NationStates Jolt Archive

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

It is not alive, it is not an idividual and it is not a human being. Honestly, just repeating ideas that have been refuted from almost every angle a hundred times over doesn't help your credibility. I'm begining to find this discussion rather pointless, I might as well argue with a parrot...

My reason for being pro-choice is that I don't have the right to tell other people what to do with their body, also I do not believe that life begins at conception. It is my personal opinion that life begins when the baby is developed enough to survive without medical assistance (i.e. no respirators, etc.)
I also have a problem with the Pro-Life movement in the U.S. because they are trying to force their religious views upon me (I'm not christian)

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.

Prove that a feutus has self awareness of its existance? if so, how come I don't remember swimming around in mum when young?

So...just to summarise.

The "pro life" arguments appear to be that a collection of cells with no sentience have the same "rights" as a fully grown woman. These "rights" are not based in law (other than from their special book), and in fact are not absolute if it comes down to a choice between mother and baby. And yet they are equal.

If the woman is raped, it is a shame but she just has to live with it because her suffering is not important in the context of a yet to develop potential human.

In addition, it's the woman's responsibility to carry any conception to term if she gets pregnant, in spite of chemical and minor surgical methods of reversing that situation, as of that time she becomes a life support machine with no right to self determination.

For the first time I have seen just how utterly indefensible the pro life movement is. Not from any of the pro choice arguments, I already knew them. I feel extremely uncomfortable about the number of abortions that are carried out, but realise that I have absolutely no right to interfere in the self determination of another human being (the woman) on the basis of my beliefs. What the "pro life" advocates have done here is convince me that religion should never, ever have a place in moral debate as long as its proponents deny all logical and rational argument. Congratulations.

Just what is so hard to understand about that? You are not being asked to work in abortion clinics, you are not being asked to approve, and you are not being told that you have to have an abortion. Why on earth can't you get over your faith based moral superiority, which has been shot down so many times it is becoming tedious, and stay out of personal business that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

<snip> Just what is so hard to understand about that? You are not being asked to work in abortion clinics, you are not being asked to approve, and you are not being told that you have to have an abortion. Why on earth can't you get over your faith based moral superiority, which has been shot down so many times it is becoming tedious, and stay out of personal business that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
Amen ;)

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

No, people matter both in-so-far as the consume and produce. People who are old or depressed are usually able or willing to produce very little. They should be free to decide if they want to die. People who are unable to live without resperators or other machines consume plenty and are unable to produce anything. Assuming that they can't answer for themselves, thier families should be able to decide if they should be kept alive or allowed to die. A fetus is incapable of producing anything, it's parents are. A fetus is also incapable of expressing in any fashion it's will to live. In that case the parents are the only ones qualified to decide if it should be allowed to live or die.

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

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

You are assuming that if the fetus is born it will be happy that it was. There are things that are worse than death in this world. I'll freely admit that I'd rather be dead than broke. I'll also freely admit that I'm the youngest of three from a poor single-mother home. Now, the only thing I fear more than death is the unknown, and since I don't know what death is like I'd probrably never kill myself. However, I'd rather be dead than broke, and I'd rather be dead than a slave. For the first 12-15 years of my life, I often wished that my mother had aborted me, because I was too scared to kill myself but I didn't feel that the life I had at the time was really worth living.

So stop assuming that everyone wants to be alive. They don't. To be quite frank about it. If you are the type of person who would abort your kid you probrably will be a bad parent and have a f***d-up kid who wishes they were aborted anyway.

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

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

Yes you should. If there's even 25-30% of your population who wants a particular freedom (the freedom of self-determination over there own bodies and quite frankly the next 18-21 years of their life minimum) then it's insane to deny it to them. I'm sure 90% of people agree stealing is wrong (in general terms not specific cases, consider the rest of these to have this same condition), and that killing another post-natal human is wrong, and that violence against another post-natal human being is wrong, etc., etc., etc. That's why these things are outlawed, because such an overwhelming majority of people think they are wrong (and by wrong I mean destructive to the fabric of civilized society) that we make them illegal. On the other hand approximitely 40% of people use or have used marijuana on a regular basis, it should not be illegal. A very large minority, if not a majority of people drive over the speed limit on highways often, driving fast on the highway should not be illegal. By the same token, almost 50% of people think they should be able to chose whether or not they have an abortion, therefore abortion should not be illegal. Civilization will not come tumbling down if people drive fast, or get high, or have abortions.

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

No that would be wrong. Having as many people as possible under the sway of your state/religion should no longer be the supreme moral determiner in a decision. The human race is not going to die out due to lack of members. If anything it's more likely we'll destroy ourselves with over-population than under-population. We should have the sense at this point as logical human beings to find a more relavent determiner for or current situation. As I was explaining above human happiness is a much more meaningful metric at this point. Since once again at least 90% of us can agree that some sort of civilized society is better for everyone than anarchy, we'll just agree on that.

Now the question is will allowing people to run around killing each other be beneficial to society? 90% say NO. Will it probrably be bad for society? 90% say YES. Will more people be happier if it was allowed? Probrably not. Will more people be less happy if it is allowed? Probrably so. You being allowed to kill me would therefore be wrong.

So now we can put abortion through the same test. Will allowing it be beneficial to society? 50/50 opinion split. If you don't waste time with people who are stuck with 2000 year old moral codes. Majority YES. Will allowing it be bad for society? 50/50, etc., etc... NO. Will more people probrably be happier if it is allowed? Probrably so. Will more people be less happy if it is allowed? Probrably not. Abortion being legal would therefore not be wrong. Note I'm only discussing the legallity, not whether actually doing it is right or wrong, because I don't have the right to make that decision for anyone.

Now I feel the need to make a point by quoting George Carlin only because I would like to see if I can get a reasonable answer from someone on the opposite side. "If everything that was ever alive is dead, and everything that's alive now is going to die, where's the sacred part come in." I'm just wondering that's all.

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.

It's not temporary and it's not an aging effect.

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.

Aging can't be stopped yet. But if and when it can, people will stop it. On the other hand, pregnancy can already be stopped.

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)...


We weren't comparing humans to bacteria, we were comparing humans to wine. You said wine and grape juice and vinegar are the same thing, just chemical changes in between. I'm saying that alive and dead are the same thing, just chemical changes in between. What is atomic difference between life and death? Please explain it to me. Why is one an empty shell and the other is not? How do we know, whatever made the person a person does not remain in the body, but is just unable to move it?

No, people matter both in-so-far as the consume and produce. People who are old or depressed are usually able or willing to produce very little. They should be free to decide if they want to die. People who are unable to live without resperators or other machines consume plenty and are unable to produce anything. Assuming that they can't answer for themselves, thier families should be able to decide if they should be kept alive or allowed to die. A fetus is incapable of producing anything, it's parents are. A fetus is also incapable of expressing in any fashion it's will to live. In that case the parents are the only ones qualified to decide if it should be allowed to live or die.

Yes, but the important diffrence between a fetus and a person on a life support machine is that we know it will suvive on its own in 9 months time (asside from natural causes/accident, but thats true of everyone anyway). The fact is that since it will suvive on its own its killing it to take that suvival away. Its like taking the life support machine away from someone who we know only will need it for 9 months and after that they will be fine.


You are assuming that if the fetus is born it will be happy that it was. There are things that are worse than death in this world. I'll freely admit that I'd rather be dead than broke. I'll also freely admit that I'm the youngest of three from a poor single-mother home. Now, the only thing I fear more than death is the unknown, and since I don't know what death is like I'd probrably never kill myself. However, I'd rather be dead than broke, and I'd rather be dead than a slave. For the first 12-15 years of my life, I often wished that my mother had aborted me, because I was too scared to kill myself but I didn't feel that the life I had at the time was really worth living.

So stop assuming that everyone wants to be alive. They don't. To be quite frank about it. If you are the type of person who would abort your kid you probrably will be a bad parent and have a f***d-up kid who wishes they were aborted anyway.

You dont have the right to decide whether or not a child wants to be alive. Since killing it is morrally wrong you must keep it alive. I dont accept that there are any circimstances where killing yourself is a viable option. The only reason people do is because they believe their problems are worse than they are.


Yes you should. If there's even 25-30% of your population who wants a particular freedom (the freedom of self-determination over there own bodies and quite frankly the next 18-21 years of their life minimum) then it's insane to deny it to them. I'm sure 90% of people agree stealing is wrong (in general terms not specific cases, consider the rest of these to have this same condition), and that killing another post-natal human is wrong, and that violence against another post-natal human being is wrong, etc., etc., etc. That's why these things are outlawed, because such an overwhelming majority of people think they are wrong (and by wrong I mean destructive to the fabric of civilized society) that we make them illegal. On the other hand approximitely 40% of people use or have used marijuana on a regular basis, it should not be illegal. A very large minority, if not a majority of people drive over the speed limit on highways often, driving fast on the highway should not be illegal. By the same token, almost 50% of people think they should be able to chose whether or not they have an abortion, therefore abortion should not be illegal. Civilization will not come tumbling down if people drive fast, or get high, or have abortions.

Majority decision does not always prove things right. If the majority of society agrees murder is right, that does not make it right.


No that would be wrong. Having as many people as possible under the sway of your state/religion should no longer be the supreme moral determiner in a decision. The human race is not going to die out due to lack of members. If anything it's more likely we'll destroy ourselves with over-population than under-population. We should have the sense at this point as logical human beings to find a more relavent determiner for or current situation. As I was explaining above human happiness is a much more meaningful metric at this point. Since once again at least 90% of us can agree that some sort of civilized society is better for everyone than anarchy, we'll just agree on that.

Now the question is will allowing people to run around killing each other be beneficial to society? 90% say NO. Will it probrably be bad for society? 90% say YES. Will more people be happier if it was allowed? Probrably not. Will more people be less happy if it is allowed? Probrably so. You being allowed to kill me would therefore be wrong.

So now we can put abortion through the same test. Will allowing it be beneficial to society? 50/50 opinion split. If you don't waste time with people who are stuck with 2000 year old moral codes. Majority YES. Will allowing it be bad for society? 50/50, etc., etc... NO. Will more people probrably be happier if it is allowed? Probrably so. Will more people be less happy if it is allowed? Probrably not. Abortion being legal would therefore not be wrong. Note I'm only discussing the legallity, not whether actually doing it is right or wrong, because I don't have the right to make that decision for anyone.

Now I feel the need to make a point by quoting George Carlin only because I would like to see if I can get a reasonable answer from someone on the opposite side. "If everything that was ever alive is dead, and everything that's alive now is going to die, where's the sacred part come in." I'm just wondering that's all.

So the only test for a law is if its befical to soceity and not if its morally right or not. That seems rather selfish to the society, considering the embryo's could become part of it if you did not kill them. As for your point about being happier, I think the embryo's would be happier since it is actually possible for them to experiance happyness. We do not have the right to play God with their existance and to decide that abortion is ok because they may be unhappy in their existance

The "pro life" arguments appear to be that a collection of cells with no sentience have the same "rights" as a fully grown woman. These "rights" are not based in law (other than from their special book), and in fact are not absolute if it comes down to a choice between mother and baby. And yet they are equal.

Firstly, the right does exist in law. The right to life is a human right and the embryo is a demonsratable human entity. Therefore it has access to the right to life. Secondly, we are arguing that the loss of rights experianced by the woman if she becomes pregnant is less serious than the loss of rights experianced by the embryo if it is killed. Thus the situation is not that "they are equal but by default the baby wins" its "the baby wins as if abortion is allowed its rights are threaend more.


If the woman is raped, it is a shame but she just has to live with it because her suffering is not important in the context of a yet to develop potential human.

Is it right to blame the rape on the fetus and thus kill it? Pregnacy is not murdering the woman. Her suffering in a pregancay is not as important as the babies right to life.


In addition, it's the woman's responsibility to carry any conception to term if she gets pregnant, in spite of chemical and minor surgical methods of reversing that situation, as of that time she becomes a life support machine with no right to self determination.

The baby also has a right to self detemination, and the mothers loss of self determination by forcing her to carry the baby is not as serious as the loss of self detemination by the embryo if you abort it


For the first time I have seen just how utterly indefensible the pro life movement is. Not from any of the pro choice arguments, I already knew them. I feel extremely uncomfortable about the number of abortions that are carried out, but realise that I have absolutely no right to interfere in the self determination of another human being (the woman) on the basis of my beliefs. What the "pro life" advocates have done here is convince me that religion should never, ever have a place in moral debate as long as its proponents deny all logical and rational argument. Congratulations.

Just what is so hard to understand about that? You are not being asked to work in abortion clinics, you are not being asked to approve, and you are not being told that you have to have an abortion. Why on earth can't you get over your faith based moral superiority, which has been shot down so many times it is becoming tedious, and stay out of personal business that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

It is about defending the indefencable. What you are saying here goes against any kind of charity work at all. Very few charities get involved in areas which are directly any of my business but we get involved anyway because it is right.

We weren't comparing humans to bacteria, we were comparing humans to wine. You said wine and grape juice and vinegar are the same thing, just chemical changes in between. I'm saying that alive and dead are the same thing, just chemical changes in between. What is atomic difference between life and death? Please explain it to me. Why is one an empty shell and the other is not? How do we know, whatever made the person a person does not remain in the body, but is just unable to move it?


You do know that wine does not ferment if the yeast dies, correct? The living yeast in the juice processes the sugar and turns it into alcohol, without the living organisms in the liquid it's not new wine, wine nor vinegar. The analogy only works because the wine processes via 'aging' how old the system is... Just like humans are alive and we can tell how old they are via the aging affects.

Firstly, the right does exist in law. The right to life is a human right and the embryo is a demonsratable human entity.

The right does not exist under the law for the first trimester. It is not a demonstrable human entity under the law for the first trimester.

Try again.

The right does not exist under the law for the first trimester. It is not a demonstrable human entity under the law for the first trimester.

Try again.

You are asking the impossible. This has ceased to be a viable theory, the religious right know it, and so instead they have turned it into a mantra.

It is not alive, it is not an idividual and it is not a human being. Honestly, just repeating ideas that have been refuted from almost every angle a hundred times over doesn't help your credibility. I'm begining to find this discussion rather pointless, I might as well argue with a parrot...

It is alive. You cannot sucseefull argue that the cells are dead or in some way not living

It is an individual. It is not a part of the womans body as it was not created as such and if you look at the way it develops you can see that its development shows its independence from the body. Not that it is developing to be independent, but the fact that it is developing in the way it is shows it to be independent.

It is a human being. It has its own human DNA which is unique from the mother.

You have been repeating the arguement that it isnt, and havent provided proof. I have shown the proof that it is. Remember that all these points work in tandum together. You can say a sperm has its own DNA too, but that sperm isnt developing in the way that an embryo does.

You have been repeating the arguement that it isnt, and havent provided proof. I have shown the proof that it is. Remember that all these points work in tandum together. You can say a sperm has its own DNA too, but that sperm isnt developing in the way that an embryo does.

Just repeating something over and over doesn't make it true or demonstrable. Not that the earth is flat. Not that God exists. Not that because you beleive in a book that gives you the right to decide that you have absolute moral authority. Not that you have the right to determine the actions of a fully autonomous human being. Not that an embryo or foetus (until viable outside the body of its mother) can be even start to be considered a human being. Human tissue? Yes. Human being? No.

Alive? Yes. So what. So is lettuce until you pick it.

Sentient? Aware of itself or its surroundings? Capable of any kind of thought? No. Capable of self determination? No. And yet you would decide that a fully autonomous, fully sentient human being has absolutely no right to self determination to protect a ball of cells?

It is not too strong to say that the "prolifers" are attempting to marginalise any sexually active woman of child bearing age into having absolutely no basic human rights as soon as the condom bursts. What a truly miserable place to be.

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.

A logical argument? I'm sorry, but this is the abortion issue, and the standard operating procedure in this case to take up ridiculous positions and spout silly slogans that oversimplify one of the most complex and challenging ethical issues of our time.

Alive? Yes. So what. So is lettuce until you pick it

A lettace is not a human. An embryo is

Just repeating something over and over doesn't make it true or demonstrable. Not that the earth is flat. Not that God exists. Not that because you beleive in a book that gives you the right to decide that you have absolute moral authority. Not that you have the right to determine the actions of a fully autonomous human being. Not that an embryo or foetus (until viable outside the body of its mother) can be even start to be considered a human being. Human tissue? Yes. Human being? No.

Sentient? Aware of itself or its surroundings? Capable of any kind of thought? No. Capable of self determination? No. And yet you would decide that a fully autonomous, fully sentient human being has absolutely no right to self determination to protect a ball of cells?

It is a human and it is alive. Hence it is granted the human right of life. An embryo is not human tissue. Human tissue does not develop and grow in the way that an embryo grows. It does not have to be sentient to have the right to life that all humans have. Untill you can prove that it is either not human or not alive you cant prove abortion is right. And also, it is not my religous beliefs that are making me take this point of view. I am a Christian, but it is not my Christian beliefs that make me take this view. I would take this view anyway even if I were not Christian. It is plain to see how abortion is killing. Just because the embryo is not capable of self deteimnation, that does not give us the right to determine for it.


It is not too strong to say that the "prolifers" are attempting to marginalise any sexually active woman of child bearing age into having absolutely no basic human rights as soon as the condom bursts. What a truly miserable place to be.

Yes it is. The pro-life lobby deny the woman the right to kill. Since they never should have that right in the first place it is fair.

Yes, but the important diffrence between a fetus and a person on a life support machine is that we know it will suvive on its own in 9 months time (asside from natural causes/accident, but thats true of everyone anyway). The fact is that since it will suvive on its own its killing it to take that suvival away. Its like taking the life support machine away from someone who we know only will need it for 9 months and after that they will be fine.

YAY! Once again women are treated like life support machines. Today is day that should be remembered as a triumph in women's rights.

basicly I don't believe it can be called a human life until it is posible to survive without life support aperatus

basicly if it can survive with out respirators and all that other stuff then it should have all efforts made to help it survive if that is in the baby's best interests.

if it can't possibly survive without medical aid beyond that given to 'normal' new borns then it should be up to the discression of the doctors involved.

A lettace is not a human. An embryo is



It is a human and it is alive. Hence it is granted the human right of life. An embryo is not human tissue. Human tissue does not develop and grow in the way that an embryo grows. It does not have to be sentient to have the right to life that all humans have. Untill you can prove that it is either not human or not alive you cant prove abortion is right. And also, it is not my religous beliefs that are making me take this point of view. I am a Christian, but it is not my Christian beliefs that make me take this view. I would take this view anyway even if I were not Christian. It is plain to see how abortion is killing. Just because the embryo is not capable of self deteimnation, that does not give us the right to determine for it.



Yes it is. The pro-life lobby deny the woman the right to kill. Since they never should have that right in the first place it is fair.

Sorry Avalon, but I've proved to my satisfaction repeatedly that neither an embryo nor a foetus is in fact a human being. I've even tried to convince you of that with philosophical argument (which you refuse to recognise at all) and practical evidence (which you refuse to take into account because it is, so far as you are concerned, irrelevant because this is a straightforward argument on the basis that anything that contains unique human DNA and is alive has the rights of any fully developed human being).

On that basis it is impossible to continue any form of debate with you, because you refuse to debate. You have the right to your opinion, but I am extremely glad that this argument has been (to all intents and purposes) dealt with in the UK, and your opnion will stay just that. Because I would truly pity the women of this country if your moral absolutism were ever put into practice.

YAY! Once again women are treated like life support machines. Today is day that should be remembered as a triumph in women's rights.

Women are obviously not only life support machines, but to the embryo the mother is its life support machine. Whenever I make that point (IE that abortion is like taking the life support machine away from someone who we know only will need it for 9 months and after that they will be fine.) You just complain about womens rights. There is no flaw in the analogy.

It is alive. You cannot sucseefull argue that the cells are dead or in some way not living

It is an individual. It is not a part of the womans body as it was not created as such and if you look at the way it develops you can see that its development shows its independence from the body. Not that it is developing to be independent, but the fact that it is developing in the way it is shows it to be independent.

It is a human being. It has its own human DNA which is unique from the mother.

You have been repeating the arguement that it isnt, and havent provided proof. I have shown the proof that it is. Remember that all these points work in tandum together. You can say a sperm has its own DNA too, but that sperm isnt developing in the way that an embryo does.

It will be barring natural processes or human interference. When I kill it I prevent it from becoming a person, from reaching it's potential.

You've admitted it's not a person. Personhood is required for recognition of rights. Prove it's a person.

You keep regurgitating the same argument, but it is not alive. No more so than any mass of cells. Does it have different properties than my hand? Yep. That doesn't prove it's a living organism. But you know that. How do I know? Do you celebrate the day of your birth (the beginning of your life) or the day you were conceived? Life begins at birth and every person we talk to on here has conceded that point a dozen times by now by celebrating their birthday as a measurement of how long their life has been.

Sorry Avalon, but I've proved to my satisfaction repeatedly that neither an embryo nor a foetus is in fact a human being. I've even tried to convince you of that with philosophical argument (which you refuse to recognise at all) and practical evidence (which you refuse to take into account because it is, so far as you are concerned, irrelevant because this is a straightforward argument on the basis that anything that contains unique human DNA and is alive has the rights of any fully developed human being).

You have not proven how my arguenemt is flawed. Ergo untill you do I am right. The embryo is a human, it is alive. On that basis it is entitled to the human right of life. It is not just that it has its own human DNA but that it is developing and growing in the same way that you or I am. It does not have all the rights of a fully developed human (seing as it does not have the right to drive etc) but it has the rights which are apropriate to it.

Women are obviously not only life support machines, but to the embryo the mother is its life support machine. Whenever I make that point (IE that abortion is like taking the life support machine away from someone who we know only will need it for 9 months and after that they will be fine.) You just complain about womens rights. There is no flaw in the analogy.

You're ignoring the woman's rights when you make that analogy and you're denying that there's a flaw. You've only shown that if an embryo can continue developing without the mother that it should be permitted to. Unfortunately we don't have that technology yet. To suggest the lack of technology means a woman's rights should not be considered, just like the life support machine is not considered, is quite certainly mysogyny.

Until we have that technology you have the rights of a non-person weighed against the rights of person, and the person is always going to win. Understand women die in childbirth with no warning. The event is about as traumatic of an event someone can face and live. Yet, you act like there should be no consideration for this woman and what she faces. Your analogy leaves out the only person in the scenario and you can't see that it's flawed. That says a lot about how you think of women.

Let's try a different analogy. A five-year-old needs a piece of my liver in order to survive. I am the ONLY one who can supply that liver. I won't die from the procedure, but let's say I'll be very ill for nine months and afterwards I'll never be the same. Also, the procedure carries a risk of death. I am required to finance my own procedure as well. Should the government be permitted to force me to give up my liver?

You have not proven how my arguenemt is flawed. Ergo untill you do I am right. The embryo is a human, it is alive. On that basis it is entitled to the human right of life. It is not just that it has its own human DNA but that it is developing and growing in the same way that you or I am. It does not have all the rights of a fully developed human (seing as it does not have the right to drive etc) but it has the rights which are apropriate to it.

Yes, we have. You admitted they are not a person. That's all it takes. Prove they are a person or give up. The right to life is granted to persons, not human living tissue.

Thank God I decided to skip the last 40 pages, there wasn't anything new on them anyway I bet.

Thank God I decided to skip the last 40 pages, there wasn't anything new on them anyway I bet.

I can fill you in. PL is pro-lifer and PC is pro-choicer.

PL: Yes, it's not a person, but it's human and living, thus it has rights that trump the right of the mother.
PC: Rights are granted to a person not human living tissue. There is only one person whose rights must be considered.
PL: You wouldn't take a coma patient off life-support if they were going to recover in nine months would you, you heartless bastard?
PC: Um, the life support machine does not have rights, women do. Your analogy is flawed.
PL: My analogy is not flawed. I don't know how you could say that. I don't have to consider the rights of the mother. She's made the choice to have sex.
PC: So what? She's a filthy whore so we don't have to consider her rights?
PL: It's alive and human, so it has rights.
PC: It's not a person.

And so on...

You're ignoring the woman's rights when you make that analogy and you're denying that there's a flaw. You've only shown that if an embryo can continue developing without the mother that it should be permitted to. Unfortunately we don't have that technology yet. To suggest the lack of technology means a woman's rights should not be considered, just like the life support machine is not considered, is quite certainly mysogyny.

No, its not women hating, its human loving.


Until we have that technology you have the rights of a non-person weighed against the rights of person, and the person is always going to win. Understand women die in childbirth with no warning. The event is about as traumatic of an event someone can face and live. Yet, you act like there should be no consideration for this woman and what she faces. Your analogy leaves out the only person in the scenario and you can't see that it's flawed. That says a lot about how you think of women.

I dont think there should be no consideration for women, I just think that that cosideration should not outweight the consideration for the embryo.


Let's try a different analogy. A five-year-old needs a piece of my liver in order to survive. I am the ONLY one who can supply that liver. I won't die from the procedure, but let's say I'll be very ill for nine months and afterwards I'll never be the same. Also, the procedure carries a risk of death. I am required to finance my own procedure as well. Should the government be permitted to force me to give up my liver?

Flaws in your analogy

1) If the governement is forcing you to do it, you should not be forced to finance your own procedure. In my country at least, a woman is not charged for the use of a hospital to give birth or to have any post/pre natal care

2) In your analogy the 5 year olds illness is not a result of your actions, yet the pregancy is a result of the womans actions (at least in consentual sex)

Otherwise, yes the government should be in a position to force you to help him. But it should compensate/reward you for doing so also.

Yes, we have. You admitted they are not a person. That's all it takes. Prove they are a person or give up. The right to life is granted to persons, not human living tissue.

It doesnt need to be a person to have the right to life. All it needs is to be a human and alive. It is a human and it is alive. Ergo it has the human right of life. Your definiton of a person is arbitary and you definie it and it supports your case. The definiton of a human (meaning a individual member of the homosapian race) is not invented by me, nor is the definion of being alive. Hence I win because your definion is self consturcted and self serving.

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.

I must come to the conclusion that you have begun to believe your own fear tactics, you know, how you over amplify the real risks of pregnancy and you now wonder how anyone at all can ever survive it....:eek:

It doesnt need to be a person to have the right to life. All it needs is to be a human and alive. It is a human and it is alive. Ergo it has the human right of life. Your definiton of a person is arbitary and you definie it and it supports your case. The definiton of a human (meaning a individual member of the homosapian race) is not invented by me, nor is the definion of being alive. Hence I win because your definion is self consturcted and self serving.

Says you. You keep spouting that tripe, but all tissue in my body is human and alive. We don't define separate persons by DNA because it would be a little confusing since some people have more than one set of DNA and sometimes two or more people have the same DNA. We don't define human beings by potential or sperm and ova would have rights too.

You say all it needs is to be human and alive. "All it needs". Again, my sperm is unique DNA, has the same potential for life that an embryo has, is human, is alive. Barring human intervention or natural prevention it WILL become a life. Fits all of your requirements. No more condoms folks.

My definition? What's my definition? You've admitted that it's not a person and I agree. I never gave a definition. By the way, I'm not being self-serving. If I impregnated a woman I would do everything possible to talk her into carrying the baby to term. You assume much. I just know that my beliefs cannot be made into law unless I'm willing to risk the beliefs of others being made into law, and I'm not.

Now, as far as being self-serving. Your claims aren't self-serving at all, are they? Some of them have been clearly refuted and you've not managed to address the refutation because then you'd have to admit this is simply you trying to codify your belief into law, to force women to act as life support.

I love how you keep declaring yourself the winner of the thread. Amusing, that is. You've been repeating the same thing since the beginning of the thread and been refuted by biologists and theists alike and yet you claim yourself the winner.

I must come to the conclusion that you have begun to believe your own fear tactics, you know, how you over amplify the real risks of pregnancy and you now wonder how anyone at all can ever survive it....:eek:

Yep, he made those up. There are no risks or damage from pregnancy. Women usually spend their time during childbirth whistling a ditty and dancing a jig like the good little incubation chambers they are.

YAY! Once again women are treated like life support machines. Today is day that should be remembered as a triumph in women's rights.

This day won't be remembered at all. This is just an internet game forum, remember?

Women are obviously not only life support machines, but to the embryo the mother is its life support machine. Whenever I make that point (IE that abortion is like taking the life support machine away from someone who we know only will need it for 9 months and after that they will be fine.) You just complain about womens rights. There is no flaw in the analogy.

It doesn't matter whether or not they'll be fine without the life support "machine" in 9 months because the life support isn't a machine at all. Get it into your head. It's a woman. A person. Who has the right to support life or not if she chooses.

Yes, we have. You admitted they are not a person. That's all it takes. Prove they are a person or give up. The right to life is granted to persons, not human living tissue.

Whether or not it's a person doesn't change anything. It's inside the woman and she can take it out if she wants, no matter what.

Whether or not it's a person doesn't change anything. It's inside the woman and she can take it out if she wants, no matter what.

Well, legally it might cause a problem. But that's OK, because it isn't a person. And because it isn't it is not an issue of balancing rights. Because one is a human being and has them, and one isn't and doesn't.
But I doubt if Avalon or any of the other "prolifers" will take that in any more than they already have.

So...just to summarise.

The "pro life" arguments appear to be that a collection of cells with no sentience have the same "rights" as a fully grown woman. These "rights" are not based in law (other than from their special book), and in fact are not absolute if it comes down to a choice between mother and baby. And yet they are equal.

Actually the Bible is Pro-choice (Free agency, free will, etc).
I assume you meant bible mean you said "special book".

In fact, in the bible causing a women to miscarriage was worth only a fine so abortions would only be worth at most a fine but since you have women's permission = no punishment. But that is only if you want to get religious Old Testament style. Following the Code of Moses. However, since Moses Code was stricter than Jesus's code we can infer that abortions aren't a serous sin.

Back to your regularly scheduled debates:

For the first time I have seen just how utterly indefensible the pro life movement is. Not from any of the pro choice arguments, I already knew them. I feel extremely uncomfortable about the number of abortions that are carried out, but realise that I have absolutely no right to interfere in the self determination of another human being (the woman) on the basis of my beliefs. What the "pro life" advocates have done here is convince me that religion should never, ever have a place in moral debate as long as its proponents deny all logical and rational argument. Congratulations.

False, religion has every right to be in a moral discussion!
Sheesh, now I must defend Pro-life people.

What made you think religion ever entered into this conversation. Avalon never said a thing about religion.

Take your bigotry and mistrust of religion out of here!

Well, legally it might cause a problem. But that's OK, because it isn't a person. And because it isn't it is not an issue of balancing rights. Because one is a human being and has them, and one isn't and doesn't.
But I doubt if Avalon or any of the other "prolifers" will take that in any more than they already have.

How exactly would it cause a problem? If a person enters your body without consent, you are allowed to remove it even if it kills them. Avalon keeps saying contraception isn't 100% safe, so the woman must be accepting the possibility, but a door lock isn't 100% infallible either, and you still can remove an intruder from your house if he breaks in, by use of "reasonable force". Since, as of today, there's no way to remove an embryo without killing it, abortion is reasonable force.

And if it doesn't die after it's removed, you can send it to jail for breaking and entering.

Here are some facts about the made-up effects of childbirth-

http://www.obgyn.net/femalepatient/default.asp?page=leopold
"As one of the major physical, psychological, and social stresses of a woman's life, childbirth is gaining growing recognition as a major risk factor in the development of mental illness. Early descriptive studies have been bolstered by a series of reports that document the temporal relationship between psychiatric admissions and childbirth.1,5,6 Using data from more than 35,000 deliveries with sequential 90-day intervals over a 2-year period preceding and following the delivery, Kendell and colleagues clearly demonstrate a sevenfold increase in the risk of psychiatric hospitalization in the first 3 months after delivery.5 In this study, the risk of psychosis was 22 times higher than the prepregnancy rate, and the calculated relative risk (RR) of childbirth for the development of psychosis was 16. However, 87% of the admissions were for affective disorders, with the majority of diagnoses being major depression."

In case you need me to summarize women are 16x more likely to present with psychosis after childbirth than if no childbirth occurred. Women are 7x more likely to be hospitalized for mental illness in the first three months after delivery. Yep, just imagining the effects of childbirth.

http://coolnurse.healthology.com/focus_article.asp?f=pregnancy&c=postpartumdepression
"About 15 percent of women who give birth will develop postpartum depression. Women with a history of depression are at greater risk and women who have suffered through one episode of postpartum depression are also at a higher risk for developing postpartum depression. Some other risk groups involve women that have had history of mood disorders, family history of mood disorders, adverse life events, marital discord, and poor social support. "

15% of women suffer from postpartum after childbirth. 1 out of seven women. Yep, I can see how you would want to dismiss 1 out of seven women.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/~liz/liz/004.htm

There's a list of the temporary and permanent effects of pregnancy.

http://library.uchc.edu/bhn/cite/nyt/0906mat.html

7 or 8 women per 100,000 will die as a result of childbirth. That's in the US with proper care. This doesn't include the .5 per 1000 deaths from ectopic pregnancies (and, to be fair, shouldn't since abortion pills or procedures will likely not affect that number. I just wanted be clear about how traumatic pregnancy is.)

And of course, we've all heard of the hemorrhoids, gestational diabetes, incontinence, morning sickness.

But, hey, women shouldn't be allowed to determine whether they want to experience these things.

This day won't be remembered at all. This is just an internet game forum, remember?

Um, Erisianna, let me introduce you to my friend, Sarcasm. I'd assumed you'd met, but I appear to have been wrong.

It doesn't matter whether or not they'll be fine without the life support "machine" in 9 months because the life support isn't a machine at all. Get it into your head. It's a woman. A person. Who has the right to support life or not if she chooses.

That's absolutely correct, a woman is a person with rights. Women should have the right to decide to have children, or not. But once that eventuality has passed and they have progressed to the point where they are now having a child that statement is irrelevant... should they then in turn be allowed to kill it instead of having it? I say no, they should not be allowed to kill it once it has come into existence, the right to choose to not have children is past.

Oh, he said it all right.
Before or after he was diagnosed?

That's absolutely correct, a woman is a person with rights. Women should have the right to decide to have children, or not. But once that eventuality has passed and they have progressed to the point where they are now having a child that statement is irrelevant... should they then in turn be allowed to kill it instead of having it? I say no, they should not be allowed to kill it once it has come into existence, the right to choose to not have children is past.

Prove it's a child and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Incidentally, how old do you tell people you are? Do you measure from childBIRTH or from conception?

EDIT: Well, at least you and I would be on the same side of the discussion.

Um, Erisianna, let me introduce you to my friend, Sarcasm. I'd assumed you'd met, but I appear to have been wrong.

Well, it's hard to tell here. You know, there's people saying women have as much rights as machines. It's a relief to know they must be just sarcastic too.

That's absolutely correct, a woman is a person with rights. Women should have the right to decide to have children, or not. But once that eventuality has passed and they have progressed to the point where they are now having a child that statement is irrelevant... should they then in turn be allowed to kill it instead of having it? I say no, they should not be allowed to kill it once it has come into existence, the right to choose to not have children is past.

Right. I have decide I will not be robbed. I lock the door, bar the windows, set an alarm system... and some thief still breaks into my home! Shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself?

Actually the Bible is Pro-choice (Free agency, free will, etc).
I assume you meant bible mean you said "special book".

In fact, in the bible causing a women to miscarriage was worth only a fine so abortions would only be worth at most a fine but since you have women's permission = no punishment. But that is only if you want to get religious Old Testament style. Following the Code of Moses. However, since Moses Code was stricter than Jesus's code we can infer that abortions aren't a serous sin.
actually I am getting tired of people using the one mistranslated translation, to try to take that specific verse out of context.

One translation says miscarriage, all the others (in english anyway) use the word pre-mature birth, and it doesn't specify no more harm to the mother when it says no more harm it means to anyone involved so it actually identifies the baby (and now that it is born everyone can agree that it is a baby) as being the same punishment as if you killed the mother.

if I have confused you please see
here (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/abortion/exodus21.html)

btw I noticed you didn't even mention the verse it's exodus 21:22 if anyone is curious. One of my major annoyances is people who say "the Bible says..." and they don't provide the reference so other people can check it out and find out it was either not in there or like in this case taken out of context.

also since this verse is in a set of Jewish law, it really doesn't matter what it says anyway.

104 pages. You'd think someone would've changed the subject already.

Talk about beating a dead horse embryo.

Let's try a different analogy. A five-year-old needs a piece of my liver in order to survive. I am the ONLY one who can supply that liver. I won't die from the procedure, but let's say I'll be very ill for nine months and afterwards I'll never be the same. Also, the procedure carries a risk of death. I am required to finance my own procedure as well. Should the government be permitted to force me to give up my liver?
Flaws in your analogy

1) If the governement is forcing you to do it, you should not be forced to finance your own procedure. In my country at least, a woman is not charged for the use of a hospital to give birth or to have any post/pre natal care

2) In your analogy the 5 year olds illness is not a result of your actions, yet the pregancy is a result of the womans actions (at least in consentual sex)

Otherwise, yes the government should be in a position to force you to help him. But it should compensate/reward you for doing so also.
I missed this post earlier, but now I see discussion with you is pointless, because you don't actually believe in civil rights.

I also notice you couldn't help but throw in the dirty whore factor. The factor that requires women to take on an additional responsibility in choosing to have sex that no man will ever have to field. So if those dirty whores don't keep their legs closed (even though many of them are married) then they don't deserve to be protected from the harm of pregnancy. And by the way, if you apply the same rules with consent and without, then consent cannot be considered a factor in your making of this rule. Thus the second point is not an argument because it doesn't address ALL of the women who get abortions.

I win the thread. Where's my medal?

Right. I have decide I will not be robbed. I lock the door, bar the windows, set an alarm system... and some thief still breaks into my home! Shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself?

Shoot the robber, not your own child.

Shoot the robber, not your own child.

Appeal to emotion much?

If the robber is my 19 year-old son that i kicked out of the house because he used to get high and beat me, and he breaks in, can I defend myself then?

Plus, I didn't say "shoot", I said defend myself with use of reasonable force.

Because their right to decide means right to kill
Exactly -- as I've said, under a circumstance in which it is considered necessary for such a decision to be made. This is why, although the issues are not actually completely comparable, I put abortion into the same class of life-ending decisions that society and individuals must face as death penalty and euthansia. Sometimes it is necessary to kill. It's a terrible reality, and it would be nice if it never had to be faced, but life on earth doesn't work that way. In other eras, infants that couldn't be supported would be killed after they were born. Other creatures also face similar circumstances and either abandon or kill their young. This has nothing to do with society or civilization, but is something that is part of being a creature of this world. Having society and being civilized give us the means to face the harshness of life with less cruelty. Killing by aborting a pregnancy is far less cruel than killing or abandoning a child after it is born. This is obvious, in my opinion.

If you want to eliminate abortion, then work to eliminate the conditions that make it necessary. By merely eliminating the means to solve a problem without eliminating the problem, all you will accomplish is to condemn untold numbers of people -- adults and children -- to suffering.

The way you argue, I'm beginning to think that is your goal.

I also notice you couldn't help but throw in the dirty whore factor. The factor that requires women to take on an additional responsibility in choosing to have sex that no man will ever have to field. So if those dirty whores don't keep their legs closed (even though many of them are married) then they don't deserve to be protected from the harm of pregnancy.
the fact is that women (by nature of thier biology) do have to take on an additional responsibility when having sex, it is possible for them to get pregnant.
Pregnancy in itself isn't harmful, and if it is (like if the mother's life is in danger) abortion should be an option.

the fact is that women (by nature of thier biology) do have to take on an additional responsibility when having sex, it is possible for them to get pregnant.
Pregnancy in itself isn't harmful, and if it is (like if the mother's life is in danger) abortion should be an option.

Choice is not a factor for Avalon II, since he requires rape victims to carry to term. The argument doesn't hold because it only applies to some women who get abortions. He just likes to make sure he throws out the dirty whores deserve it argument every once in while to fulfill his quota.

the fact is that women (by nature of thier biology) do have to take on an additional responsibility when having sex, it is possible for them to get pregnant.
Pregnancy in itself isn't harmful, and if it is (like if the mother's life is in danger) abortion should be an option.

By nature of biology, they're the only ones that need to take on responsibility at all, since the father can (biologically) just skip out. That doesn't have anything to do with abortion. Like someone said in the beginning of this thread, abortion can be the responsible choice.

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


Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it. I think you got your analogy of who has to prove what, before action is carried out, backwards.
In the context of this debate, please let us know if you are male or female before discussing "our" rights and whether they should be taken away or not.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I will be half a degree less offended by that rights remark if you are also a woman.

104 pages. You'd think someone would've changed the subject already.

Talk about beating a dead horse embryo.

Nobody cares about horse embryos. Horse embryos are not getting ruthlessly murdered by their machi... I mean mothers. :D

Just to throw this in -

The Bible does not preach abstinence to married couples -

1 Corinthians 7:1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

In other words, it says that a married couple should only abstain from sex if they both consent and only for a time. If one reads further in the passage it recommends getting married if you find sex tempting. Sex is considered a part of marriage and since only abstinence guarantees no baby, you are advocating either denying the Bible or never marrying in the event that you do not wish to have children. So much for choice.

Our 'default right' requires that we unmistakably identify the object before we kill it.

Since it was brought up again... No, that's not true. If you're out to kill something, you should make sure you're killing the right thing. But if "something" is attacking or threatening or hurting you (or has invaded your body), you don't have to unmistakably identify it before you can defend yourself.

I also notice you couldn't help but throw in the dirty whore factor. The factor that requires women to take on an additional responsibility in choosing to have sex that no man will ever have to field. So if those dirty whores don't keep their legs closed (even though many of them are married) then they don't deserve to be protected from the harm of pregnancy.

I humbly suggest that all Dirty Whores(tm) turn lesbian. That way they can have sex all they want and not be threatened to be punished with a baby they don't want for exercising their right to have sex.

Oh, did I mention that women, not only men, also have the right to have sex?

Also, it is my strong belief that a woman can have sex if she so chooses. You know, because she's a human being and all.

[/hoping the message gets through this time]

In the context of this debate, please let us know if you are male or female before discussing "our" rights and whether they should be taken away or not.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I will be half a degree less offended by that rights remark if you are also a woman.


Umm, okay. That makes squat for sense unless you think only women are born of the womb... Or only slave-owners can vote to end slavery :rolleyes:

At this point it is expected that you will increase the degree of your 'offendedness' level.

Nobody cares about horse embryos. Horse embryos are not getting ruthlessly murdered by their machi... I mean mothers. :D

But but... teh horsies!! Won't somebody think of the horsies?? :(

the fact is that women (by nature of thier biology) do have to take on an additional responsibility when having sex, it is possible for them to get pregnant.
Pregnancy in itself isn't harmful, and if it is (like if the mother's life is in danger) abortion should be an option.
If by that you mean that women are the responsible party when pregnancy happens, then I must disagree. It takes two. The responsibility they have for being pregnant that their biology infers on them is not the responsibility for getting pregnant.
Pregnancy can be harmful to many women, both physically and psychologically. The potential for harm cannot be generalized away.

There is no trespassing involved. It is their home, they live there.
No, it isn't. It's the woman's home. She lives there.

Umm, okay. That makes squat for sense unless you think only women are born of the womb... Or only slave-owners can vote to end slavery :rolleyes:

At this point it is expected that you will increase the degree of your 'offendedness' level.

Yes, yes. It's all equal. A person who will NEVER have to go through childbirth and pregnancy suggests that the damage it does is 'aging' and that to talk about it is to make a big deal out of nothing. Now, why, oh, why might it be interesting to know what sex you are when you admit you don't think damage to the body that ONLY a woman can suffer is really pertinent and is being overblown? How about women telling us men that getting our penis cut off is no big deal? I mean, women go their whole lives without a penis, why can't men? Ridiculous.

Umm, okay. That makes squat for sense unless you think only women are born of the womb... Or only slave-owners can vote to end slavery :rolleyes:

At this point it is expected that you will increase the degree of your 'offendedness' level.

Actually, this discussion isn't so much about ending slavery as it is about starting it. Like, "if abortion is outlawed, women will become slaves. Men won't be in any risk of that, so their opinion counts less than that of the people who will be enslaved."

Since it was brought up again... No, that's not true. If you're out to kill something, you should make sure you're killing the right thing. But if "something" is attacking or threatening or hurting you (or has invaded your body), you don't have to unmistakably identify it before you can defend yourself.


If a doctor feels there is a medical condition that warrants concern, they will advise such... Walking into a clinic and saying, " I want someone to cut out this baby," is not a medical condition...

I humbly suggest that all Dirty Whores(tm) turn lesbian. That way they can have sex all they want and not be threatened to be punished with a baby they don't want for exercising their right to have sex.

Oh, did I mention that women, not only men, also have the right to have sex?

Also, it is my strong belief that a woman can have sex if she so chooses. You know, because she's a human being and all.

[/hoping the message gets through this time]

Of course she has the right to have sex

But she doesnt have the right to kill as a result of the consequences of her sexual actions.

At best we are talking aboriginal beings. They came with the territory.
Are you saying that women are born with all their eggs already fertilized and ready to gestate? Like cockroaches? Well, if that's the case, what the hell do we need men for?

Just to throw this in -

The Bible does not preach abstinence to married couples -

1 Corinthians 7:1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

In other words, it says that a married couple should only abstain from sex if they both consent and only for a time. If one reads further in the passage it recommends getting married if you find sex tempting. Sex is considered a part of marriage and since only abstinence guarantees no baby, you are advocating either denying the Bible or never marrying in the event that you do not wish to have children. So much for choice.

they could both consent to be abstinent to make sure they don't get pregnant.

Right. I have decide I will not be robbed. I lock the door, bar the windows, set an alarm system... and some thief still breaks into my home! Shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself?

Yes, but the diffrence is that they are attacking you. The fetus is not attacking you, or trying to steal anything from you out of malace. It does so because it cannot do any other. A burglar does so because he chose to. The fetus cannot choose to.

If a doctor feels there is a medical condition that warrants concern, they will advise such... Walking into a clinic and saying, " I want someone to cut out this baby," is not a medical condition...

No cutting out, then. How about abortive drugs? "Hey, I just fainted down the street, I think there's a parasite consuming my resources or something", the doctor examines "yep, you're pregnant", "okay, how about some medicine so this thing can feed off of me anymore?"

How about women telling us men that getting our penis cut off is no big deal?

*Shrill yell of utter horror*

:eek:

*Shivers uncontrollably huddled in a corner*

Actually, this discussion isn't so much about ending slavery as it is about starting it. Like, "if abortion is outlawed, women will become slaves. Men won't be in any risk of that, so their opinion counts less than that of the people who will be enslaved."

A male that agrees with what's being said here.

Of course she has the right to have sex

But she doesnt have the right to kill as a result of the consequences of her sexual actions.

She's not obligated to carry any parasite she might pick up from the guy either. True, some sexually transmitted diseases don't have cures yet, but most of them, including pregnancy, are treatable.

Are you saying that women are born with all their eggs already fertilized and ready to gestate? Like cockroaches? Well, if that's the case, what the hell do we need men for?

For the thinking, dear, and the making decisions. Now shut up!

I missed this post earlier, but now I see discussion with you is pointless, because you don't actually believe in civil rights.

I also notice you couldn't help but throw in the dirty whore factor. The factor that requires women to take on an additional responsibility in choosing to have sex that no man will ever have to field. So if those dirty whores don't keep their legs closed (even though many of them are married) then they don't deserve to be protected from the harm of pregnancy. And by the way, if you apply the same rules with consent and without, then consent cannot be considered a factor in your making of this rule. Thus the second point is not an argument because it doesn't address ALL of the women who get abortions.

I win the thread. Where's my medal?

The arguement that adresses rape abortions is that it is unfair to blame the consequense of death onto the fetus when it has done nothing wrong. Of course it is arguable that the woman has done nothing wrong, but since one of them has to suffer it should be the woman because she will suffer less.

If by that you mean that women are the responsible party when pregnancy happens, then I must disagree. It takes two. The responsibility they have for being pregnant that their biology infers on them is not the responsibility for getting pregnant.
Pregnancy can be harmful to many women, both physically and psychologically. The potential for harm cannot be generalized away.
women are responsible for thier own choices, if the choose to have sex they are responsible for that choice.

They can't get pregnant on thier own, so it is the couples responsibility to deal with the consequence of pregnancy.

Pregnancy can be harmful but isn't as a rule harmful is what I was saying, in cases where there is extreme harm ( mothers life is in danger, rape, ect.) then abortion should be an option. In cases like that the risk outweighs the benifit.

Actually, this discussion isn't so much about ending slavery as it is about starting it. Like, "if abortion is outlawed, women will become slaves. Men won't be in any risk of that, so their opinion counts less than that of the people who will be enslaved."

You need to take that issue up with the creator of the methodology of being human. We don't lay eggs, nothing I can do about it. We are mammals, "rage against the machine" all you want, but it's not going to change anytime soon.

The very right to life is the zenith of all human rights, it can not be separated from the a person by another persons right to liberty…

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

No, it's all one house. There is one 'home' with no intruders. The blastocyst is not intruding, it is just new development. It exists now, it never existed anywhere else before, it is in it's native and natural habitat.
Well, then explain miscarriage and other forms of spontaneous abortion. Obviously, there are circumstances in which a fetus will be removed from a woman's body and there is no redress for the fetus. It exists there only at the tolerance of the woman and her body, just like a tenant in a house.

Of course she has the right to have sex

But she doesnt have the right to kill as a result of the consequences of her sexual actions.

Don't be ridiculous. Your keep saying how a woman has to accept the "consequences" of having sex. And funnily enough, only women seem to have possible life-crippling consequences to haveing sex.

Men don't have to put up with a fetus in their abdomen. They don't have to suffer nauseas and excruciating pain during childbirth. They don't have to care for a child they didn't want for the next 20 years of their life. Only women have to face those consequences. That's what you're saying.

If that's not an attempt to control women's sexuality, I don't know what that is.

She's not obligated to carry any parasite she might pick up from the guy either. True, some sexually transmitted disease don't have cures yet, but most of them, including pregnancy, are treatable.

She did not pick up the paraiste "from the guy". The embryo did not exist inside the man and was passed onto the woman. It was created as a result of the sex. Also while you can argue the embryo is a paraiste, it is still a human and alive and thus deseves the human right to life.

Yes, but the diffrence is that they are attacking you. The fetus is not attacking you, or trying to steal anything from you out of malace. It does so because it cannot do any other. A burglar does so because he chose to. The fetus cannot choose to.

The thief might not be doing anything yet, but he might. The fetus is stealing the food right off my blood. They may need it, but maybe the thief is starving too. I still get to kick him out of my house by any means necessary.

You know, I fail to see why so many people get their panties in such a bunch over this issue.

Am I for abortions? No. Who really is?
But do I think that they should be disallowed? No. Because it's not my call to run the lives of others.


But what gets me most is the hypocricy in the views of so many people. I'm sorry, but as a species we treat life casually.

When someone comes back from his hunting/fishing trip , finishes spraying pesticides on the garden, then fires up the BBQ to roast a carcass for dinner and wants to expound on the sanctity of life - I call foul. Life is life, and there is more of it in an elk bounding through the woods than there is in a mishapen group of cells.

When someone says it's immoral to remove a fetus but talks about feeling that we have the moral authority to pass judgement and cause executions - I wonder why only they get to pass judgement on all cases.

When someone pickets a clinic and supports the offorts to put Freedom on the March at the point of a gun, I shake my head.

And when people want to force women to have a child at the same time as they fight against universal funding to ensure that a child born to poverty has access to health care to keep them alive - it gives me a migraine.





Life is deemed something to be mandated to start by so many who really don't seem to give a shit if the child really get to live or not. And if you can't reconcile this hard and fast "right to life" view with every other view you hold on variations of the subject, then maybe you should do a little more thinking on the matter.


And, as Forrest says, that's all I have to say about that.

Are you saying that women are born with all their eggs already fertilized and ready to gestate? Like cockroaches? Well, if that's the case, what the hell do we need men for?

You don't.

Why are you still bothering with us? :confused:

Oh, that must be because SOME of us aren't archaic in our beliefs and sensible, intelligent, and agreeable companions.

*Shrill yell of utter horror*

:eek:

*Shivers uncontrollably huddled in a corner*

*pat pat* There, there, it's ok, no one's gonna hurt you.

Well, then explain miscarriage and other forms of spontaneous abortion. Obviously, there are circumstances in which a fetus will be removed from a woman's body and there is no redress for the fetus. It exists there only at the tolerance of the woman and her body, just like a tenant in a house.


And tenants in a house have rights... Foremost, the right to NOT be killed in their sleep by their landlord.

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

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

If the uterus is the house, the whole body is the street. The sperm have been seen lurking around the street, and MIGHT get into the house... they might even make it through to where the ova live next door. Then - the ova and the sperm might form a secret society to home-invade that uterus, next door.
Does this make the penis a real estate developer with political connections to the Supreme Court?

Of course it is arguable that the woman has done nothing wrong, but since one of them has to suffer it should be the woman because she will suffer less.

Bullshit, the woman has a nervous system. The embryo doesn't have one until several weeks into the pregnancy. Therefore, the woman suffers more than the embryo, because pain is inexistant without a central nervous system.

Don't be ridiculous. Your keep saying how a woman has to accept the "consequences" of having sex. And funnily enough, only women seem to have possible life-crippling consequences to haveing sex.

Men don't have to put up with a fetus in their abdomen. They don't have to suffer nauseas and excruciating pain during childbirth. They don't have to care for a child they didn't want for the next 20 years of their life. Only women have to face those consequences. That's what you're saying.

If that's not an attempt to control women's sexuality, I don't know what that is.

You seem to keep on thinking that my arguements stem from a hatered of woemen and a desire to control their sexuality. It doesnt. It stems from a desire to protect the embryo and its life.

I believe that the state should also interviene to force the biological father to help the mother provide for the child in some way or other unless she explicitely says she doesnt want his help.

The women may have life changing conseqences to pregnancy, but the embryo wont be alive if it is aborted. Would you rather have your life changed or die? You may be able to answer that die but you cannot answer it on behalf of the embryo

The arguement that adresses rape abortions is that it is unfair to blame the consequense of death onto the fetus when it has done nothing wrong. Of course it is arguable that the woman has done nothing wrong, but since one of them has to suffer it should be the woman because she will suffer less.

Not if by month 7 she feels so awful both physically and emotionally from a rape and pregnancy that she kills herself, and the fetus along with her.

You seem to keep on thinking that my arguements stem from a hatered of woemen and a desire to control their sexuality. It doesnt. It stems from a desire to protect the embryo and its life.

I believe that the state should also interviene to force the biological father to help the mother provide for the child in some way or other unless she explicitely says she doesnt want his help.

The women may have life changing conseqences to pregnancy, but the embryo wont be alive if it is aborted. Would you rather have your life changed or die? You may be able to answer that die but you cannot answer it on behalf of the embryo

You can't answer it on behalf of the woman, so we're even.

Bullshit, the woman has a nervous system. The embryo doesn't have one until several weeks into the pregnancy. Therefore, the woman suffers more than the embryo, because pain is inexistant without a central nervous system.

I would call being killed suffering, even if done so painlessly. Being killed is permanant. The pain of pregancay isnt.

If a doctor feels there is a medical condition that warrants concern, they will advise such... Walking into a clinic and saying, " I want someone to cut out this baby," is not a medical condition...

You act like doctors are miracle workers. They cannot foresee all medical conditions no matter how many times you claim they can. As a result, women in deciding to carry a baby to term are consenting to any number of complications, many of which are expected results of a healthy pregnancy.

*pat pat* There, there, it's ok, no one's gonna hurt you.

I hope those *pat pat* were not directed at my penis :eek:

You wouldn't want to be forced into a pregnancy, and to give birth to a child, and rear it for 2 years, now would you? :rolleyes:

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

of course you can have sex, my opinions shouldn't dictate anyones actions (except my own) if however you weigh the risk against the benifit, then you have to decide whether sex it worth it or not.


sure, but I am tired of people who whine (not you maybe) about consequences to the risks they take as if by taking precautions that try to prevent them make the risk non-existent.
Smunkee, it's been brought up before in this (interminable) thread -- married couples cannot be asked to abstain from sex, as that's one of the defining aspects of their relationship, but they also cannot be asked to just pop out babies continuously. Family planning is vital, and abortion as a corrective back-up option to contraception is a necessary part of the system.

You can't answer it on behalf of the woman, so we're even.

No, because the loss of rights experinaced by the embryo is greater, and the decision we would be making on behalf of the baby is more important if you allow abortion. And we are not asking the woman to lose her right to life.

they could both consent to be abstinent to make sure they don't get pregnant.

Now who is taking things out of context. It says specifically that that consent should be limited and only for the purpose of praising the lord.

You need to take that issue up with the creator of the methodology of being human. We don't lay eggs, nothing I can do about it. We are mammals, "rage against the machine" all you want, but it's not going to change anytime soon.

The very right to life is the zenith of all human rights, it can not be separated from the a person by another persons right to liberty…

Like someone said before, give me liberty or give me death.

The point I was trying to make is, her wanting to know whether or not you are a woman to attribute some value to your opinion isn't the same as "slave-owners alone deciding whether or not to end slavery". It's more like "black people's opinion of slavery being more important than white people's when deciding whether or not to reinstate black slavery."

Not if by month 7 she feels so awful both physically and emotionally from a rape and pregnancy that she kills herself, and the fetus along with her.

Are you now going to argue for the womans right to commit suicide?

She did not pick up the paraiste "from the guy". The embryo did not exist inside the man and was passed onto the woman. It was created as a result of the sex. Also while you can argue the embryo is a paraiste, it is still a human and alive and thus deseves the human right to life.

It wouldn't have formed without the man's "help". And again, being human doesn't make it ok to feed off of a person. If a psycho kidnaps me and wants to eat me, I'm sure as hell gonna kill him if I can.

No, because the loss of rights experinaced by the embryo is greater, and the decision we would be making on behalf of the baby is more important if you allow abortion. And we are not asking the woman to lose her right to life.

The embryo is not a person and has no rights. You cannot decide on behalf of anyone else whether they will go through physical, emotional and mental trauma even if it saves a life. The right to life does not weigh out who needs it most. Each person is permitted to deny the use of their body to save or sustain a life regardless of what consequence it may have on others. We are not required to donate organs. We are not required to share the food in our pantry. We are not required to donate blood (even though blood replenishes itself). We are not required to save a baby from a burning building. We are not required to intercede if we see a burglary or assault happening. If we did all these things, we would certainly be better people, but unless you codify all of those things into law you're being hypocritical.

Again you miss the point. The abortion is not a medical operation seing as it does harm. The hipocratic oath states "Do no harm". Being prepared for pregnancy means just that. Being prepared for the child. Otherwise you will kill it. Being prepared for it means having it. Not destroying it.
According to your rules. "Being prepared" means just being prepared. The phrase does not imply any particular course of action.

You know, I fail to see why so many people get their panties in such a bunch over this issue.

Am I for abortions? No. Who really is?
But do I think that they should be disallowed? No. Because it's not my call to run the lives of others.


But what gets me most is the hypocricy in the views of so many people. I'm sorry, but as a species we treat life casually.

When someone comes back from his hunting/fishing trip , finishes spraying pesticides on the garden, then fires up the BBQ to roast a carcass for dinner and wants to expound on the sanctity of life - I call foul. Life is life, and there is more of it in an elk bounding through the woods than there is in a mishapen group of cells.

When someone says it's immoral to remove a fetus but talks about feeling that we have the moral authority to pass judgement and cause executions - I wonder why only they get to pass judgement on all cases.

When someone pickets a clinic and supports the offorts to put Freedom on the March at the point of a gun, I shake my head.

And when people want to force women to have a child at the same time as they fight against universal funding to ensure that a child born to poverty has access to health care to keep them alive - it gives me a migraine.





Life is deemed something to be mandated to start by so many who really don't seem to give a shit if the child really get to live or not. And if you can't reconcile this hard and fast "right to life" view with every other view you hold on variations of the subject, then maybe you should do a little more thinking on the matter.


And, as Forrest says, that's all I have to say about that.

Hear, hear.

Choice is not a factor for Avalon II, since he requires rape victims to carry to term. The argument doesn't hold because it only applies to some women who get abortions. He just likes to make sure he throws out the dirty whores deserve it argument every once in while to fulfill his quota.

Do you not understand the concept of their being one arguement for consentual sex and one arguement for all sex including non-consentual.

Yes, but the diffrence is that they are attacking you. The fetus is not attacking you, or trying to steal anything from you out of malace. It does so because it cannot do any other. A burglar does so because he chose to. The fetus cannot choose to.

Flawed. You're right to protect yourself does not hinge on the motivation of the attacker or on their need. If the attacker is poor and will die if they don't rob you, you still have a right to protect yourself and your property. If the attacker is crazy and cannot make a choice, you still have a right to protect yourself and your property. Until we start having to assess whether an attacker is of sound mind and not in desperate need of whatever they are trying to take from you, your argument is specious.

You seem to keep on thinking that my arguements stem from a hatered of woemen and a desire to control their sexuality. It doesnt. It stems from a desire to protect the embryo and its life.

I don't think that you hate women. But even if you have no desire of controlling their sexuality, what you are proposing will have this effect..You don't like abortions and would like to see them disappear? Then rendering them illegal not only will not make them disappear, but it will infringe on women's rights to their sexuality.

The only possible way to eradicate abortions is birth control. Sexual education readily available to teach how to use condoms and birth control pills, spermicide and all the other options. Those will have a much greater effect on the total number of abortions than just making abortion illegal(because we all know it's not because something's illegal that it doesn't happen).


I believe that the state should also interviene to force the biological father to help the mother provide for the child in some way or other unless she explicitely says she doesnt want his help.

You can't force someone, man or woman, to be a good parent. Sure, you can force them to pay for the child, but you can never force someone to care about their child, to spend time with it, and give him good parenting. Your view is utopic and unrealist.

The women may have life changing conseqences to pregnancy, but the embryo wont be alive if it is aborted. Would you rather have your life changed or die? You may be able to answer that die but you cannot answer it on behalf of the embryo
And you may be able to answer you would rather save the embryo and suffer life changing consequences, but you cannot answer the question on the behalf of the woman. Hence letting her decide for herself.

It wouldn't have formed without the man's "help". And again, being human doesn't make it ok to feed off of a person. If a psycho kidnaps me and wants to eat me, I'm sure as hell gonna kill him if I can.

If he wants to eat you then you will die, and as I have said, if the embryo will kill the mother it comes to kill or be killed where it is ok.

I would call being killed suffering, even if done so painlessly. Being killed is permanant. The pain of pregancay isnt.

No. You could call it permanent, but you can't call it suffering if there is no central nervous system.

I hope those *pat pat* were not directed at my penis :eek:

You wouldn't want to be forced into a pregnancy, and to give birth to a child, and rear it for 2 years, now would you? :rolleyes:

NO! Not there, no. Just a comforting pat on the shoulder for you.

Do you not understand the concept of their being one arguement for consentual sex and one arguement for all sex including non-consentual.

The results are the same. So consent isn't a factor. I'll give you an example.

Two women commit murder. Both are sentenced to twenty years in prison without parole by the same judge. One murder was done with a knife and one with a pistol. All other things are equal. Since they both had the same result we know that the weapon was not a factor in the judge's decision.

To say consent is a factor in your decision is intellectually dishonest because a lack of consent does not change the outcome. Next.

Flawed. You're right to protect yourself does not hinge on the motivation of the attacker or on their need. If the attacker is poor and will die if they don't rob you, you still have a right to protect yourself and your property. If the attacker is crazy and cannot make a choice, you still have a right to protect yourself and your property. Until we start having to assess whether an attacker is of sound mind and not in desperate need of whatever they are trying to take from you, your argument is specious.

However your right to defend yourself does detemine if it is an attacker or not. The embryo is not an attakcer. It does not attack the woman in any way more so than if you were to kill it by abortion. Thus you should let it live.

She can use no protection which is 100% effective. Thus she must be prepared for some chance of a side effect. If a woman has sex it means she must be prepared for some kind of chance of a pregnacy. It is not up to her "what to do with it" because she has no right to kill it.
Once again, according to you. You just keep simply stating your opinions as if they are facts that everyone agrees with, despite the steady disputes you've been getting here. All your attempts to back up your statements boil down to a "because I said so" argument. You are persuading no one yet you keep repeating yourself. Why don't you go back to the drawing board and try to come up with an approach that might have a chance of advancing your cause rather than just reinforcing our opposition to you?

To say consent is a factor in your decision is intellectually dishonest because a lack of consent does not change the outcome. Next.

Thats rediculous. The fact is it is just one other arguement. There is a diffrent arguement that renforces my point being aplicable to all sex, but that doesnt take away a diffrent arguement.

Are you now going to argue for the womans right to commit suicide?

No, I'm arguing that you can't be sure either of them will be ok, so it should be an individual decision of the rape victim with the help of her physician/counselor/parents/whatever. You can't have individual decision if you outlaw it entirely. Case by case. No outlaw.

Smunkee, it's been brought up before in this (interminable) thread -- married couples cannot be asked to abstain from sex, as that's one of the defining aspects of their relationship, but they also cannot be asked to just pop out babies continuously. Family planning is vital, and abortion as a corrective back-up option to contraception is a necessary part of the system.
I have said many times that you have to weigh risk against benifits, if you absolutely do not want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have sex, if however you are comfortable with the 1% odds of getting pregnant that some contraception allows and are comfortable with dealing with a pregnancy if you do get pregnant then good, have sex.

I have said many times in the thred that I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also see it as a very last resort.

Once again, according to you. You just keep simply stating your opinions as if they are facts that everyone agrees with, despite the steady disputes you've been getting here. All your attempts to back up your statements boil down to a "because I said so" argument. You are persuading no one yet you keep repeating yourself. Why don't you go back to the drawing board and try to come up with an approach that might have a chance of advancing your cause rather than just reinforcing our opposition to you?

She doesnt have the right to kill it because no one has the right to kill.

She must prepare for the posibility of an abortion because there is no 100% effective method of contriception

She will lose less rights by being pregnant than the child will if you abort it.

All of these things are true. So you cant say "its just because you said it"

Bullshit, the woman has a nervous system. The embryo doesn't have one until several weeks into the pregnancy. Therefore, the woman suffers more than the embryo, because pain is inexistant without a central nervous system.

Yes, this is precisely why nature has a method to abort naturally pregnancies at the same stage we are talking about. Because it prevents both the fetus and the mother from suffering. Without a central nervous it is impossible to suffer, no matter how much some people claim otherwise.

If he wants to eat you then you will die, and as I have said, if the embryo will kill the mother it comes to kill or be killed where it is ok.

The psycho assured me he won't kill me, just cut off one of my legs to eat, then he'll let me go. I'm still gonna try to kill him.

She doesnt have the right to kill it because no one has the right to kill.

She must prepare for the posibility of an abortion because there is no 100% effective method of contriception

She will lose less rights by being pregnant than the child will if you abort it.

All of these things are true. So you cant say "its just because you said it"
They aren't true. The child doesn't lose rights. It has no rights. It is not a person. You say these things are true, but the only support for them is your beliefs. She isn't killing anymore than taking out my tonsils was killing. Is an embryo different from my tonsils? Sure. But the potential for life is not life. Again, how old are you? Do you measure from conception or birth?

No, I'm arguing that you can't be sure either of them will be ok, so it should be an individual decision of the rape victim with the help of her physician/counselor/parents/whatever. You can't have individual decision if you outlaw it entirely. Case by case. No outlaw.

If a pshycological analysis determines that she may be suicidal as a result of the rape then she should be put under the same conditions that anyone who is suicidal is put under (padded cell etc). The embryo is not the one who caused her to be suicidal, the rapist is.

A great deal of your peoples arguements on here is based on the idea that its the embryo's fault that she's pregnanat and thus the embryo should die. Or that the embryo is doing this out of some kind of malace and has no right to. If you think its bad that shes pregnant, isnt it more logical to provide her with resorces that mean it wont be bad or to kill the child IE get the state to help her.

However your right to defend yourself does detemine if it is an attacker or not. The embryo is not an attakcer. It does not attack the woman in any way more so than if you were to kill it by abortion. Thus you should let it live.

Live and let live, right? Sure, I'll let it live. I hope it lives. A long, prosperous, healthy life. Just not inside me.

However your right to defend yourself does detemine if it is an attacker or not. The embryo is not an attakcer. It does not attack the woman in any way more so than if you were to kill it by abortion. Thus you should let it live.

If you are injured with or without intent you have a right to protect yourself from that injury. I love that you tied your argument to law with no real understanding of law. There is no kill or be killed argument. Self-defense does not hinge on mortal danger. Self-defense also does not hinge on the capacity to form intent, need or the capacity to understand the damage being done. The law doesn't support you in the case of two fully-formed people, why would you expect it to support you in the case of a mass of cells that have no cognition and cannot feel pain.

I have said many times that you have to weigh risk against benifits, if you absolutely do not want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have sex *snip*

This is wrong in oh so many ways.

Oh, boy, am I glad or what? As a gay man, I am the only one who can have a sex life without fear of being enslaved by an unwanted pregnancy! :fluffle:

Because we all know all sex is about is procreation.:rolleyes:

They aren't true. The child doesn't lose rights. It has no rights. It is not a person. You say these things are true, but the only support for them is your beliefs. She isn't killing anymore than taking out my tonsils was killing. Is an embryo different from my tonsils? Sure. But the potential for life is not life. Again, how old are you? Do you measure from conception or birth?

The embryo is diffent from your tonsils because the embryo is growing into a life. Its not the fact that it will be a life one day thus we should give it all its rights now. Its the fact that it is developing tells us that it is a seperate life. Thus it should be given the human right to life. You tonsils are just part of you. They are not a seperate entity. The embryo is, and its development is a signal of that. The Embryo is a human and alive. Thus it qualifys for the human right of life.

This is wrong in oh so many ways.

Oh, boy, am I glad or what? As a gay man, I am the only one who can have a sex life without fear of being enslaved by an unwanted pregnancy! :fluffle:

Because we all know all sex is about is procreation.:rolleyes:
sex isn't all about procreation, but procreation is a consequence for sex, that is just the way it is. what is your problem with me stating that?

my dog has sex, his partner has puppies that is the way it works.

We are not giving it all the rights of a person. Just the right to life.
From our point of view (a) you are creating an unqualified statutory right that does not already exist in law without qualifying limitations/definitions, (b) inventing a party to give it to where the law currently does not recognize any such party to exist, (c) claiming that the existing, recognized civil and human rights of an existing, recognized group of people (women) should be subordinated to this invention of yours.

I have said many times that you have to weigh risk against benifits, if you absolutely do not want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have sex, if however you are comfortable with the 1% odds of getting pregnant that some contraception allows and are comfortable with dealing with a pregnancy if you do get pregnant then good, have sex.

I have said many times in the thred that I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also see it as a very last resort.

Right. And if you absolutely do not want to have trespassers, you shouldn't live in a house. If, however, you are comfortable with the 1% odds of the lock being broken, then you can have a house.

Live and let live, right? Sure, I'll let it live. I hope it lives. A long, prosperous, healthy life. Just not inside me.

If it is not inside a woman it will die. You dont have the right to say "I dont want it" because by saying that you are killing it. Live and let live means to let the embryo live. You are still alive so you still live. Ergo live and let live means abortion should be outlawed except in cases of where it threatens the life of the mother

Yes, this is precisely why nature has a method to abort naturally pregnancies at the same stage we are talking about. Because it prevents both the fetus and the mother from suffering. Without a central nervous it is impossible to suffer, no matter how much some people claim otherwise.
Agreed.

I would call being killed suffering, even if done so painlessly. Being killed is permanant. The pain of pregancay isnt.

It never had a life. It wasn't killed any more than my tonsils were. You keep making this argument, but it had a potential for life, it did not have life. You inadvertantly admit this every time you celebrate a birthday, which you must have done at least a dozen times already.

From our point of view (a) you are creating an unqualified statutory right that does not already exist in law without qualifying limitations/definitions, (b) inventing a party to give it to where the law currently does not recognize any such party to exist, (c) claiming that the existing, recognized civil and human rights of an existing, recognized group of people (women) should be subordinated to this invention of yours.

Are we or are we not arguing for a change in the law. The fact that it is legal now bears no relation to whether or not it should be.

They aren't true. The child doesn't lose rights. It has no rights. It is not a person. You say these things are true, but the only support for them is your beliefs. She isn't killing anymore than taking out my tonsils was killing. Is an embryo different from my tonsils?

Embryo. Childs get rights, but embryos don't.

Just though I'd point out the lapse in vocabulary before Avalon would call you a child murderer.

She doesnt have the right to kill it because no one has the right to kill.

She must prepare for the posibility of an abortion because there is no 100% effective method of contriception

She will lose less rights by being pregnant than the child will if you abort it.

All of these things are true. So you cant say "its just because you said it"
You position stems from your own personal beliefs which are subjective, namley:
1. A foetus is alive from conception.
2. A foetus has a right to life from conception.
3. The foetus right to life exceeds the womans right to self determination.
(amoung others)

All the above are very debateable, and peoples opinions of them are formed by their own personal morality and beliefs.

Many people believe a foetus is not alive from conception.
Many believe the foetus does not have a right to life from conception.
Many believe the womans rights override the fortuses right.

What your arguement is is that your opinions are true, the others are false and that women should be forced by law to live their lives according to your own morality.
The pro-choice arguement does not require you to live your life or drasticaly alter it according to other peoples beliefs. The pro-choice arguement does not require you to be forced to experience pain, suffering and danger to your health because of an accident, mistake or something that was forced on you. The pro-choice arguement allows you to make a choice on a very sensitive and personal and life altering event according to your own personal morality, not according to the morality of someone else.

It never had a life. It wasn't killed any more than my tonsils were. You keep making this argument, but it had a potential for life, it did not have life. You inadvertantly admit this every time you celebrate a birthday, which you must have done at least a dozen times already.

Can you show me that it is dead? No. It is alive, there is nothing you can do to say it is dead. To do so would be to prove that the cells making it up suddently come alive. They dont. The cells that make it up are always alvie. And dont come now saying "so are my tonsils" because your tonsils are not growing or developing in the fashion of the embryo. That growth and development is indicative that it is alive and a seperate entity.

She doesnt have the right to kill it because no one has the right to kill.

She does have the right to keep her body free of parasites, even if she has to kill them to do so.

She must prepare for the posibility of an abortion because there is no 100% effective method of contriception

Ok, fine. She's prepared. She thought it through. She's on the pill, her SO uses condoms and, if it still fails, she'll get an abortion.

She will lose less rights by being pregnant than the child will if you abort it.

A person doesn't have the right to take away another person's rights. Even if the embryo is considered legally a person with the rights of a person, those rights don't include "being inside a woman's body and feeding off of her."

All of these things are true. So you cant say "its just because you said it"

None of those arguments holds.

women are responsible for thier own choices, if the choose to have sex they are responsible for that choice.
As are the men.

They can't get pregnant on thier own, so it is the couples responsibility to deal with the consequence of pregnancy.
Right. And it is also the couple who is responsible for the act of pregnancy.

Pregnancy can be harmful but isn't as a rule harmful is what I was saying, in cases where there is extreme harm ( mothers life is in danger, rape, ect.) then abortion should be an option. In cases like that the risk outweighs the benifit.
I would agree, but in light of modern Western World woman's poor general physical condition, problem pregnancies would seem to me to be the greater likelihood.

Thats rediculous. The fact is it is just one other arguement. There is a diffrent arguement that renforces my point being aplicable to all sex, but that doesnt take away a diffrent arguement.

The fact is that you will not allow abortions whether the woman consented or not so it's not a part of the argument. You keep injecting it like it is your reasoning, but if we find a way to reject the consent argument it won't change anything now will it. You do understand how these things work, no? If consent does not change the results it is not a factor so stop looking for opportunities to suggest that the women who get pregnant deserve to suffer.

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.
So now the woman gives up her right to control her body just by having sex? You've made a leap there, Avalon. Before she just gave up her rights after becoming pregnant. Now she loses them the minute she stops being a virgin. How long before you admit that you think women have no right to self-determination just on the basis of having a uterus?

Tell me, how many other rights do you think women should give up because of the possibility they might become pregnant?

Right. And if you absolutely do not want to have trespassers, you shouldn't live in a house. If, however, you are comfortable with the 1% odds of the lock being broken, then you can have a house.
exactly

As are the men.


Right. And it is also the couple who is responsible for the act of pregnancy.


I would agree, but in light of modern Western World woman's poor general physical condition, problem pregnancies would seem to me to be the greater likelihood.
I can agree with that ;)

You position stems from your own personal beliefs which are subjective, namley:
1. A foetus is alive from conception.
2. A foetus has a right to life from conception.
3. The foetus right to life exceeds the womans right to self determination.
(amoung others)

All the above are very debateable, and peoples opinions of them are formed by their own personal morality and beliefs.

Many people believe a foetus is not alive from conception.
Many believe the foetus does not have a right to life from conception.
Many believe the womans rights override the fortuses right.

They are not subjective. The embryo is alive, because it is developing and growing and the cells that make it up are alive. Hence it is alive. Secondly it has the right to life because it is a human and it is alive. Thridly, it is directly observable that the rights lost by the women in pregnacy are less than those lost by the embryo in abortion. The women does not die as a result of pregnancy.


What your arguement is is that your opinions are true, the others are false and that women should be forced by law to live their lives according to your own morality. The pro-choice arguement does not require you to live your life or drasticaly alter it according to other peoples beliefs. The pro-choice arguement does not require you to be forced to experience pain, suffering and danger to your health because of an accident, mistake or something that was forced on you. The pro-choice arguement allows you to make a choice on a very sensitive and personal and life altering event according to your own personal morality, not according to the morality of someone else.

The pro choice arguement does force a possible death onto the embryo. The pro life arguemnt forces a possible pregancay onto the woman. Which is worse. The woman does not have the right to determine if someone else has the right to life or not.

sex isn't all about procreation, but procreation is a consequence for sex, that is just the way it is. what is your problem with me stating that?

my dog has sex, his partner has puppies that is the way it works.

Humans are intelligent enough to use contraception, while animals aren't, so that pretty much rules out any possible comparison. Add to that the fact that some animals actually eattheir offsprings, and we'll be staying as far away from that as we can.

The point is, sexuality exists, and it is expressed for a lot damn more reasons than creating children and reproducing.

On what grounds do you limit everyone's (well, technically everyone's but the gays and lesbians) right to express their love physically to the person they're with? Because that's what you're effectively doing. You're saying unless someone is ready to have babies with, and live the rest of his/her life with the current partner, they "shouldn't have sex", even if they use contraception?

That's not being against abortion. That's trying to control everyone's sexuality and pushing moral beliefs that might not be theirs on them. You might believe sex outside of marriage is immoral(I'm not saying you do, just that you might), but you can't legislate to make sex outside of marriage illegal. Likewise, you shouldn't be allowed to legislate to force possibly life-crippling consequences for those who have sex outside of wedlock.

This anti-abortion legislation thing seems to me like it is more about sexuality control than anything else.

They are not subjective. The embryo is alive, because it is developing and growing and the cells that make it up are alive. Hence it is alive. Secondly it has the right to life because it is a human and it is alive. Thridly, it is directly observable that the rights lost by the women in pregnacy are less than those lost by the embryo in abortion. The women does not die as a result of pregnancy.


All those listed are your beliefs based on your morality and your definitions of life and balance of rights. Not all share those beliefs and the beliefs are subjective - hence they should not be forced on people who do not believe in them.

She does have the right to keep her body free of parasites, even if she has to kill them to do so.

If the parasite is a human being she does not have the right to kill it



Ok, fine. She's prepared. She thought it through. She's on the pill, her SO uses condoms and, if it still fails, she'll get an abortion.

She cannot have the abortion. She must be prepared for a posibility of becoming pregnant. That posibility may be very low due to conriception but it is still a posibility.


A person doesn't have the right to take away another person's rights. Even if the embryo is considered legally a person with the rights of a person, those rights don't include "being inside a woman's body and feeding off of her."


Do I have the right to cut you off from all food and water untill you die? No of course not. In the same way a women does not have the right to do the same to an embryo. You have a right to the resorces you need to live (presendent = state benefits - give you just enough money to live on - for food etc).

Can you show me that it is dead? No. It is alive, there is nothing you can do to say it is dead. To do so would be to prove that the cells making it up suddently come alive. They dont. The cells that make it up are always alvie. And dont come now saying "so are my tonsils" because your tonsils are not growing or developing in the fashion of the embryo. That growth and development is indicative that it is alive and a seperate entity.

Alive and a life are not the same thing. Can you show me that my hand is dead? Is it a life?

Growth and development means nothing. The potential to become a life is not equivalent to being a life. But keep saying it, maybe it will become true.

And actually when my tonsils were removed they were growing and developing. They were not yet fully formed. And were I a chimera they could have had different DNA than me. Could they become a fully-formed human life? Nope. For the record I have unique sperm forming right now that are developing and alive and have the potential to produce a unique human life. That does not make them a life, just alive. Stop trying to mix the two.

If a pshycological analysis determines that she may be suicidal as a result of the rape then she should be put under the same conditions that anyone who is suicidal is put under (padded cell etc). The embryo is not the one who caused her to be suicidal, the rapist is.

A great deal of your peoples arguements on here is based on the idea that its the embryo's fault that she's pregnanat and thus the embryo should die. Or that the embryo is doing this out of some kind of malace and has no right to. If you think its bad that shes pregnant, isnt it more logical to provide her with resorces that mean it wont be bad or to kill the child IE get the state to help her.

Yeah, 'cause putting people in padded cells makes them so mentally stable. Last I heard, suicidal people were counselled and given anti-depressants (which, alone, could harm or kill the embryo), not restrained indefinitely. Your willingness to take away even more rights from a female rape victim isn't helping you prove you're not misogynistic.

And, no, nobody ever said it was the embryo's fault. Nobody's punishing the embryo. Everyone agreed that if it could be removed without being harmed and kept alive afterwards, that would be preferable. It's just not possible yet. When it comes down to either enslaving a woman or killing the embryo inside her, the embryo has to go.

So is wine the same as vinegar? Is grape juice the same as wine? The differences between them are pretty much the same.
Grapes are the same as wine. Don't drive and eat grapes.

All those listed are your beliefs based on your morality and your definitions of life and balance of rights. Not all share those beliefs and the beliefs are subjective - hence they should not be forced on people who do not believe in them.

Yes they should. In the same way we force the belief that murder is wrong on everyone, even those who dont share that sentiment (and all those who commit murder are those who dont share that sentiment). Killing is wrong, it should not be allowed. An embryo is a life, proven by what I have said. Live and let live is the governing principle of the USA no? Well in that case abortion should be outlawed except in cases where the embryo it is a threat to the mothers life. The reason being that the embryo lets the mother live and abortion would not be letting the embryo live. The embryo is alive as I have stated before.

Yeah, 'cause putting people in padded cells makes them so mentally stable. Last I heard, suicidal people were counselled and given anti-depressants (which, alone, could harm or kill the embryo), not restrained indefinitely. Your willingness to take away even more rights from a female rape victim isn't helping you prove you're not misogynistic.

Fine, counseled and given anti depressents. I would have thought though that if they attempted suicide it would need some kind of physical restrainment.


And, no, nobody ever said it was the embryo's fault. Nobody's punishing the embryo. Everyone agreed that if it could be removed without being harmed and kept alive afterwards, that would be preferable. It's just not possible yet. When it comes down to either enslaving a woman or killing the embryo inside her, the embryo has to go.

So untill we get the technology it is right to kill the embryo. That is an outrageous view. Untill we get the technology if both can live then both must be allowed to do so. It is unfortunate that the mother is pregnant but cannot be helped by anything that is morally acceptable. It is not morally aceptatble to kill a living human.

Growth and development means nothing. The potential to become a life is not equivalent to being a life. But keep saying it, maybe it will become true.


Actually, Jocabia, I have to disagree with you.

No matter how often he says it, it'll never become true.

I'm shocked you believed otherwise ;)

If it is not inside a woman it will die. You dont have the right to say "I dont want it" because by saying that you are killing it. Live and let live means to let the embryo live. You are still alive so you still live. Ergo live and let live means abortion should be outlawed except in cases of where it threatens the life of the mother

"Let live" doesn't mean "let it live inside you and feeding off of you". I don't wish harm on any embryo. I will not go out of my way to hurt an embryo. But if I find an unauthorized being inside me consuming my resources, it is going down, no matter what it is.

Alive and a life are not the same thing. Can you show me that my hand is dead? Is it a life?

No, there is a differance between a life and alive. There is also a difrrence between a life and a human life. The hand may be alive but it is not its own entity. It is a part of someone else. Cutting off someones hand is not the same as killing them


Growth and development means nothing. The potential to become a life is not equivalent to being a life. But keep saying it, maybe it will become true.

Growth and development are indicators that something is an individial life. It is a human life, as is indicated by its growth and development. Its not a human life because it will oneday be something.


And actually when my tonsils were removed they were growing and developing.

Yes, into bigger tonsils. Not in the same way as a human embryo does


They were not yet fully formed. And were I a chimera they could have had different DNA than me. Could they become a fully-formed human life? Nope. For the record I have unique sperm forming right now that are developing and alive and have the potential to produce a unique human life. That does not make them a life, just alive. Stop trying to mix the two.

To be a life it has to be alive in the first place. It cannot be a life without being alive. But something can be alive but not a life. And something can be a life without being a human life.

exactly

And if someone breaks your door and comes in, you're not allowed to call the police or defend yourself in any way. Too late, you should've thought of that before getting a house.

So untill we get the technology it is right to kill the embryo. That is an outrageous view. Untill we get the technology if both can live then both must be allowed to do so. It is unfortunate that the mother is pregnant but cannot be helped by anything that is morally acceptable. It is not morally aceptatble to kill a living human.

Avalon, I'm getting a little impatient about this:

Pretty much everyone in this thread seems to be saying FUCK YOUR MORALS. We don't share your moral beliefs. You have no right to try to force them down our throats.

Again, your morals are not the absolute thruth of the universe, and I disagree with them. All of them, as far as I can tell. Life is not a dichotomy of things white and black. It's full of shades of grey in the middle.

And I'm saying that every person should be able to judge whether they believe those shades of gray are close to white or black according to their own morality. Pro-choice is about letting poeple decide according to their own moral values.

You think an embryo has a right to life? Fine, if your girlfriend ever gets pregnant, convince her to keep it and be a good father to it. And to the 13 next who comes.

Don't try to control your neighbour's sexuality in the same way by threatening
him/her with unwanted consequences on their lives because you believe that just having sex means you must be ready for parenthood.

"Let live" doesn't mean "let it live inside you and feeding off of you". I don't wish harm on any embryo. I will not go out of my way to hurt an embryo. But if I find an unauthorized being inside me consuming my resources, it is going down, no matter what it is.

It is a human. It is morally wrong to kill a human unless that human is going to kill you. You do not have that right. It has the right to consume the resorces of a woman because those are the only resorces it can consume. If there is a way to remove the embryo from the womb and keep it alive and well, I am all for it. Untill then however, just because we do not have that technology, does not make it right for us to kill it.

Live and let live is the governing principle of the USA no?
If it was you would stop getting your nose in other person's sex lives and medical choices. You would live your own life according to your moral principles, and let others live their life according to their own morals and ethics.

So, no, it obviously isn't.

If the parasite is a human being she does not have the right to kill it

Why not? It's a parasite, no matter what species it's from.

She cannot have the abortion. She must be prepared for a posibility of becoming pregnant. That posibility may be very low due to conriception but it is still a posibility.

I think you meant to say "she may not have an abortion" or "she is not allowed to have an abortion" or "she will be criminally prosecuted for abortion in the world where I am king", because she very well can have an abortion. It's possible to do it, so she can.

Do I have the right to cut you off from all food and water untill you die? No of course not. In the same way a women does not have the right to do the same to an embryo. You have a right to the resorces you need to live (presendent = state benefits - give you just enough money to live on - for food etc).

Sure you can cut me off. I'll get it elsewhere. I'll get it for myself. You're not legally obligated to feed and water me, and you don't.

Avalon, I'm getting a little impatient about this:

Pretty much everyone in this thread seems to be saying FUCK YOUR MORALS. We don't share your moral beliefs. You have no right to try to force them down our throats.

It is not "my morals" it is a universal morality. It is wrong to kill humans except when the human is trying to kill you. Embryos are humans ergo it is wrong to kill embryos. Granted deductive logic does not always work but I have demonstrated time and again that embryo's are humans. Ergo they have the right to human life. I say that holding any belief does not give you the right to kill someone.


Again, your morals are not the absolute thruth of the universe, and I disagree with them. All of them, as far as I can tell. Life is not a dichotomy of things white and black. It's full of shades of grey in the middle.

It is wrong to kill humans except when the human is trying to kill you


And I'm saying that every person should be able to judge whether they believe those shades of gray are close to white or black according to their own morality. Pro-choice is about letting poeple decide according to their own moral values.

You are acting as if people are deciding these morals in a vacum. I accept people have the right to decide their own morals but they dont have the right to enact those morals if it means killing someone else. Fanatical Muslims may believe it is right to kill non-believers and we let them hold that view, but we dont let them do it. Murder is murder.

It is a human. It is morally wrong to kill a human unless that human is going to kill you. You do not have that right. It has the right to consume the resorces of a woman because those are the only resorces it can consume. If there is a way to remove the embryo from the womb and keep it alive and well, I am all for it. Untill then however, just because we do not have that technology, does not make it right for us to kill it.

As I stated nearly 60 freaking pages ago, need does not give a right to another's body.

Moral quandaries aside, I am prefectly justified in refusing to give my blood to someone should I so desire. And no one, you less of all, can force my veins open to take my blood even if a person needs it or is condemned to death.

Your weird theory that needs mean right to dispose of makes no sense, and is a very dangerous notion for our society.

Grapes are the same as wine. Don't drive and eat grapes.

You could choke and run over an old lady. Then crash.

Sure you can cut me off. I'll get it elsewhere. I'll get it for myself. You're not legally obligated to feed and water me, and you don't.

Yeah, but Avalon's a communist. He believes the government should provide us with everything we need to survive.

Well, at least that's what his posts seem to point at. :rolleyes:

Why not? It's a parasite, no matter what species it's from

Its human. You dont have the right to kill humans



I think you meant to say "she may not have an abortion" or "she is not allowed to have an abortion" or "she will be criminally prosecuted for abortion in the world where I am king", because she very well can have an abortion. It's possible to do it, so she can.

Quite true


Sure you can cut me off. I'll get it elsewhere. I'll get it for myself. You're not legally obligated to feed and water me, and you don't.

What if I make it so it is impossible for you to get it from anywhere. Because thats what you would be doing to the embryo by aborting it. If I made it so you couldnt have food or water at all I would be killing you. I dont have the obligation to feed/water you but I dont have the right to stop you from being able to recieve food.

It is not "my morals" it is a universal morality. It is wrong to kill humans except when the human is trying to kill you. Embryos are humans ergo it is wrong to kill embryos. Granted deductive logic does not always work but I have demonstrated time and again that embryo's are humans. Ergo they have the right to human life. I say that holding any belief does not give you the right to kill someone.

IT IS YOUR MORALS!!! There are 105 pages of everyone disagreeing with you right here! How can you can say it's universal morality? You make no sense whatsoever!!!

:headbang:

Edit : 111 pages now, not 105. My mistake.

As I stated nearly 60 freaking pages ago, need does not give a right to another's body.

Moral quandaries aside, I am prefectly justified in refusing to give my blood to someone should I so desire. And no one, you less of all, can force my veins open to take my blood even if a person needs it or is condemned to death.

Your weird theory that needs mean right to dispose of makes no sense, and is a very dangerous notion for our society.

I have said before. If there is someone who is in need of an organ because you have done something to them and by giving them that organ you would only suffer 9 months illness and would be ok after that then yes you should give up that organ. Not doing so would be murder because you were the one who put them in that position in the first place. The only reason the embryo has the need of the womans body is that that is where the woman created it in the first place. Its not the embryo's fault

So untill we get the technology it is right to kill the embryo. That is an outrageous view. Untill we get the technology if both can live then both must be allowed to do so. It is unfortunate that the mother is pregnant but cannot be helped by anything that is morally acceptable. It is not morally aceptatble to kill a living human.

Until we get better technology, it has to be done with the technology we have. That's how everything works. Something needs to be done, we do it as best as we can until we have a better way. The embryo needs to be removed from the woman. It kills them. I'm sorry, but that's the best we have.

If it was you would stop getting your nose in other person's sex lives and medical choices. You would live your own life according to your moral principles, and let others live their life according to their own morals and ethics.

So, no, it obviously isn't.

People keep talking about how people have the right to

"make their own choices using their own morals/values etc"

But these people are not making these choices in a vacum. They are not the only ones affected by the choice. People are allowed to have whatever belifs they want but they cant kill people as a result of them. If we were to apply your logic to a wider scale then fanatical muslims have the right to kill all the non believers they want, since their morals etc say that they have that right.

She doesnt have the right to kill it because no one has the right to kill.

Do you eat meat? Well, you're killing poor defenseless animals to satisfy your gut. You see yourself as having the right to kill animals (which have more right to live than a cluster of cells) or be directly responsible for their deaths, just so you can enjoy the taste of meat. Do you eat plants? You're killing the poor defenseless plants, just so you can enjoy life. You evil man. See where I'm going with this one?

She must prepare for the posibility of an abortion because there is no 100% effective method of contriception

There is a 100% effective method of contraception: abortion. You may not like it, but you can not tell other women what to do. It is their body, they can do whatever they want with it. Besides, outlawing abortion won't stop people from getting it done. Would you rather a woman kill herself using a back-alley method with a clothes hanger, or have a safe procedure done by a doctor?

She will lose less rights by being pregnant than the child will if you abort it.

Yet again, you call it a child. A cluster of cells is not a child. Do fertilized eggs have rights? No. That's like saying you are killing a chicken by eating the egg. Yes, she will lose more rights than the child, simply because the child doesn't exist yet and can't have rights. Repeat after me: cells aren't children, cells aren't children, cells aren't children...

All of these things are true. So you cant say "its just because you said it"

A mass of cells is a child is true? Since when? I guess I'm aborting my skin flakes every time I scratch myself. Hey, my skin cells are human life, and they have the right to live!:rolleyes:

"No one has the right to kill," is not a fact either. I don't have the right to kill, even if my life is threatened?

I have said before. If there is someone who is in need of an organ because you have done something to them and by giving them that organ you would only suffer 9 months illness and would be ok after that then yes you should give up that organ.

Maybe I SHOULD. That does not mean I have to!!!



Not doing so would be murder because you were the one who put them in that position in the first place.

No, it would not. Stop taking things out of your ass, read the damn civil code and the definition of murder.


The only reason the embryo has the need of the womans body is that that is where the woman created it in the first place. Its not the embryo's fault
This is nonsense. Nobody says it's the embryo's fault. But it's certainly not the woman's fault if she didn't want to be pregnant. The Dirty Whore(tm) argument has been proven void sixty pages ago. Stop using it.

Until we get better technology, it has to be done with the technology we have. That's how everything works. Something needs to be done, we do it as best as we can until we have a better way. The embryo needs to be removed from the woman. It kills them. I'm sorry, but that's the best we have.

Not good enough. We do not have the right to kill the embryo and we never will. We do not need to remove the embryo, it is not a medical operation. It is only a medical operation if it is needed to save the mothers life. The fact that we do not have the technology does not make it right that we can kill them and do. The fact that you believe it does is disgusitng.

It is a human. It is morally wrong to kill a human unless that human is going to kill you. You do not have that right. It has the right to consume the resorces of a woman because those are the only resorces it can consume. If there is a way to remove the embryo from the womb and keep it alive and well, I am all for it. Untill then however, just because we do not have that technology, does not make it right for us to kill it.

NOTHING has the right to live in my body and feed on me. Not a human, not anything. That right does not exist, it can't ever exist unles you take away a host of civil rights from women. If I don't get to decide what can live in my body, why should I be allowed to decide who gets to have sex with me to put it there? Why should I be allowed to choose what to do with my life, job, anything? Why should I be allowed an opinion on who rules the country I live in, if I don't even get an opinion on who lives in my body???

Humans are intelligent enough to use contraception, while animals aren't, so that pretty much rules out any possible comparison. Add to that the fact that some animals actually eattheir offsprings, and we'll be staying as far away from that as we can. fair enough.

The point is, sexuality exists, and it is expressed for a lot damn more reasons than creating children and reproducing. I am not debating that, I am just saying that pregnancy is a logical consequence.

On what grounds do you limit everyone's (well, technically everyone's but the gays and lesbians) right to express their love physically to the person they're with?
I am not, I am expressing my opinion.
Because that's what you're effectively doing. You're saying unless someone is ready to have babies with, and live the rest of his/her life with the current partner, they "shouldn't have sex", even if they use contraception?
no, what I said was unless you are prepared to deal with the possible consequence of having a pregnancy (notice I didn't say having a child) then you shouldn't have sex
see....


I have said many times that you have to weigh risk against benifits, if you absolutely do not want to get pregnant then you shouldn't have sex, if however you are comfortable with the 1% odds of getting pregnant that some contraception allows and are comfortable with dealing with a pregnancy if you do get pregnant then good, have sex.

That's not being against abortion. That's trying to control everyone's sexuality and pushing moral beliefs that might not be theirs on them. You might believe sex outside of marriage is immoral(I'm not saying you do, just that you might), but you can't legislate to make sex outside of marriage illegal. Likewise, you shouldn't be allowed to legislate to force possibly life-crippling consequences for those who have sex outside of wedlock.
and I am not trying to, you have me confused with somone else.

they shouldn't, I think you missed the part where I am pro-choice (somewhat) because I don't think abortion should be illegal.

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

In case you missed it, it's called 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.
Pregnancy is not parthenogenesis. One person does not become two. Half of each of two people (male and female) are combined to make one. I'm not sure I'm going to be persuaded on the abortion issue by someone who doesn't know where babies come from.

People keep talking about how people have the right to

"make their own choices using their own morals/values etc"

But these people are not making these choices in a vacum. They are not the only ones affected by the choice. People are allowed to have whatever belifs they want but they cant kill people as a result of them. If we were to apply your logic to a wider scale then fanatical muslims have the right to kill all the non believers they want, since their morals etc say that they have that right.

Repeat after me:

Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.

You may believe they are, but if we were to apply your logic to a wider scale every spermatozoid and egg would be considered a person("potential life") and we would be under the obligation of making them fertilize each other and enslave ourselves to the care of those zillions new babies, destroying our planet with overpopulation in the process.

The slippery slope once again shows its weakness.

It is not "my morals" it is a universal morality.

Avalon, there's dozens of people that disagree with you in this forum alone. What universe are you living in?

Maybe I SHOULD. That does not mean I have to!!!

No, it would not. Stop taking things out of your ass, read the damn civil code and the definition of murder.

Firstly, we are arguing for a change in the law

Secondly, if I stab you and you need a certian type of plaster to cover the stab wound and heal it and I have this plaster but I refuse to give it to you and you die as a reuslt, I have commited murder.


This is nonsense. Nobody says it's the embryo's fault. But it's certainly not the woman's fault if she didn't want to be pregnant. The Dirty Whore(tm) argument has been proven void sixty pages ago. Stop using it.

No it hasnt. In consentual sex the woman allowed for the creation of the life because she knows that there is a posibiltiy that she will get pregnant. Granted by using contreception it is lower possibility but she still must accept some posibility. Since the posibility is the creation of a human life, she cannot kill said life as killing is wrong.

Avalon, there's dozens of people that disagree with you in this forum alone. What universe are you living in?

You are disagreeing that doesnt mean its not right. Fundimental Muslims disagree with me that all non believers should be killed. I say they should be allowed to live. That doesnt mean I am wrong.

Yeah, but Avalon's a communist. He believes the government should provide us with everything we need to survive.

Well, at least that's what his posts seem to point at. :rolleyes:

The government giveth, the government taketh away. They have to keep me fed and well, but if someone needs my organs, they make me give it. That's one twisted government.

Repeat after me:

Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.
Embryos are not persons.

You may believe they are, but if we were to apply your logic to a wider scale every spermatozoid and egg would be considered a person("potential life") and we would be under the obligation of making them fertilize each other and enslave ourselves to the care of those zillions new babies, destroying our planet with overpopulation in the process.


It is not potential life. It is life. Embryos are human lives. Eggs and sperm are not. Eggs and sperm if left to themselves in the natural enviroment and resocrces they need to suvivie remain eggs and sperm. However, an embryo left to itslef in the natural enviroment it needs to suvive grows and develops. This growth and development is indicative that it is a life. It DNA is indicative of it being a human life. Ergo it is a human life and gets the human right to life. Sperm and eggs do not fit all those criteria I have shown.

Its human. You dont have the right to kill humans

If it's living in me and eating my food, it's under my rules. If it doesn't like it, it can move out.

What if I make it so it is impossible for you to get it from anywhere. Because thats what you would be doing to the embryo by aborting it. If I made it so you couldnt have food or water at all I would be killing you. I dont have the obligation to feed/water you but I dont have the right to stop you from being able to recieve food.

I'll make it a standing rule that I won't "make it" impossible for embryos to feed from anything else. I will allow them to pursue food and life. Just. Not. In me.

Now, if they're inherently incapable of doing that, it's none of my business.

NOTHING has the right to live in my body and feed on me. Not a human, not anything. That right does not exist, it can't ever exist unles you take away a host of civil rights from women. If I don't get to decide what can live in my body, why should I be allowed to decide who gets to have sex with me to put it there? Why should I be allowed to choose what to do with my life, job, anything? Why should I be allowed an opinion on who rules the country I live in, if I don't even get an opinion on who lives in my body???

And you do not have the right to kill any human. Not an embryo, not me, not Jocabia, not Grave and Idle, no one.

I have said before. If there is someone who is in need of an organ because you have done something to them and by giving them that organ you would only suffer 9 months illness and would be ok after that then yes you should give up that organ. Not doing so would be murder because you were the one who put them in that position in the first place. The only reason the embryo has the need of the womans body is that that is where the woman created it in the first place. Its not the embryo's fault

What if I didn't put them in that position in the first place? I told him repeatedly not to ride his motorcycle while drunk. I physically tried to restrain him from going. I've already done everything in my power to keep this from happening. Is it still murder if I don't give up my organs?

If it's living in me and eating my food, it's under my rules. If it doesn't like it, it can move out.

By it "moving out" as you say, you are killing a human life. You do not have that right



I'll make it a standing rule that I won't "make it" impossible for embryos to feed from anything else. I will allow them to pursue food and life. Just. Not. In me.

Now, if they're inherently incapable of doing that, it's none of my business.

Yes it is. You (if you are a women) created it. You provide for it and am the only one who can provide for it. You do not have the right to cut it off from the only source of food for its suvival it has.

People keep talking about how people have the right to

"make their own choices using their own morals/values etc"

But these people are not making these choices in a vacum. They are not the only ones affected by the choice. People are allowed to have whatever belifs they want but they cant kill people as a result of them. If we were to apply your logic to a wider scale then fanatical muslims have the right to kill all the non believers they want, since their morals etc say that they have that right.

What is affected by the abortion? An embryo. Embryo =/= human. Embryo=cells that have potential to be a human.

By the way, people don't have the right to impose their beliefs in a way that limits freedoms. Women can choose whether or not to have an abortion. They don't have to get one. If they want to, don't step in and say, "No, you're not allowed to, because that's what I believe." I don't think people should be able to hunt or kill animals. That is an evil evil thing to do and is against what I believe in. I am going to make an Ammendment forbidding people from killing animals. Ridiculous huh? So is the total pro-life movement.

Why are people so concerned about this anyway? You don't have to get one, just leave the option open. It's not like I'm going to come over to your house in the dead of night, perform an abortion on you, and exclaim "Hahaha, got ya!"

Secondly, if I stab you and you need a certian type of plaster to cover the stab wound and heal it and I have this plaster but I refuse to give it to you and you die as a reuslt, I have commited murder.

A plaster you possess doesn't amount to me being plugged on your body for blood transfusion for 9 months.

If you drive a car and make an accident where I'm injured, and then refuse to give me those 9 months of blood, you won't be charged with murder. Even if you refuse the painful bone marrow transplant or blood tranfusion, because you believe those can be hazardous to your health, even if you're in zero danger of dying.

If a woman who uses contraception becomes pregnant, it's exactly that: an accident. The embryo unfortunately plays the part of the injured passenger. The woman still is under no legal obligation to give out her body to save the passenger. And since moral obligations are not codified in law, then it's up to the woman, and her only to decide if she does spend the next 9 months saving it, or views her own health as more important.




No it hasnt. In consentual sex the woman allowed for the creation of the life because she knows that there is a posibiltiy that she will get pregnant. Granted by using contreception it is lower possibility but she still must accept some posibility. Since the posibility is the creation of a human life, she cannot kill said life as killing is wrong.
In consensual sex the woman allows for nothing more than consensual sex, especially if she uses contraception. An unwanted pregnancy despite contraceptive methods is an accident. NOT an obligation, and not a responsability either.

What if I didn't put them in that position in the first place? I told him repeatedly not to ride his motorcycle while drunk. I physically tried to restrain him from going. I've already done everything in my power to keep this from happening. Is it still murder if I don't give up my organs?

No. But the point here is that the woman did put the embryo in that postion. It is wrong to kill it still. And even if she didnt it is still a human life which it is wrong to kill

The government giveth, the government taketh away. They have to keep me fed and well, but if someone needs my organs, they make me give it. That's one twisted government.

I know I'm never living in Avalon's country. :headbang:

It is not potential life. It is life. Embryos are human lives. Eggs and sperm are not. Eggs and sperm if left to themselves in the natural enviroment and resocrces they need to suvivie remain eggs and sperm. However, an embryo left to itslef in the natural enviroment it needs to suvive grows and develops. This growth and development is indicative that it is a life. It DNA is indicative of it being a human life. Ergo it is a human life and gets the human right to life. Sperm and eggs do not fit all those criteria I have shown.

Jesus Christ.

You need to ask your parents for a biology book on Christmas.

Once again: your beliefs are by no way scientific knowledge. Neither are they absolute. Neither are they law.

Not good enough. We do not have the right to kill the embryo and we never will. We do not need to remove the embryo, it is not a medical operation. It is only a medical operation if it is needed to save the mothers life. The fact that we do not have the technology does not make it right that we can kill them and do. The fact that you believe it does is disgusitng.

I know it's not good enough. But it's all we have. Women aren't slaves to embryos, they don't have to carry them to term. Nobody has to house and feed an internal organ parasite. This particular parasite happens to be the larva of a human. Sure, it'd be good if it would be allowed to live, so much that billions of women have subjected themselves to a parasite infestation so as not to kill them. That's very noble of them to make such sacrifice. But you can't make it required by law.

Yes it is. You (if you are a women) created it. You provide for it and am the only one who can provide for it. You do not have the right to cut it off from the only source of food for its suvival it has.

Again, only the woman creates and is under an obligation to enslave herself to nurture.

You're being mysoginist, Avalon.

A plaster you possess doesn't amount to me being plugged on your body for blood transfusion for 9 months.

If you drive a car and make an accident where I'm injured, and then refuse to give me those 9 months of blood, you won't be charged with murder. Even if you refuse the painful bone marrow transplant or blood tranfusion, because you believe those can be hazardous to your health, even if you're in zero danger of dying.

If I caused you to be in that situation and I am the only one who can help you because I am the one that caused the situation then refusing to help you is killing you


If a woman who uses contraception becomes pregnant, it's exactly that: an accident. The embryo unfortunately plays the part of the injured passenger. The woman still is under no legal obligation to give out her body to save the passenger. And since moral obligations are not codified in law, then it's up to the woman, and her only to decide if she does spend the next 9 months saving it, or views her own health as more important.

Again, the reason that she is the only one that can help it is because of what she did to create it. Hence it is her obligation to help it live.

You dont get it do you. She is not deciding her morals in a vacum. Her morals if they say she is more improtant mean it will die.


In consensual sex the woman allows for nothing more than consensual sex, especially if she uses contraception. An unwanted pregnancy despite contraceptive methods is an accident. NOT an obligation, and not a responsability either.

An accident which means that you will have to intentionally kill a human life. She does not have that right. If she has sex she must accept the posibility of creating a human life. She can lower that posibilty by using contreception, but not eliminate it completely. She must be prepared for it. And dont come the arguement "If I drive a car I accpet the posibilty of a crash but I am not refused medical treatement" because that analogy is flawed. Firstly the abortion is not medical treatment. The woman will be fine in 9 months time. If her life is threatend by the embryo then it becomes a medical opperation and thus she has the right to an abortion. However untill then it is not medical treatment thus she does not have the right to it. Secondly, the medical treament required to treat car crash related injuries does not require someone elses death. Abortion does.

And if someone breaks your door and comes in, you're not allowed to call the police or defend yourself in any way. Too late, you should've thought of that before getting a house.
you are absolutly allowed to defend yourself, but you shouldn't whine about it as if you never thought that someone might break into your house at all.

we already covered this didn't we?

Again, only the woman creates and is under an obligation to enslave herself to nurture.

You're being mysoginist, Avalon.

No. I am not being woman hating. Why cant you get that through your head. If a technology comes along which allows us to put the embryo into the articical womb safely without harming the mother then I am all for it. Untill that time, we cant do that and just because we cant do that, doesnt mean we have the right to kill the embryo.

I know it's not good enough. But it's all we have. Women aren't slaves to embryos, they don't have to carry them to term. Nobody has to house and feed an internal organ parasite. This particular parasite happens to be the larva of a human. Sure, it'd be good if it would be allowed to live, so much that billions of women have subjected themselves to a parasite infestation so as not to kill them. That's very noble of them to make such sacrifice. But you can't make it required by law.

Yes we can. Because we know that it is wrong to kill humans. Embryos are human lives. Women do have to carry them to term if the only alternative is killing them.

Firstly, we are arguing for a change in the law

Secondly, if I stab you and you need a certian type of plaster to cover the stab wound and heal it and I have this plaster but I refuse to give it to you and you die as a reuslt, I have commited murder.

So it's ok to stab and kill people as long as I drop them off in the hospital before they expire? Because if you stab someone and give them the magical plaster and they still die, you are committing murder, so miscarriages are murder. And if you stab someone and they don't die, you've attempted murder, whether you gave them the magical plaster or not. That analogy is terrible.

No it hasnt. In consentual sex the woman allowed for the creation of the life because she knows that there is a posibiltiy that she will get pregnant. Granted by using contreception it is lower possibility but she still must accept some posibility. Since the posibility is the creation of a human life, she cannot kill said life as killing is wrong.

She doesn't allow anything but sex.

You are disagreeing that doesnt mean its not right. Fundimental Muslims disagree with me that all non believers should be killed. I say they should be allowed to live. That doesnt mean I am wrong.

I didn't say you're wrong or right. I said people disagree with you. "Universal" means everyone agrees.

Jesus Christ.

You need to ask your parents for a biology book on Christmas.

Once again: your beliefs are by no way scientific knowledge. Neither are they absolute. Neither are they law.

They are scientifc knowledge. An embryo is devleoping and growing into something more. An egg or sperm cell is not. This shows that the embryo is an individual life. And its DNA makes it more imporatntly an indvidual human life.

I didn't say you're wrong or right. I said people disagree with you. "Universal" means everyone agrees.

A misunderstanding there. A universal moral means its right even if people disagree.

*snip*
You're hopeless.

How can you, after nearly 120 pages of the whole damn world(or close enough anyway) disagreeing with you and destroying the basis of your argumentation over and over(and over and over and over), still use the same rationale like it was the most reasonable thing in the world, a moral absolute with which everyone agreed?

Either you successfully deluded yourself into thinking you have the absolute thruth of the universe and everyone is wrong, or you're being intentionally dense.

Either way, I'm wasting my time trying to make you stop trying to claim control upon other's lives. If push comes to shove though, don't come to my door trying to force me to adopt a baby or take my blood or organs, because you won't be getting a warm reception.

I consider your beliefs are a danger to civils rights of women AND men everywhere.

And you do not have the right to kill any human. Not an embryo, not me, not Jocabia, not Grave and Idle, no one.

It has been stated time and again that we do have the right to kill a human that's interfering on ours rights. You yourself admit that in a life or death situation, it would be acceptable to take a human life. We just seem to diverge on how much lenience there is on that matter.

But we do have the right to kill sometimes.

A misunderstanding there. A universal moral means its right even if people disagree.
There are no universal morals...

A universal moral means its right even if people disagree.

Source? Backup for this? Or is it simply more "I believe"?

Not to mention, laws are not based upon morality; they're based upon keeping social order, to keep there from being a breakdown in social structure. The moment you start telling women they MUST house a potentially harmful organism in her body - "human", "individual", "life" or otherwise - is the moment you open a huge can of worms.

Luckily, your side's been losing for a good while now, so ha. Good luck.

So it's ok to stab and kill people as long as I drop them off in the hospital before they expire? Because if you stab someone and give them the magical plaster and they still die, you are committing murder, so miscarriages are murder. And if you stab someone and they don't die, you've attempted murder, whether you gave them the magical plaster or not. That analogy is terrible.

The stabing in this case means creating the embryo. It puts it under life threatening conditions. The giving of the plaster which saves its life repersents allowing the embryo to live. Retracting it means aborting it. If you allow them to live and they still die, it was not your fault. An accidnet.


She doesn't allow anything but sex.

You havent argued against my point. You have just stated the opposing view. There is an uneliminatbale possible outcomeo of sex that leads to the creation of a human life. You can lower that possibilty by the use of contriception but that doesnt eliminate it. If you do become pregnant, you accpeted that posibilty ergo you have to have the child. You cant have an abortion because by accepting you may create a human life you also accpet that you cannot kill it since it is a human life.

Not to mention, laws are not based upon morality; they're based upon keeping social order, to keep there from being a breakdown in social structure.
Ha, i wish.

There are no universal morals...

Right to life is a univeral moral.

By it "moving out" as you say, you are killing a human life. You do not have that right

By "moving out" I am telling it to move out. Whatever comes after that doesn't change that i can kick invading organism out of my body.

Yes it is. You (if you are a women) created it. You provide for it and am the only one who can provide for it. You do not have the right to cut it off from the only source of food for its suvival it has.

I am a woman, thank you very much. However, I don't have the capacity to create an embryo by myself. I have to be "infected" with a man's sperm for that to happen. And just 'cause it's human doesn't mean I have to feed it.

Ha, i wish.

Well, that's what they're *supposed* to be for. Your "compassionate Conservatives" like Bush are trying to change that, and re-write laws to suit their own backwards morality. Which doesn't make him an actual Conservative at all. Just an idiot with too much power.

Luckily, more people have common sense and remain in the majority over the idiot minority population.

Right to life is a univeral moral.
Not really. There are societies that believe that life has no real value. There can be no universal morals, because not everybody believes in the same things. What makes a moral, in your opinion?

You're hopeless.

How can you, after nearly 120 pages of the whole damn world(or close enough anyway) disagreeing with you and destroying the basis of your argumentation over and over(and over and over and over), still use the same rationale like it was the most reasonable thing in the world, a moral absolute with which everyone agreed?

Just because lots of people disagree with me does not make me wrong


I consider your beliefs are a danger to civils rights of women AND men everywhere.

Funny, I consider your beliefs the same. As mother Teressa said "If we can kill the unborn, what is to stop us killing each other"

The stabbing in this case means creating the embryo.


Well, the first thing you've said in a while with which I can agree.

We all know creating an embryo usually involves some "stabbing" :D

Right to life is a univeral moral.

Wrong. By saying something, anything, has a "right" to life, then that means I should be carted away for having my period. How DARE I shed an un-used egg that I could've had fertilised into a human being. Didn't that "potential human" have a right to life, too? For SHAME!

Right to life is a Constitutional right granted to those who are ALREADY BORN. The right to life is extended to viable foetii (when the window for legal abortion cuts off ) because they COULD be born and survive on a biologically independent basis.

OUR Constitution does not cover "all those who could POTENTIALLY be people."

By "moving out" I am telling it to move out. Whatever comes after that doesn't change that i can kick invading organism out of my body.

Not if its a human and by kicking it out you are killing it. You forget, it will leave your body naturally in 9 months anyway


I am a woman, thank you very much. However, I don't have the capacity to create an embryo by myself. I have to be "infected" with a man's sperm for that to happen. And just 'cause it's human doesn't mean I have to feed it.

No, but because it is human it means you do not have the right to cut it off from the resocreces it needs for suvivial. I do not have the right to lock you in a cell and give you no water and food untill you die. That is what you do to an embryo by aborting it. You cut it off from it only source of the resorces it needs and it dies. You kill it. Because it is a human life, you do not have the right to kill it.

No. But the point here is that the woman did put the embryo in that postion. It is wrong to kill it still. And even if she didnt it is still a human life which it is wrong to kill

She didn't put the embryo in that position if she used contraception. And I could argue that it was the man that put it in that position. His fault, he gets to bear it. If she was raped, the life of the embryo should be the least of your worries. She's already gone through enough suffering and should not under any circumstance be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Wrong. By saying something, anything, has a "right" to life, then that means I should be carted away for having my period. How DARE I shed an un-used egg that I could've had fertilised into a human being. Didn't that "potential human" have a right to life, too? For SHAME!

Right to life is a Constitutional right granted to those who are ALREADY BORN. The right to life is extended to viable foetii (when the window for legal abortion cuts off ) because they COULD be born and survive on a biologically independent basis.

OUR Constitution does not cover "all those who could POTENTIALLY be people."

Eggs are not alive because they are not developing in the way that embryo's do. I have already shown how embryo's are diffrent to eggs because they develop and grow. Egg cells dont. Embryos are individual human lives. Thus they have the human right to life.

you are absolutly allowed to defend yourself, but you shouldn't whine about it as if you never thought that someone might break into your house at all.

we already covered this didn't we?

We have. But you keep bringing up how a woman shouldn't "whine" about getting pregnant, which isn't the topic in discussion at all. The topic is abortion.

She didn't put the embryo in that position if she used contraception. And I could argue that it was the man that put it in that position. His fault, he gets to bear it. If she was raped, the life of the embryo should be the least of your worries. She's already gone through enough suffering and should not under any circumstance be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Even in using contreception there is still an uneliminatable possiblity that she may get pregnant. She must accept that. If she is raped, then why should the embryo be punished. Granted the woman didnt ask for the embryo to be there, but its not like the embryo had any say in the matter either. Ulitmately if both can live then both should be allowed to. If the embryo threatens the life of the mother then abortion is justified.

Not if its a human and by kicking it out you are killing it. You forget, it will leave your body naturally in 9 months anyway

I love how you say that like it's no big deal. It'll leave. Just pack up its stuff and move out. The mother, she doesn't have to do anything. The fetus does all the work.

No, but because it is human it means you do not have the right to cut it off from the resocreces it needs for suvivial. I do not have the right to lock you in a cell and give you no water and food untill you die. That is what you do to an embryo by aborting it. You cut it off from it only source of the resorces it needs and it dies. You kill it. Because it is a human life, you do not have the right to kill it.

Um, yes, you do have that right. I can legally deny you food and water if you came asking for it even if I'm the only person in a thousand miles and you have no car.

No, but because it is human it means you do not have the right to cut it off from the resocreces it needs for suvivial. I do not have the right to lock you in a cell and give you no water and food untill you die. That is what you do to an embryo by aborting it. You cut it off from it only source of the resorces it needs and it dies. You kill it. Because it is a human life, you do not have the right to kill it.
Actually, it would be more like beheading; the embryo would die pretty much instantly.

We have. But you keep bringing up how a woman shouldn't "whine" about getting pregnant, which isn't the topic in discussion at all. The topic is abortion.
I only bring it up when people quote me and try to twist my words.

Yes we can. Because we know that it is wrong to kill humans. Embryos are human lives. Women do have to carry them to term if the only alternative is killing them.

The government doesn't get a say on what happens *inside* people's bodies. Not a democratic government, at least.

I love how you say that like it's no big deal. It'll leave. Just pack up its stuff and move out. The mother, she doesn't have to do anything. The fetus does all the work..

It may be a big deal for the woman being pregnant, but its much more of a deal for the embryo being dead.


Um, yes, you do have that right. I can legally deny you food and water if you came asking for it even if I'm the only person in a thousand miles and you have no car.

You cannot lock me up in a cell and deny me food or water till I die. That is what you are doing to an embryo by aborting it.

I realize that rape is a horrid thing but like I said previously even with that case the unborn child shouldn't have to pay.

But the woman should have to pay? With a daily reminder of her night of terror?

Actually, it would be more like beheading; the embryo would die pretty much instantly.

And thats supposed to make it more justifiable?

The government doesn't get a say on what happens *inside* people's bodies. Not a democratic government, at least.

It does if not saying something would mean that someone dies.

The embryo is diffent from your tonsils because the embryo is growing into a life. Its not the fact that it will be a life one day thus we should give it all its rights now. Its the fact that it is developing tells us that it is a seperate life.

Can you tell me what biology book you got that out of? You've already admitted that the only difference that an embryo has from cancer is the potential to become a child. It is alive. It is not a life. It does not have "the right to a potential life".

Thus it should be given the human right to life. You tonsils are just part of you. They are not a seperate entity. The embryo is, and its development is a signal of that. The Embryo is a human and alive. Thus it qualifys for the human right of life.
The embryo is very much a part of the mother. So much so that separating it kills it, just like separating my tonsils from me killed them. To get the right to life it has to be a life first. Alive and a life are not the same thing.

But the woman should have to pay? With a daily reminder of her night of terror?

Thats better than being dead. And even if you think it isnt you dont have the right to make that judgement for the embryo.

A misunderstanding there. A universal moral means its right even if people disagree.

Oh right. So by "Universal" you meant that the Universe itself agrees with you, even if most people in it don't. Of course.

Um, yes, you do have that right. I can legally deny you food and water if you came asking for it even if I'm the only person in a thousand miles and you have no car.


Umm, no you don't. Not when its your own child whom is still a minor.

Yes we can. Because we know that it is wrong to kill humans. Embryos are human lives. Women do have to carry them to term if the only alternative is killing them.

Let's see if an embryo fits the criteria for a human life, according to wikipedia.

Their definition of human:

"Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man"): a bipedal primate of the superfamily Hominoidea, together with the other apes—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons."

So far, so good. Now, let's see what their definition of life is:

"In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth, full development, maturity
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis."

I have a question for you: Since when do embryos react to stimuli? The definition of life states that it is only life if it can exhibit all of those qualities during their existance. It is missing one. So, if an embryo is not a life, how can it possibly be a human life?

Using this logic, if an embryo is not a human life, how can it have the rights of a human life?

And thats supposed to make it more justifiable?
No, just more accurate.

If it is not inside a woman it will die. You dont have the right to say "I dont want it" because by saying that you are killing it. Live and let live means to let the embryo live. You are still alive so you still live. Ergo live and let live means abortion should be outlawed except in cases of where it threatens the life of the mother

This argument has been shot down several times but it doesn't seem to deter you from using it as if it hasn't. Let live does not mean give life. If someone is breaking into my house for food, I don't go, "oh, well, live and let live." Let live is a passive act. Pregnancy is hardly passive. Your disrespect for the plight of the mother in no way lessens what she has to go through.

Can you tell me what biology book you got that out of? You've already admitted that the only difference that an embryo has from cancer is the potential to become a child. It is alive. It is not a life. It does not have "the right to a potential life".

It is already alive. What seperates it from the other cells in the body is the way in which it is developing. No other cells in the body develop in the way it does.


The embryo is very much a part of the mother. So much so that separating it kills it, just like separating my tonsils from me killed them. To get the right to life it has to be a life first. Alive and a life are not the same thing.

The embryo is a life. To be a life it must be alive. Seperating it from the mother kills it but it is only part of the mother insofar as a person who needs a lifesupport machine for 9 months and then will be ok is part of the life support machine.

The stabing in this case means creating the embryo. It puts it under life threatening conditions. The giving of the plaster which saves its life repersents allowing the embryo to live. Retracting it means aborting it. If you allow them to live and they still die, it was not your fault. An accidnet.

Yeah. Your analogy sucked.

You havent argued against my point. You have just stated the opposing view. There is an uneliminatbale possible outcomeo of sex that leads to the creation of a human life. You can lower that possibilty by the use of contriception but that doesnt eliminate it. If you do become pregnant, you accpeted that posibilty ergo you have to have the child. You cant have an abortion because by accepting you may create a human life you also accpet that you cannot kill it since it is a human life.

I have argued it. Her taking contraception states clearly that she does not consent to pregnancy. Your argument that no contraception is perfect is unreasonable because nothing is perfect in this world. There's no way to assure ourself 100% against anything bad that might befall us, but that doesn't mean we should just suck it up and accept everything.

Umm, no you don't. Not when its your own child whom is still a minor.

Um, actually you can. You can give them up for adoption. That is still an option, no?

Now, can name the major difference between pregnancy and when I have a minor child? Anyone? There is a child. A child that has a life and is a person. An embryo is not a person, is not a child, is not a separate life.

More importantly, if my child was in a burning building and I had a choice to protect myself from harm or to protect my child from death, I would not be charged with manslaughter for protecting myself unless they could show it was malicious.

This argument has been shot down several times but it doesn't seem to deter you from using it as if it hasn't. Let live does not mean give life. If someone is breaking into my house for food, I don't go, "oh, well, live and let live." Let live is a passive act. Pregnancy is hardly passive. Your disrespect for the plight of the mother in no way lessens what she has to go through.

Live and let live means that you dont have the right to destroy any life. The embryo using the resorces of the woman is not going to kill the woman, thus it is letting her live. It may be stealing from her but stealing is only protected by the use of "reasonale force" and in this case the force is not reasonable if you kill it.

Eggs are not alive because they are not developing in the way that embryo's do.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Eggs aren't alive? How exactly, Mr. Wizard, does a DEAD cell replicate? I really want to hear this astounding medical marvel of how non-living cells are able to under go meiosis or mitosis.

News flash: all cells that have the capacity to replicate and give rise to tissues, organs, or systems are LIVING. What's more, the gametes that fuse to create a zygote are both genetically HUMAN (adjective). My eggs aren't bovine, as they don't come from cows; they're not lupine, canine, or feline. They're HUMAN. Are they "A" human (noun)? No. They CAN eventually become "A" human when they join with sperm and DEVELOP. But until proper development, you have nothing but a collection of cells or a wad of tissue.

I have already shown how embryo's are diffrent to eggs because they develop and grow.

The only difference is because an egg is a gamete that has to be supplemented by the other 23 chromosomes the sperm holds. But they are just as LIVING as any other cell in the human body. They are ALSO genetically human, as my ova do not come from birds or cows or anything else. They contain human genetic information that combines with OTHER human genetic information to EVENTUALLY create a new human being.

Egg cells dont. Embryos are individual human lives. Thus they have the human right to life.

Only by your self-defined "universal moral". Just because something is genetically human (an adjective meaning "of humans", not a noun that means "a human") and is living doesn't mean it is a human being with full rights under the Constitution. And as long as it's in my body, I'm afraid my right to govern my own body surpasses some imagined "right to life" that an undeveloped mass of tissue possesses in your own secluded, narrow mind.

Keep whining and stamping your feet. Your scientific arguments are rudimentary and incomplete, and your moral arguments are laughable and moot, seeing as how personal interpretation has very little to do with the law, and the argument is essentially on a political issue having to do with a law.

A law which, for a good thirty-some years, has held fast despite the best efforts of your ilk.

I have argued it. Her taking contraception states clearly that she does not consent to pregnancy. Your argument that no contraception is perfect is unreasonable because nothing is perfect in this world. There's no way to assure ourself 100% against anything bad that might befall us, but that doesn't mean we should just suck it up and accept everything.

It does mean that she must accept a possibilty of creating a life. If she creates it, because it is a human life, she has no right to kill it.

Not if its a human and by kicking it out you are killing it. You forget, it will leave your body naturally in 9 months anyway

Just because a parasite will eventually be satisfied and leave, doesn't mean I don't get to make it leave sooner. Its species doesn't have anything to do with it.

No, but because it is human it means you do not have the right to cut it off from the resocreces it needs for suvivial. I do not have the right to lock you in a cell and give you no water and food untill you die. That is what you do to an embryo by aborting it. You cut it off from it only source of the resorces it needs and it dies. You kill it. Because it is a human life, you do not have the right to kill it.

I didn't lock it in a cell. In fact, I locked the cell with nothing inside it. Something decided to crawl into my locked cell and demand food? I don't think I'll be feeding it, nop, thanks. It sneaked in by itself, it can find its own way out.

Live and let live means that you dont have the right to destroy any life. The embryo using the resorces of the woman is not going to kill the woman, thus it is letting her live. It may be stealing from her but stealing is only protected by the use of "reasonale force" and in this case the force is not reasonable if you kill it.
See, now you're moving into a religion-based law. To quote president John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli, "The United States is in NO WAY founded upon the Christian religion." Therefore, the religious side of your argument is null and void in regards to law.

It is already alive. What seperates it from the other cells in the body is the way in which it is developing. No other cells in the body develop in the way it does.

So it is unique from the rest of the body, kind of like my liver is unique or a woman's ovaries are unique. No other cells in the body develop like sperm develops. It is alive. It is not a life.

Still waiting to see where you got your 'objective' definition for a life from. Anyone else think I can be pretty sure to never see any support for his little made up definition.

The embryo is a life. To be a life it must be alive. Seperating it from the mother kills it but it is only part of the mother insofar as a person who needs a lifesupport machine for 9 months and then will be ok is part of the life support machine.
Are all things that are alive, a life? Nope. So stop arguing like you think proving it is alive makes it a life.

Oh, yay, another comparison of the mother to a embryo-support machine. Forgive me if I recognize women as more than that. I'm sorry their rights and priveleges offend you so.

*reads Avalon's posts over the last couple of pages*

*feels nauseous*

So women are simply "life-support machines", eh? At least now you're being honest about the way you view women. It's high time the so-called 'pro-lifers' admitted that their real stance is 'anti-women'.

Umm, okay. That makes squat for sense unless you think only women are born of the womb... Or only slave-owners can vote to end slavery :rolleyes:

At this point it is expected that you will increase the degree of your 'offendedness' level.
You are correct, especially as your responses are not only hostile in tone but also not on point. You are talking about reducing rights that are exercised exclusively by women, yet you describe them as "our rights." If you are a man, are you claiming that YOUR rights will be affected by whether I abort my pregnancy? If you are a man, then you are claiming some right to my body that supersedes my right to it. In fact, you've been claiming that a fetus would have a right to dictate how my body gets used, and now you seem to be extending that right to yourself. And you try to undermine my objection by somehow drawing some connection between a woman's right to self-determination and slave-holding.

Yes, I am offended by such arguments, so if you're not a guy, please clue me.

It does mean that she must accept a possibilty of creating a life. If she creates it, because it is a human life, she has no right to kill it.

Why? Fertility clinics create embryoes for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation and they kill those when they have no one to implant them in.

Not to mention, a woman doesn't "create" life. The cells that replicate are already living cells. They simply carry on the bioenergetic process. No one knows who "created" life, yet. If you do, then I'm surprised you haven't gotten calls from Newsweek or Time.

The right to kill, moving along, isn't somehow appended by some supposed "creation law". If something is posing a danger (however small or potential) to my body, I have the right to remove it, pure and simple.

I know you hate it, but it's the truth.

Embryo. Childs get rights, but embryos don't.

Just though I'd point out the lapse in vocabulary before Avalon would call you a child murderer.

Yeah, I caught that just a minute ago before I read your post. To argue that I actually think it is a child would be intellectually dishonest on their part. They are both Christians so it would be a blow to their faith to be dishonest.

Even in using contreception there is still an uneliminatable possiblity that she may get pregnant. She must accept that.

As I said, there's no sure way to prevent any accident. We do our best before, and if it happens, we have a backup plan.

If she is raped, then why should the embryo be punished.

Why should she?

Granted the woman didnt ask for the embryo to be there, but its not like the embryo had any say in the matter either. Ulitmately if both can live then both should be allowed to. If the embryo threatens the life of the mother then abortion is justified.

She has already suffered something that could haunt her the rest of her life and make her wish she was dead. The embryo hasn't suffered at all, and won't be in any pain to be removed. It'll never know any better. It's best to stop "someone" from being born than to put a rape victim through even more suffering.

It does if not saying something would mean that someone dies.

The government has no business meddling in what goes on inside people's bodies. Next you'll say the government can regulate my thoughts just in case "not doing so means someone dies".

They are not subjective. The embryo is alive, because it is developing and growing and the cells that make it up are alive. Hence it is alive. Secondly it has the right to life because it is a human and it is alive.

You keep saying this but it is patently untrue. It has to be human and A LIFE. My hand is human and alive, but it has no rights. You know why, because my hand on its own does not have sentience nor does it have the ability to suffer.

Thridly, it is directly observable that the rights lost by the women in pregnacy are less than those lost by the embryo in abortion. The women does not die as a result of pregnancy.

Can you show me the value of the woman's rights? When a woman is being raped it is observable (by your standards) that she is losing less rights than if she killed her attacker. Would you rather get raped or die? The woman does not die as a result of rape.

If your argument was objectively true as you claim it would be objectively true in all cases. It's not.

The pro choice arguement does force a possible death onto the embryo. The pro life arguemnt forces a possible pregancay onto the woman. Which is worse. The woman does not have the right to determine if someone else has the right to life or not.

The pro choice doesn't force a death because death of cells is not a death in the sense you are using it. No life was lost in an abortion.

You're absolutely right. We have conceded that woman cannot decide if a person has the right to life or not. Fortunately, there is only one person to be considered, the woman, in the equation, by your own admission.

The embryo is a life. To be a life it must be alive. Seperating it from the mother kills it but it is only part of the mother insofar as a person who needs a lifesupport machine for 9 months and then will be ok is part of the life support machine.

Woman. Not. Machine.

The government has no business meddling in what goes on inside people's bodies. Next you'll say the government can regulate my thoughts just in case "not doing so means someone dies".

Actually, he said the government should be permitted to take an organ from you to save a life against your will, so long as it doesn't kill you.

Woman. Not. Machine.
Oh, come on.

Are you trying to make us believe that women are actually *gasp* human beings?

Preposterous, I say. :rolleyes: