughter, and homicides involving a pregnant woman usually involve a VIABLE foetus (in Laci Peterson's case, it did), and such is why there is a window as to how long a woman can wait before seeking an abortion.

If they are already fused and implanted and the mother's pregnancy test is coming back positive, the ‘fusion is finished’ it has 'already' become something, something human.

Then why can't it breathe on its own, digest, live completely independent of another person's body, even WITH mechanical life support? Oh that's right, it can't. And even if it did, I'm afraid its "rights" don't surpass those of the woman carrying it. Not even a fully developed human being has a right to inhabit my body.

Personal liberty should end before it allows us to devalue someone elses very right to life...

Then I'm glad you don't run the country, and that others who share your opinion have been struggling unsuccessfully for several decades to change abortion legislation. If we gave every "potential" human being a "right to life", then every single miscarriage would be investigated for evidence of foul play. That's insane. This is why only those BORN have full rights under the Constitution.



I don't advocate for putting anything in it by force, or taking anything out of it by force.

Wrong. You advocate a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want in her body.

Moreover, if you're dealing with a rape case, you're dealing with a woman who has had a pregnancy forced upon her, and then turning around and forcing her to carry the rapist's baby. So what's the solution to that? "Oh, with rape it's okay." You know what's going to happen then?

You're going to have a WHOLE lot of women showing up at clinics claiming to have been raped. You think the government has the time and resources to check out every single case to make sure its authentic? Ha!

Not to mention, I still want to hear this valid argument about rape cases, one that doesn't sound totally misogynistic and hypocritical. I don't know how many times I've run into people who are all against abortion but say it's okay in the case of rape. Is it any LESS a "human being" if it comes from a rapist? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist's baby?

Or am I about to find out that a lot of your "pro-lifers" here are only interested in ending abortion to basically punish women for DARING to have sex recreationally?

Then medical technology still needs to improve. We die, we die of complications, it sucks, but it's the human condition we live in.

That doesn't answer the question. In that situation where a mother dies because of the baby being in a bad position causing complications or from septic shock because of say a torn uterous and the doctor followed the acceptable standards who's fault is it?

Much like throwing someone from an airplane at thirty thousand feet without a parachute.

It's not your fault they don't have wings and they aren't viable at 30,000 feet. You only 'removed' them from the plane, the lack of viability killed them... :rolleyes:

Which would perfectly legal if you did so to prevent the amount of damage to your person that is caused by pregnancy. It wouldn't even matter if the person you threw out of the plane was intending to cause that damage. If they were damaging you as severely as pregnancy and you wanted to stop them, you would be required to use the least force necessary. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the least force necessary. So even if it was found to be murder, your argument does not hold. The embryo is not protected simply because it is not doing the damage with intent. We have the right to protect our person.

Fixed, terribly sorry.

That's alright. I'm actually so sleepy that I read the words again and again for about half a minute before being sure I hadn't written them.

Most likely, it was a wanted pregnancy. If someone kicked me in the stomach with a WANTED pregnancy, I'd surely want him charged with SOMETHING. However, the last I heard, the death of a foetus didn't end up with a double muder charge. The charge was manslaughter, and homicides involving a pregnant woman usually involve a VIABLE foetus (in Laci Peterson's case, it did), and such is why there is a window as to how long a woman can wait before seeking an abortion.

Ah, I see. A 'wanted' pregnancy makes a fetus human, an unwanted fetus is shit-out-of-luck?... Somehow I don't think that's very rational though, not very good 'logic' either. Perhaps all those laws (as well as permissive abortion laws) need to be changed if not all murdered pregnant mothers can be classified as double homicides... The level of ‘want’ changes as a fetus grows. If all else fails, adoption will highly increase the level of ‘want’ for the baby once it is viable.


Then why can't it breathe on its own, digest, live completely independent of another person's body, even WITH mechanical life support? Oh that's right, it can't. And even if it did, I'm afraid its "rights" don't surpass those of the woman carrying it. Not even a fully developed human being has a right to inhabit my body.

then why can't it breath on it's own? Didn't we already discuss this? You'll have to take that up with the Evolutionary process or the deity of your choice, whomever you think is responsible for the methodology of being a new human being...

... then every single miscarriage would be investigated for evidence of foul play. That's insane. This is why only those BORN have full rights under the Constitution.

Nonsense. Strawman non-argument. Totally nonsensical and out of place.

Wrong. You advocate a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want in her body.

I advocate that she can't kill it.

Moreover, if you're dealing with a rape case, you're dealing with a woman who has had a pregnancy forced upon her, and then turning around and forcing her to carry the rapist's baby. So what's the solution to that? "Oh, with rape it's okay." You know what's going to happen then?

Kill the rapist, put the baby up for adoption. Make laws that dictate she gets as much help as possible and give the mother as much assistance and care as humanly possible to try and get her back on her feet.

You're going to have a WHOLE lot of women showing up at clinics claiming to have been raped. You think the government has the time and resources to check out every single case to make sure its authentic? Ha!

Nope. I'm not dictating or advocating that the IRS should go after all liars and tax cheats either. If a person lies and cheats, and is a miserable all-around sod, that's not our problem. But there is no reason to legalize being a miserable sod just because some people won't stop doing it....

Not to mention, I still want to hear this valid argument about rape cases, one that doesn't sound totally misogynistic and hypocritical. I don't know how many times I've run into people who are all against abortion but say it's okay in the case of rape. Is it any LESS a "human being" if it comes from a rapist? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist's baby?

I can't help you there, I don't think it's okay in the case of rape. If the mother and baby are healthy and strong, without foreseeable life-endangering difficulties, then I don't think it's okay for that fetus to be aborted...

Or am I about to find out that a lot of your "pro-lifers" here are only interested in ending abortion to basically punish women for DARING to have sex recreationally?

Strawman. Making something up to argue against that... I never said any such thing.

Which would perfectly legal if you did so to prevent the amount of damage to your person that is caused by pregnancy. It wouldn't even matter if the person you threw out of the plane was intending to cause that damage. If they were damaging you as severely as pregnancy and you wanted to stop them, you would be required to use the least force necessary. In the case of pregnancy, abortion is the least force necessary. So even if it was found to be murder, your argument does not hold. The embryo is not protected simply because it is not doing the damage with intent. We have the right to protect our person.


And if it's killing you, who's arguing?

And if it's killing you, who's arguing?

It doesn't have to kill you. The fact that it was doing as much damage to you as in the case of pregnancy, a general pregnancy, would be enough reason to use whatever force necessary to stop that damage. The law isn't kill or be killed. The law gives us the right to protect our persons from harm, particularly when that harm is ongoing.

That doesn't answer the question. In that situation where a mother dies because of the baby being in a bad position causing complications or from septic shock because of say a torn uterous and the doctor followed the acceptable standards who's fault is it?


Sure it did. Medical complications occur. Medical technology is not sufficiently capable of dealing with all eventualities. There is no fault, except to advocate for advancing medical technologies.

You advocate a woman being forced to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want in her body.
I advocate that she can't kill it.

And until we can remove the fetus without killing it, and keep it alive afterwards, it's the same thing.

Another interesting part of this arguement is do we have the right to force other people to do things. Many people hold the belief that we can not know if a embryo/fetus is objectively a person or not. So then the arguement boils down to does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her body or does the government have the ability to force the woman to carry the child in order to protect the public(in this case the unborn children). I tend to believe that the woman's right to choose is far more important and I feel that the government does not have the ability to tell people what the must do with private property(the body in this case). I was wondering what other people think on this topic.

Ah, I see. A 'wanted' pregnancy makes a fetus human, an unwanted fetus is shit-out-of-luck?... Somehow I don't think that's very rational though, not very good 'logic' either. Perhaps all those laws (as well as permissive abortion laws) need to be changed if not all murdered pregnant mothers can be classified as double homicides... The level of ‘want’ changes as a fetus grows. If all else fails, adoption will highly increase the level of ‘want’ for the baby once it is viable.

No, the "want" doesn't make a foetus human. It makes it the property of the woman carrying it. She wanted it, and someone else caused her to lose it. Like I said, such is why there hasn't been a flat-out murder charge for the loss of a foetus, only manslaughter.


Then why can't it breath on it's own? Didn't we already discuss this? You'll have to take that up with the Evolutionary process or the deity of your choice, whomever you think is responsible for the methodology of being a new human being...

Yet again, it needs the woman's body to keep breathing. No other human beings I've ever seen that have rights need mine or any other woman's body in order to keep breathing.

Nonsense. Strawman non-argument. Totally nonsensical and out of place.

No, it's really not. Every human being who dies has an autopsy, there is some sort of investigation into the cause to death to be sure it wasn't foul play. By your logic, since ALL zygotes, embryoes and foetii are automatically human beings, that would mean it would open precedent to investigate every single miscarriage for findings of "murder". It's to illustrate the absurdity of your position.

I advocate that she can't kill it.

She's refusing to share her resources, her body, and REMOVES the foetus. It dies because it isn't viable. And you've thrown I don't know how many analogies at me for THIS one, none of which has yet held any water. That's because what I'm saying is truth: abortion removes the foetus. It dies because it is no longer in the woman's body. And it's no longer in the woman's body because she has a right to dictate what she'll allow in or take out of her body, just like ANY man or woman should have the right to do, especially with something as potentially dangerous as a pregnancy.

Kill the rapist, put the baby up for adoption. Make laws that dictate she gets as much help as possible and give the mother as much assistance and care as humanly possible to try and get her back on her feet.

HA! That's hilarious. You obviously haven't the first clue what rape does to women, and how EXPONENTIALLY being forced to carry a rapist's child can heighten the fear, resentment, loss of self-worth and other things a rape can force upon a women.

So it's basically that women become essentially worth NOTHING once they're pregnant. You'd actually want a woman legally OBLIGATED to carry a rapist's child because of some backwards ideal. Sickening.


But there is no reason to legalize being a miserable sod just because some people won't stop doing it....

"Being a miserable sod" is legal, unless you mean stealing. And in relation to abortion, hey, that's exactly why it's legal today. Women didn't stop doing it, they only did it unsafely and ended up dead from botched abortions. At least in this way, it's safe and sterile and women won't end up dead from an infection or a punctured organ.

*sits and waits for the "women who sought illegal backalley abortions deserved their deaths" speech*

I can't help you there, I don't think it's okay in the case of rape. If the mother and baby are healthy and strong, without foreseeable life-endangering difficulties, then I don't think it's okay for that fetus to be aborted...

And so you think it's okay for a woman to be forced to carry her rapist's child. Absolutely revolting.

Strawman. Making something up to argue against that... I never said any such thing.

No, you're not one of the ones who thinks abortion is okay in the event of rape. Rather, you're one of the ones who thinks women ought to be forced to carry a rapist's child. Which is oh so admirable.

Another interesting part of this arguement is do we have the right to force other people to do things. Many people hold the belief that we can not know if a embryo/fetus is objectively a person or not. So then the arguement boils down to does a woman have the right to choose what to do with her body or does the government have the ability to force the woman to carry the child in order to protect the public(in this case the unborn children). I tend to believe that the woman's right to choose is far more important and I feel that the government does not have the ability to tell people what the must do with private property(the body in this case). I was wondering what other people think on this topic.

Well... These unborn children won't be voters for about another 18 years. And even when they do become voters, the government can't be sure they'll vote for them. So I don't see why the government would be interested in protecting them.

And until we can remove the fetus without killing it, and keep it alive afterwards, it's the same thing.


Agreed, that's why I advocate that we can't allow aborting, it kills them.

Agreed, that's why I advocate that we can't allow aborting, it kills them.

You do realize your agreeing with him saying your statement is tanamount to the forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy?

It doesn't have to kill you. The fact that it was doing as much damage to you as in the case of pregnancy, a general pregnancy, would be enough reason to use whatever force necessary to stop that damage. The law isn't kill or be killed. The law gives us the right to protect our persons from harm, particularly when that harm is ongoing.

I don't have to dictate medical need and justification... a doctor can do that.

As I said earlier...

*snip*
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?
*snip*

I can't help you there, I don't think it's okay in the case of rape. If the mother and baby are healthy and strong, without foreseeable life-endangering difficulties, then I don't think it's okay for that fetus to be aborted...

By the way, a woman who has recently been raped is not healthy, even if she didn't get any diseases from the rapist. Or doesn't her psychological state count at all? Carrying the rapist's child would probably worsen her condition very significantly.

Well... These unborn children won't be voters for about another 18 years. And even when they do become voters, the government can't be sure they'll vote for them. So I don't see why the government would be interested in protecting them.

Cough cough republicans with religious morals cough.

You do realize your agreeing with him saying your statement is tanamount to the forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy?

My position advocates that they can't kill them. My position does not advocate that they are implanted or preserved in the womb. When they can remove them without killing and harming them, then so be it.

Agreed, that's why I advocate that we can't allow aborting, it kills them.

So you do advocate women should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

My position advocates that they can't kill them. My position does not advocate that they are implanted or preserved in the womb. When they can remove them without killing and harming them, then so be it.

But as for now that position is basically forcing a woman to carry a child against her will. I'm just making sure I'm clear on the position your advocating here.

By the way, a woman who has recently been raped is not healthy, even if she didn't get any diseases from the rapist. Or doesn't her psychological state count at all? Carrying the rapist's child would probably worsen her condition very significantly.

Prove it. Statistics do a lot of things when we just imagine them.


A new born in the lap of it's mother can produce a myriad of affects, from hate and repulsion, to healing and love... I can't dictate the emotion, what makes you think you can? But since neither entity is guilty of a crime, neither can be punished.

Cough cough republicans with religious morals cough.

Exactly. But wanting the votes of a large section of a country's population doesn't mean the government is keen on protecting the unborn children.

Prove it. Statistics do a lot of things when we just imagine them.


A new born in the lap of it's mother can produce a myriad of affects, from hate and repulsion, to healing and love... I can't dictate the emotion, what makes you think you can? But since neither entity is guilty of a crime, neither can be punished.

Yeah, it can be healing. But it should be her choice on whether or not she wants to risk it. I'm not the one trying to dictate what she should feel, but you are. You are the one denying her the choice.

I don't have to dictate medical need and justification... a doctor can do that.

As I said earlier...

Are you suggesting a healthy pregnancy does nothing to the body? I've made my position clear and you've avoided it because it entirely negates your point. If a person lost their mind and did the type of damage a pregnancy is EXPECTED to do to a woman that woman would be permitted to use whatever force necessary to protect her person, including killing them. The person she killed would not have been able to stop themselves from hurting this woman (innocent by reason of insanity), but she would still have the right to protect her person with as much force as is necessary. Thus, even if the embryo can be considered to have rights, the mother still has the right to protect her person. Any argument after that is pointless.

I am submitting two theoretical examples for consideration.

Amy, at the age eighteen studied hard and wanted nothing more than to become a lawyer. She had protected sex with her boyfriend and the condom broke. She found out that she was pregnant a month later and decided that it would be best to have an abortion. She went to college and after several years became a lawyer. Some time after graduation she got married and started practicing in her own lawfirm, Amy bought a house and decided to begin a family. She now has five kids, all of which are receiving the best education at a prominent private school. Her children are clothed, well-fed and receive medical treatment whenever it is needed.

Sarah, at the age of eighteen, wanted to be a doctor and could've have easily done so. She was also having sex with her boyfriend when the condom broke (damned condoms). She thought about having an abortion, but was told by all of her friends that an abortion is murder, even within the first trimester. She felt pressured and didn't get one. Instead she went homeand told her family that she was pregnant. Her family condemned her for having pre-marital sex and kicked her out. She turned to her boyfriend for help, but her told her that he was too young to be a father and broke up with her.
She went to a shelter, got a job at the local grocery store and saved enough money to get an apartment in a crappy neighborhood. She had her baby and raised him by herself, but she had to work two jobs to get scrape out a living. She could barely keep her child clothed or fed. He gets sick and, because Sarah makes two dollars over the requirements for welfare, cannot get benefits for him. She takes him to the hospital and they tell her that he is beyond their help, if only she had been taking him to a doctor regularly they might have caught the problem in time. Her son dies and Sarah is never able to forgive herself for being unable to provide for him.

There are many reasons women choose to have abortions. Even though these are not true stories, they easily could be. If you do not believe in abortion don't get one. But never, ever deem to be so high and mighty that you know everyone's personal life situation and have the right to tell them how it should be run.

Medically, it has been determined that within the first trimester a fetus is not developed enough to consider an abortion murder. If there is actual proof (not just theories) that the human soul is created upon conception, I would like to see it.

Yeah, it can be healing. But it should be her choice on whether or not she wants to risk it. I'm not the one trying to dictate what she should feel, but you are. You are the one denying her the choice.

Not the choice to keep it or not, not the choice to love it or not, but the choice to kill it or not? Yes, I advocate that she be forced to not kill it.

Not the choice to keep it or not, not the choice to love it or not, but the choice to kill it or not? Yes, I advocate that she be forced to not kill it.
So your for the removal of rights and the use of coercion?

in all reality I was too lazy to read further than the first page, so bare with me if any of this has already been said.

I am pro choice, and male. Although I highly doubt I will ever have to deal with an abortion in any way... (Im gay) I do still believe that the adult has the right to have an abortion. Before I say what I'm going to say I want you to know that I am trying to remove emotions from my view, so I may say some harsh things.

Firstly, lets treat the fetus as an ordinary person; put no sentimental attachments to it. what makes this fetus any different from the millions of people that are killed everyday in third world countries, or homeless peopel on the street? I do not think that a pro-life person should be able to argue that a life is precious unless they either donate to charities to save lives (and I don't mean less thana cup of coffee a day amount). Because if they are not valuing lives of these random dying people I assume that they are only protesting abortion because they are being tied up in sentiments about the killing of a baby. Thus they are being somewhat silly, only caring because it is a cute baby instead of because it is a life.
How can someone who does not care about the lives of children starving in Africa at an excessvly high rate complain about chidlren being aborted at a much lower rate here? It shows they are being ignorant, or so I think.

A zygoat has the 5 characteristics of a living organism: so what, we kill living organizims all the time; again with the sentiments. It is still not a human, because it does not have the potential of a rational being (developed brain).

YOu may ask where I draw the line, that of course would be at the age of viability, which I think is about 28 weeks... I dunno. simply because this is the point where the child can survive on its own, and has a developed brain.

I will not address the religious aspect of abortion, because I am not religious thus could care less.

Again I believe that the mother has domain over her body, she is allowing the child to be born; if she for some reason feels she is incapable of handling a child then she has the right to abort it.

The last thing I have to say (for today, because im tired) is that abortion IS NOT A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL! here is where I will input emotions. It is stupid to have unprotected sex and then use abortion as a method of birth control; this really makes me angry because my idiot brothers girl friend had 4 abortions, IDIOT. Now her uterus is collapsed and I'm glad. This is because she used the pregnancy card to keep him around, and when she had him she got an abortion, I think this is immoral because she used this possible life as a tool, then had it aborted... I want to make the distinction between normal people and crazy people who have abortions for kicks...

Anyway... good rant.... short but good

Are you suggesting a healthy pregnancy does nothing to the body? I've made my position clear and you've avoided it because it entirely negates your point. If a person lost their mind and did the type of damage a pregnancy is EXPECTED to do to a woman that woman would be permitted to use whatever force necessary to protect her person, including killing them. The person she killed would not have been able to stop themselves from hurting this woman (innocent by reason of insanity), but she would still have the right to protect her person with as much force as is necessary. Thus, even if the embryo can be considered to have rights, the mother still has the right to protect her person. Any argument after that is pointless.


Are you suggesting that being alive for ten years does not age you? Should we disallow the human race because we can only be born as mammal with a harmful incubation period?

Perhaps the reality that living each day brings you one day closer to death and old age bothers you and you imagine that our bodies frailty can somehow be legislated into non-existence... We live, we grow old and we die. The affects on our bodies are irrelevant to the question of abortion because our bodies are not eternal. They have approximately 30 years of fertility for a woman and more for a man, but even if they do not produce children, they will grow old, incur damage, and eventually, die.

Advocating the death of progeny to protect a temporary entity aging affect makes zero sense. I don't ignore your argument because it's 'good' I ignore it because it's silly.

We did not create the rules of existence of human life, we do not control the variables of producing our offspring.

Go cry to evolution or the deity, it's not our fault that living and giving birth wears us out, wearing out is reality, not the fetus' fault...

I am submitting two theoretical examples for consideration.

Amy, at the age eighteen studied hard and wanted nothing more than to become a lawyer. She had protected sex with her boyfriend and the condom broke. She found out that she was pregnant a month later and decided that it would be best to have an abortion. She went to college and after several years became a lawyer. Some time after graduation she got married and started practicing in her own lawfirm, Amy bought a house and decided to begin a family. She now has five kids, all of which are receiving the best education at a prominent private school. Her children are clothed, well-fed and receive medical treatment whenever it is needed.

Sarah, at the age of eighteen, wanted to be a doctor and could've have easily done so. She was also having sex with her boyfriend when the condom broke (damned condoms). She thought about having an abortion, but was told by all of her friends that an abortion is murder, even within the first trimester. She felt pressured and didn't get one. Instead she went homeand told her family that she was pregnant. Her family condemned her for having pre-marital sex and kicked her out. She turned to her boyfriend for help, but her told her that he was too young to be a father and broke up with her.
She went to a shelter, got a job at the local grocery store and saved enough money to get an apartment in a crappy neighborhood. She had her baby and raised him by herself, but she had to work two jobs to get scrape out a living. She could barely keep her child clothed or fed. He gets sick and, because Sarah makes two dollars over the requirements for welfare, cannot get benefits for him. She takes him to the hospital and they tell her that he is beyond their help, if only she had been taking him to a doctor regularly they might have caught the problem in time. Her son dies and Sarah is never able to forgive herself for being unable to provide for him.

There are many reasons women choose to have abortions. Even though these are not true stories, they easily could be. If you do not believe in abortion don't get one. But never, ever deem to be so high and mighty that you know everyone's personal life situation and have the right to tell them how it should be run.

Medically, it has been determined that within the first trimester a fetus is not developed enough to consider an abortion murder. If there is actual proof (not just theories) that the human soul is created upon conception, I would like to see it.

Oh, come on, we don't care about people that are already born. We can deny them tons of rights and priveleges, but when they aren't even formed no one can touch those rights.

Oh, come on, we don't care about people that are already born. We can deny them tons of rights and priveleges, but when they aren't even formed no one can touch those rights.

Well, crap! If that's the case then I want to crawl back into my mommy's tummy! Do you think she'll object?

Are you suggesting that being alive for ten years does not age you? Should we disallow the human race because we can only be born as mammal with a harmful incubation period?

Can you quote where I suggested such a thing? I said it is the choice of the woman to protect her person or to protect the embryo. You do not have the right to decide that for her on the basis of protecting a non-person.

Perhaps the reality that living each day brings you one day closer to death and old age bothers you and you imagine that our bodies frailty can somehow be legislated into non-existence... We live, we grow old and we die. The affects on our bodies are irrelevant to the question of abortion because our bodies are not eternal. They have approximately 30 years of fertility for a woman and more for a man, but even if they do not produce children, they will grow old, incur damage, and eventually, die.

The effects on the body are irrelevant to someone who will not have to suffer said damage. The damage to your body is absolutely the point. You would have the government order a woman to sustain that damage. YOu wish to pretend such damage doesn't matter, to tilt the argument in your favor. What's the matter? Your argument doesn't stand if you actually consider what really happens?

Advocating the death of progeny to protect a temporary entity aging affect makes zero sense. I don't ignore your argument because it's 'good' I ignore it because it's silly.

Uh-huh. Couldn't you make the same argument about someone who uses force to protect herself? You can't kill a rapist because the damage he does is nothing compared to a hundred years of aging. How can you make this argument and in the same breath suggest my argument is silly. Next, we can start harvesting organs from people, because, hey, life is fleeting and some people will be saved by doing so.

We did not create the rules of existence of human life, we do not control the variables of producing our offspring.

We can control some of them. We can take medication. We can use prenatal vitamins. We can have surgeries. And we can have abortions. You don't get decide any of those for anyone.

Go cry to evolution or the deity, it's not our fault that living and giving birth wears us out, wearing out is reality, not the fetus' fault...
No, I admit the embryo can't help it. Neither can a crazy man. Neither negates the woman's right to avoid damage that is... gasp... avoidable.

Can you quote where I suggested such a thing? I said it is the choice of the woman to protect her person or to protect the child. You do not have the right to decide that for her on the basis of protecting a non-person.

You advocate that a normal healthy pregnancy is harmful... I advocate that your statement about the mother being harmed is true even if she's not pregnant, we are harmed from age as well as everything else. The non-person statement you made is similar to every statement that anyone else has made that wants to devalue other humans we don't equate as equal to our own...

The effects on the body are irrelevant to someone who will not have to suffer said damage. The damage to your body is absolutely the point. You would have the government order a woman to sustain that damage. YOu wish to pretend such damage doesn't matter, to tilt the argument in your favor. What's the matter? Your argument doesn't stand if you actually consider what really happens?

We all age, not all mothers die from pregnancy. Should we go and ask all of our mothers if they think they will die sooner because they carried us? You see, it's silly, ridiculous and silly.

Uh-huh. Couldn't you make the same argument about someone who uses force to protect herself? You can't kill a rapist because the damage he does is nothing compared to a hundred years of aging. How can you make this argument and in the same breath suggest my argument is silly. Next, we can start harvesting organs from people, because, hey, life is fleeting and some people will be saved by doing so.

Forced to protect herself from what? Your strawman argument about harvesting organs? Your debating skills are sorely lacking and seemingly going downhill fast.

We can control some of them. We can take medication. We can use prenatal vitamins. We can have surgeries. And we can have abortions. You don't get decide any of those for anyone.

Nope, and neither do you. Medically required abortions were never the topic. Cosmetic abortions were and are.

No, I admit the embryo can't help it. Neither can a crazy man. Neither negates the woman's right to avoid damage that is... gasp... avoidable.

Damage from pregnancy is predominantly cosmetic...

If you were to stick a football fully up your ass, I wonder how cosmetic you would consider the damage.

You advocate that a normal healthy pregnancy is harmful... I advocate that your statement about the mother being harmed is true even if she's not pregnant, we are harmed from age as well as everything else. The non-person statement you made is similar to every statement that anyone else has made that wants to devalue other humans we don't equate as equal to our own...

Quick question. If we take two women of similar age and condition and impregnate one of them will their conditions be objectively different throughout the next year? Would a physician by examing a woman a year after the birth be able to tell she had given birth? I think we both know the answer to that.

Also, can you objectively prove that it is a person? If not, it has no place in law.

We all age, not all mothers die from pregnancy. Should we go and ask all of our mothers if they think they will die sooner because they carried us? You see, it's silly, ridiculous and silly.

Um, how about you ask the appropriate question. It doesn't have to kill you as I've pointed out several times. Your ignorance of the law does not change it. Now, how about we ask our mothers if there bodies were irreparably damaged by pregnancy. I know what answer I'd get from my mother. She has a tendency to tell me about things it did to her body that I never wanted to hear about. My arguments might seem less silly if you actually read them.

Forced to protect herself from what? Your strawman argument about harvesting organs? Your debating skills are sorely lacking and seemingly going downhill fast.

Yay, ad hominems. You don't want to address the points. Fine. it's not as if I don't know your debate here is disingenuous. Your belief is ONLY faith-based. If all scientific evidence piled up on my side of the argument you wouldn't change your position and you know it.

Now, back to the point. A person is allowed to protect themselves from harm (I know this may surprise you, but pregnancies harm women), using deadly force if that is all that avails itself, as is true in the case of abortion. This is enshrined in current law even when two people who are objectively understood to be people are involved. Hey, but maybe the next time a woman kills an attacker you can make the argument that the attacker wasn't doing anything that wouldn't have happened with time. Unless you can show a woman would be in the exact same condition a year later with or without the abortion then your argument is spurious.

Of course, before you make that claim remember, the Bible is infallible -
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

The birthing process is torture to a woman who wishes to not have children. Even the Bible says that the process is torturous. You would force that torture on a woman when it is possible for her to avoid it. I would not.

Nope, and neither do you. Medically required abortions were never the topic. Cosmetic abortions were and are.

Wow, is it really impossible for you to actually address a point. I'm talking about abortions by the choice of the mother, not ones that are ordered by a doctor to save the life of the mother and you know it. There's that lying thing again. It's amazing to me how one can claim their faith should be forced on others and not follow it themselves. How about you address the point I made as is, without twisting it and pretending I said something else.

You can deny that a pregnancy damages the mother, but you'd be lying. You know it damages her. Cosmetic abortions are a choice by the woman to not put her body through that harm. Arthritis is a natural process but we still use medications and treatments to prevent its effects.

Damage from pregnancy is predominantly cosmetic...
Really? I suppose the fact that my mother pees a little everytime she sneezes is purely cosmetic. I suppose the fact that sister nearly died five years after the birth of her child as a result of the pregnancy was purely cosmetic. Predominantly is not purely. And while you may think they don't matter, you don't really have a say in the matter. It is for the woman to decide with her physician as to whether she would like to avoid such damage.

It's interesting how someone who will never give birth treats the damage done by it as insignificant. How very sensitive of you?

Damage from pregnancy is predominantly cosmetic...

If a woman has a child naturally she will require stitches due to vaginal tearing. If she has a cesarian there will be scarring on the abdomen. Labor is the closest any person (although only woman experience it) comes to death without actually dying. It takes a full month for a woman to physically recover after labor, sometimes longer. Not to mention the postpartum depression that can occur in the months to follow a childbirth. Cosmetic? I must come to the conclusion that you have had no experience whatsoever in this matter you are trying to debate.