NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Oh, but see, not to them. When you deal with folks who have a breeder mentality, a woman essentially becomes useless once she starts having children, or even once she conceives. She becomes nothing more than an incubator on legs. They have no concept of a woman choosing to make sacrifices to carry a pregnancy and raise a child; it's one of those things that should never be a choice. If you're brazen and "slutty" enough to dare have sex WITHOUT the intent to have children (i.e., recreationally), then you deserve the "punishment" of pregnancy. And that's exactly how they're viewing it. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex in some instances. However, they want there to be absolutely no way for a woman to exert her will in relation to WHEN she wishes to have children. That's when it stops being a consequence, and starts being a punishment.

Wouldn't the world be wonderful if they had it their way, and there were scores of children being born for the sole purpose of punishing the mothers who didn't want them? Can you imagine how flooded and miserable the child welfare system would be? That's apparently utopia for a "pro-lifer".

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.

If she starts creating it, she doesn't have to finish.

For the thinking, dear, and the making decisions. Now shut up!
Oh, well, we're all screwed, then.

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.

HE is a GUY. That's why HE didn't answer.

*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'.

This thread is not for the weak of stomach. In fact, I think it's even mildly nauseating for people with very strong stomachs.

Oh, but see, not to them. When you deal with folks who have a breeder mentality, a woman essentially becomes useless once she starts having children, or even once she conceives. She becomes nothing more than an incubator on legs. They have no concept of a woman choosing to make sacrifices to carry a pregnancy and raise a child; it's one of those things that should never be a choice. If you're brazen and "slutty" enough to dare have sex WITHOUT the intent to have children (i.e., recreationally), then you deserve the "punishment" of pregnancy. And that's exactly how they're viewing it. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex in some instances. However, they want there to be absolutely no way for a woman to exert her will in relation to WHEN she wishes to have children. That's when it stops being a consequence, and starts being a punishment.

Wouldn't the world be wonderful if they had it their way, and there were scores of children being born for the sole purpose of punishing the mothers who didn't want them? Can you imagine how flooded and miserable the child welfare system would be? That's apparently utopia for a "pro-lifer".
You're so bitter...

I expect alot of personal attacks after this, but here goes...

I am 24. I am married. About a month ago I had an abortion.

My husband and I tried to have a child for four months. I got pregnant. I miscarried. We tried for eight months - I got pregnant - I miscarried. After that, I found out that the size and shape of my uterus made it so that I could not carry a child to term. I want to have children...but for me, it's not in the cards. My doctor put me on the pill and told me to use condoms. I use both religiously. I got pregnant anyway (one of those verile guys, I suppose!).

Rather than waiting around to miscarry (not knowing when or where it would happen), I took matters into my own hands. My first miscarriage happened in the bathroom at work - you try coping with that.

You pro-lifers can criticize me for "murdering," but that baby was never going to come out of me alive anyway. I took every precaution I could not to get pregnant in the first place, short of not having sex. Plus, I'm not going to go the rest of my child-bearing years not having sex.

You want to tell me what I should have done instead?

I would call being killed suffering, even if done so painlessly. Being killed is permanant. The pain of pregancay isnt.
Once again, you speak from ignorance. There are lots of medical/health sites and lots of posts in this thread giving you factual information. The risks and damages of pregnancy are serious and include permanent injury, pain, and death.

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.

I know. I don't ever wanna live in the same country as Avalon.

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

And you don't have the right to make that judgement for the woman...

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.
How the hell does the certainty of a lifetime of decades filled with suffering before death equate to less suffering than the uproven/unprovable possibility of a few moments suffering at the time of death? You're talking nonsense in an attempt to pretend that you don't just think women are not valuable as people.

Oh, but see, not to them. When you deal with folks who have a breeder mentality, a woman essentially becomes useless once she starts having children, or even once she conceives. She becomes nothing more than an incubator on legs. They have no concept of a woman choosing to make sacrifices to carry a pregnancy and raise a child; it's one of those things that should never be a choice. If you're brazen and "slutty" enough to dare have sex WITHOUT the intent to have children (i.e., recreationally), then you deserve the "punishment" of pregnancy. And that's exactly how they're viewing it. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex in some instances. However, they want there to be absolutely no way for a woman to exert her will in relation to WHEN she wishes to have children. That's when it stops being a consequence, and starts being a punishment.

Wouldn't the world be wonderful if they had it their way, and there were scores of children being born for the sole purpose of punishing the mothers who didn't want them? Can you imagine how flooded and miserable the child welfare system would be? That's apparently utopia for a "pro-lifer".

I'll take the death, please.

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

Glad you agree. Removing an unviable embryo is not the same as killing it.

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.

Growth and development tells us no such thing. Does it stop being a life when it stops growing and developing? If not, then your argument is spurious. Are all things that grow and develop and are human a life? No, then your argument is spurious.

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

Nope that particular part of the woman's body is unique from everything else. Just like the ovaries are different from the tonsils.

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.
Agreed on all of that. Why do you keep pretending this isn't true?

"It's human and it's alive. Thus it has a right to life."
See how you pretend there that alive and a life are the same. You can do better. Come on.

I expect alot of personal attacks after this, but here goes...

I am 24. I am married. About a month ago I had an abortion.

My husband and I tried to have a child for four months. I got pregnant. I miscarried. We tried for eight months - I got pregnant - I miscarried. After that, I found out that the size and shape of my uterus made it so that I could not carry a child to term. I want to have children...but for me, it's not in the cards. My doctor put me on the pill and told me to use condoms. I use both religiously. I got pregnant anyway (one of those verile guys, I suppose!).

Rather than waiting around to miscarry (not knowing when or where it would happen), I took matters into my own hands. My first miscarriage happened in the bathroom at work - you try coping with that.

You pro-lifers can criticize me for "murdering," but that baby was never going to come out of me alive anyway. I took every precaution I could not to get pregnant in the first place, short of not having sex. Plus, I'm not going to go the rest of my child-bearing years not having sex.

You want to tell me what I should have done instead?
If they do, they're stupid. I think it may have even been more responsible than letting it miscarry.

It feels almost impossible to convey serious emotion on a message board, but i do offer my condolences.

Oh, well, we're all screwed, then.

Yep. Welcome to the world of Avalon.

I know. I don't ever wanna live in the same country as Avalon.
What country does Avalon live in? My money is on the States.

What country does Avalon live in? My money is on the States.

I'll take that bet. My money is on the UK.

I expect alot of personal attacks after this, but here goes...

I am 24. I am married. About a month ago I had an abortion.

My husband and I tried to have a child for four months. I got pregnant. I miscarried. We tried for eight months - I got pregnant - I miscarried. After that, I found out that the size and shape of my uterus made it so that I could not carry a child to term. I want to have children...but for me, it's not in the cards. My doctor put me on the pill and told me to use condoms. I use both religiously. I got pregnant anyway (one of those verile guys, I suppose!).

Rather than waiting around to miscarry (not knowing when or where it would happen), I took matters into my own hands. My first miscarriage happened in the bathroom at work - you try coping with that.

You pro-lifers can criticize me for "murdering," but that baby was never going to come out of me alive anyway. I took every precaution I could not to get pregnant in the first place, short of not having sex. Plus, I'm not going to go the rest of my child-bearing years not having sex.

You want to tell me what I should have done instead?

No.

I hope you're alright...

What country does Avalon live in? My money is on the States.

Me too. I'm in Brazil, so I think I'm safe from him for now.

And tenants in a house have rights... Foremost, the right to NOT be killed in their sleep by their landlord.
But they can be evicted if the landlord wants to use the building for something else. But of course, this is a bad anology for both of us, as the tenants were paying for the privilege of living there, whereas the fetus gives nothing to the woman, but only takes from her. The parasite analogy is better.

You're so bitter...

Bitterness has nothing to do with it. It's the simple truth, evidenced by every word I've ever seen come out of a "pro-lifer"'s mouth. Their only focus becomes the embryo. Look at anything they say - in every instance, the woman is objectified and becomes nothing more than a vessel.

Does it aggravate me? To no end. But am I bitter? No; why would I be? As a pro-choice American, my side of the argument is the side that the law supports. I'm actually quite cheerful about that.

As of yet, the only arguments I have seen suggesting that we protect the emrbyo/early fetus are emotive and, essentially, religious. I am not in favor of forcing any religious or philosophical position upon other people through the law. I feel that only that which we can demonstrate in an objective manner should be legislated. Thus, I will not legislate that a woman cannot abort an embryo/early fetus, as doing so would be to force my religion upon her through the law.

If someone can provide an objective definition of "human person" that includes zygotes/embryos, does not include other single human cells or human organs, and does not invoke the potentiality argument, I would like to see it.

Actually religion has very little to do with the subject. If you believe that an unborn child is just that, then the constitution affords them the same protection. And if you go back to the framers of the constitution they listed the most important pieces in descending order: Life, Liberty, Persuit of Freedom. If you ask any down to earth constitutional lawyer, Roe v Wade is just really bad constitutional law.

That's my two cents
:sniper:

Bitterness has nothing to do with it. It's the simple truth, evidenced by every word I've ever seen come out of a "pro-lifer"'s mouth. Their only focus becomes the embryo. Look at anything they say - in every instance, the woman is objectified and becomes nothing more than a vessel.

Does it aggravate me? To no end. But am I bitter? No; why would I be? As a pro-choice American, my side of the argument is the side that the law supports. I'm actually quite cheerful about that.
Mm, just an observation. I should have used the word 'seem'. Anyway, i found your leap from 'pro-life' to 'anti-woman' a little extreme. It's one thing to say say there are those pro-lfers who are also cheauvanists (sp?), but to condemn all pro-lifers as such? Perhaps some of them just think it's wrong to kill what they see as another human being?

Does anyone think there's any point in continuing this thread? Anyone got a card up their sleeve? The ultimate argument to convince others to change their minds, if they haven't already?

This thread should go to an archive where it can be preserved and revisited, if not for any other reason, for having lasted this long.

But is there anything left to say?

A huge problem that pro-lifers never consider is over-population, how to guarantee quality of life for all of those sacred fetii, how to educate, etc.

No, all of the sacred fetii are basically thrown to dogs of social darwinism.

Actually religion has very little to do with the subject. If you believe that an unborn child is just that, then the constitution affords them the same protection. And if you go back to the framers of the constitution they listed the most important pieces in descending order: Life, Liberty, Persuit of Freedom. If you ask any down to earth constitutional lawyer, Roe v Wade is just really bad constitutional law.

That's my two cents
:sniper:
It depends on how you define 'unborn child'. To me, the difference between an unborn child and a fetus is that a fetus cannot survive without the mother. An unborn child, in my opinion, is an embryo that has developed enough to survive outside of the mother's womb, provided there are regular means of support (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). I believe the current abortion law states that once the embryo has reached the third trimester, it can no longer be aborted, and this is about the time a child could be born 'premature' and still survive with help.

Actually religion has very little to do with the subject. If you believe that an unborn child is just that, then the constitution affords them the same protection. And if you go back to the framers of the constitution they listed the most important pieces in descending order: Life, Liberty, Persuit of Freedom. If you ask any down to earth constitutional lawyer, Roe v Wade is just really bad constitutional law.

That's my two cents
:sniper:

Glad you agree that religion has nothing to do with the law, but a "belief" that an embryo is a human being doesn't make it so. The law makes concessions for the viability of the foetus because if every inviable, fertilised egg were afforded Constitutional rights, you'd open up a can of judicial worms that would overtax the system to the point of flat out crash.

Not to mention, the law also operates off the premise that we're not just dealing with the "human life" an embryo might represent. You've still got another fully individual human life with rights under our Constitution. Of course, she doesn't get much consideration from the pro-life camp, but she nonetheless has the LIBERTY to govern her own body. For example, her liberty would supercede the right to life that a rapist may very well have. If he tries to inhabit her body without her consent, she can very well kill him if such is the minimum force necessary to remove him.

Until there is a way to sustain an inviable embryo after removal, abortion will be the minimum force necessary to remove an organism from a woman's body that she doesn't want there.

Does anyone think there's any point in continuing this thread? Anyone got a card up their sleeve? The ultimate argument to convince others to change their minds, if they haven't already?

This thread should go to an archive where it can be preserved and revisited, if not for any other reason, for having lasted this long.

But is there anything left to say?
Probably not, but the purpose of debate shouldn't be simply to answer a question or to sway opinion. Debate enriches ones thought processes by making them think. If one is open-minded, they will consider the opposition's arguments, and maybe ammend their own, thereby creating new thoughts and ideas.

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.
In an earlier post, I said that in some places (some US states, for instance) that a marriage can be dissolved solely on the basis of lack of sex on the grounds that if there is no sex, then it's not a marriage. Even if the couple make an agreement to abstain, if one of them changes their mind, they can seek a divorce on the grounds that the other effectively abandoned the marriage by refusing to participate in it.

Mm, just an observation. I should have used the word 'seem'. Anyway, i found your leap from 'pro-life' to 'anti-woman' a little extreme. It's one thing to say say there are those pro-lfers who are also cheauvanists (sp?), but to condemn all pro-lifers as such? Perhaps some of them just think it's wrong to kill what they see as another human being?

It's okay if they think it's wrong. Not everyone has to think the same and I respect someone who believes that an embryo is an individual human life (my own scientific suppositions aside). That's quite okay.

But a person with that logic can still have the decency to say, "I don't approve of abortion and it's not okay for me", thereby admitting that it isn't their business if another woman feels differently. That, to me, is a truly pro-life position, which still falls in line with a pro-choice point of view. Such is why I've always thought the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were a bit specious. But I digress.

The people I've encountered here are not the ones who, despite their opposition to abortion, can simply attribute that belief to themselves without believing other people should be forced to conform to that ideal. Those who support laws that would force a woman to continue a pregnancy are, in my view, anti-woman. They're anti-choice.

Hope that gives some clarity.

Entry Word: murder
Function: noun
Text: 1 a situation or state that causes great suffering and unhappiness <this weather is murder on my sinuses> -- see HELL 2
2 the intentional and unlawful taking of another person's life <arrested for attempting to commit murder> -- see HOMICIDE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=murder

Its not yet a person but it doesnt need to be a person to have the right to life.

Good. We won't here you refer to it as murder ever again. Glad that's settled.

In case you're going to claim you didn't -

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

Good? Good.

Let's look a couple more of your beliefs.

Avalon's view on the purpose of women -

Only in the context of the pregnancy is she a life support machine for the embryo.

Apparantly, women are a passive force in the whole pregnancy thing.

Avalon's view on the role of government -

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.

Emphasis mine. You know what the look on my face is? It's the expression of the joy of realizing you will never have to power to enforce your view on the civil rights of people. Were I Ph33r (who is actually fairly consistent in his views) this is the point I would abandon the thread or risk being lumped in with these types of arguments.

Anyone else notice that he admits his views are the same regardless of consent, but he throws the consent argument out there anyway because a sandwich just isn't a sandwich without the tangy taste of the dirty whore argument.

Avalon's view on this thread -
Hence I win because your definion is self consturcted and self serving.

Apparantly, Avalon's views are all objective and universal. That's why we're all agreeing with him. Oh... wait...

To summarize -
Avalon thinks it is acceptable to consider women life-support machines in terms of pregnancy.

Avalon admits that an embryo IS NOT A PERSON.

Avalon does not support your right to protect your person and believes the government can and should be permitted to remove organs from you and give them others they deem need it more.

Whether a woman consents or not, women are not permitted to get abortion in Avalon's eyes, but he will continue to argue as if consent changes things.

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"
On the contrary, none of those things are "true."

Lots of people have the right to kill under various circumstances. We have the right to kill non-humans. States that have death penalty laws claim and exercise the right to kill certain criminals. We all have the right to kill in self defense or defense of others. We have the right to kill if we are legally designated proxies or guardians of others and must decide whether to remove life support.

Also, please note I was talking about the necessity to kill, not the right to. The right to abort a pregnancy is an answer to the necessity of doing so.

In your second point, I will assume you meant "possibility of pregnancy." Again, abortion considered as a corrective, back-up measure in the event of birth control failure or medical necessity is part of preparation for the possibility of pregnancy. Do not confuse the concept of "prepare for" with the concept of "submit to."

Once again, we are not discussing children, but fetuses. Fetuses do not have rights and therefore cannot lose rights. People who do not yet exist in the world do not have rights and cannot lose them. Women do exist in the world and do have rights and can lose them. Therefore, the woman loses more rights by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

Probably not, but the purpose of debate shouldn't be simply to answer a question or to sway opinion. Debate enriches ones thought processes by making them think. If one is open-minded, they will consider the opposition's arguments, and maybe ammend their own, thereby creating new thoughts and ideas.

I know, I know. It's just that I've been here for almost 100 pages and, while my stand is a lot more well-defined and thought-through than before, it is getting tiresome. I suppose I could just leave... but I don't want to. I'll stay by this thread's side and hold its hand while it expires.

Entry Word: murder
Function: noun
Text: 1 a situation or state that causes great suffering and unhappiness <this weather is murder on my sinuses> -- see HELL 2
2 the intentional and unlawful taking of another person's life <arrested for attempting to commit murder> -- see HOMICIDE
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=murder



Good. We won't here you refer to it as murder ever again. Glad that's settled.

In case you're going to claim you didn't -



Good? Good.

Let's look a couple more of your beliefs.

Avalon's view on the purpose of women -



Apparantly, women are a passive force in the whole pregnancy thing.

Avalon's view on the role of government -



Emphasis mine. You know what the look on my face is? It's the expression of the joy of realizing you will never have to power to enforce your view on the civil rights of people. Anyone else notice that he admits his views are the same regardless of consent, but he throughs the consent argument because a sandwich just isn't a sandwich without the tangy taste of the dirty whore argument.

Avalon's view on this thread -


Apparantly, Avalon's views are all objective and universal. That's why we're all agreeing with him. Oh... wait...

To summarize -
Avalon thinks it is acceptable to consider women life-support machines in terms of pregnancy.

Avalon admits that an embryo IS NOT A PERSON.

Avalon does not support your right to protect your person and believes the government can and should be permitted to remove organs from you and give them others the deem need it more.

Whether a woman consents or not, women are not permitted to get abortion in Avalon's eyes, but he will continue to argue as if consent changes things.

Don't vote for Avalon.

Don't vote for Avalon.

Paid for by the Committee to NEVER Elect Avalon for Anything

Paid for by the Committee to NEVER Elect Avalon for Anything

I'll do that publicity for free. Then no one can say I didn't contribute to make the world a better place.

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.
Okay, once again, with patience, the basis on which you wish to build this new law of yours is faulty. It is based on inventing a class of citizen AND THEN making a pre-existing group of citizens' rights subordinate to this new group. In addition, this group you are inventing will never be anything but an artificial legal construct because, as fetuses do not exist as independent beings in the world, they will never be able to exercise fetal rights for themseves, and once they stop being fetuses, they will no longer have fetal rights. Therefore, fetal rights can only be exercised by non-fetuses, who will always be acting without fetal authorization, as fetuses cannot submit complaints to court or the police and cannot hire lawyers. In real terms, this law of yours would have no effect but to harm women by denying them rights that are granted to men. You will be merely using fetuses as a tool for doing this.

In an earlier post, I said that in some places (some US states, for instance) that a marriage can be dissolved solely on the basis of lack of sex on the grounds that if there is no sex, then it's not a marriage. Even if the couple make an agreement to abstain, if one of them changes their mind, they can seek a divorce on the grounds that the other effectively abandoned the marriage by refusing to participate in it.
so?

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



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.
No, your morals are NOT universal. Not even among religions. Not even within Christianity, which I assume is your religion.

Quit being so coy, indirect, dishonest -- whatever you'd like to call what you're being -- and come right out and say that you think women are nothing but vessels to be used for making babies, that you don't think they should have equal rights with men, and that anyone who disagrees with you is immoral.

Just say it already. Please.

so?

You really sound like you're anti-choice.

You really sound like you're anti-choice.
I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I can be both. I don't like abortion at all, I don't think it should be illegal.

You could choke and run over an old lady. Then crash.
While you're pregnant, thus endangering the fetuse's right to use your body, you murderer. Women who eat grapes should not be allowed to drive.

You really sound like you're anti-choice.

No, she really doesn't. She thinks abortion is wrong while knowing that she should not enforce her morality on others through law. I think her position deserves a lot of respect. My position is similar. I think since we cannot determine that it is a person and since it CLEARLY cannot suffer, that I can't enforce my beliefs on another human either. However, I think abortion should be avoided to protect the mother and the fetus.

I also think the poster that admitted to abortion is a perfect reason why it cannot and should not be made illegal.

And congradulations, you just equated pro-choice with pro-abortion. Nice.

No, she really doesn't. She thinks abortion is wrong while knowing that she should not enforce her morality on others through law. I think her position deserves a lot of respect.

thank you, and to think I got frustrated with you about 30 pages ago:p
sorry about that, I know that 99% of the time what you say makes sense, we were just discussing a difficult subject for me;)

I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I can be both. I don't like abortion at all, I don't think it should be illegal.

I know, you said so before. But you sound anti-choice.

I know, you said so before. But you sound anti-choice.
okay, lets define anti-choice then so I can respond better.

No, she really doesn't. She thinks abortion is wrong while knowing that she should not enforce her morality on others through law. I think her position deserves a lot of respect. My position is similar. I think since we cannot determine that it is a person and since it CLEARLY cannot suffer, that I can't enforce my beliefs on another human either. However, I think abortion should be avoided to protect the mother and the fetus.

I also think the poster that admitted to abortion is a perfect reason why it cannot and should not be made illegal.

And congradulations, you just equated pro-choice with pro-abortion. Nice.

I didn't equate them. I say she sounds anti-choice because "people that don't want kids should simply not have sex" is often said by people who are, in fact, anti-choice. She doesn't want to enforce her beliefs through law, then she is pro-choice. It doesn't mean she can't sound like something else.

Right to life is a univeral moral.
No, it isn't. Morals are behaviors that are thought to be right. Not everyone thinks that's right. Therefore the moral is not universal.

okay, lets define anti-choice then so I can respond better.

Someone who wants to legally prohibit women from getting abortions, thus denying them a choice. They often state that the woman shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because she had sex, so if she really didn't want to get pregnant, she should've just "kept her legs shut", or something to that effect.

Anti-abortion people (just about everyone in this thread, except for a couple of whackos that popped in for one-liners and left) don't like the idea of abortion, but may or may not recognize the right of each woman to choose.

I know you're anti-abortion and pro-choice. I simply said that when you tell women who don't want kids to not have sex, you sound anti-choice.

Someone who wants to legally prohibit women from getting abortions, thus denying them a choice. They often state that the woman shouldn't be allowed to get an abortion because she had sex, so if she really didn't want to get pregnant, she should've just "kept her legs shut", or something to that effect.

Anti-abortion people (just about everyone in this thread, except for a couple of whackos that popped in for one-liners and left) don't like the idea of abortion, but may or may not recognize the right of each woman to choose.

I know you're anti-abortion and pro-choice. I simply said that when you tell women who don't want kids to not have sex, you sound anti-choice.
then according to your definition I am not anti-choice, because I do not believe that abortion should be illegal.

It is a fact that if you have sex no matter how good your contraception is you might get pregnant. If you want a 100% way of not getting pregnant then you shouldn't have sex. I would say I am pro-responsibility for your own actions.

I think it would be helpful if you understood that in my eyes every action has consequences if you can't deal with the consequences you shouldn't do the action, that is how I live my life. That is my opinion on just about anything. If people ask me "what about this girl who didn't want to get pregnant at all and you know wanted to have sex, but didn't want a baby?" I am going to say that she shouldn't have had sex. Saying anything else would be lying.

I don't wish to push my veiws on other people, if I did I would be pro-life. I will not lie about what I believe to make myself fit into the 'pro-choice' crowd.

I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, by your own definition that makes me pro-choice.

HE is a GUY. That's why HE didn't answer.
Yeah, I know. I just want these people to admit that they want to subjugate women into breeding slaves. I also want them to admit that they don't give a crap about all these children they say are so precious and that they have never and will never lift a finger or donate a dollar to help them. A little honesty. That's all I want out of life. (We need an overly-dramatically sobbing and garment rending smilie.)

then according to your definition I am not anti-choice, because I do not believe that abortion should be illegal.

I never said you ARE, I said you SOUNDED LIKE. How many more times do I have to repeat that?

I didn't equate them. I say she sounds anti-choice because "people that don't want kids should simply not have sex" is often said by people who are, in fact, anti-choice. She doesn't want to enforce her beliefs through law, then she is pro-choice. It doesn't mean she can't sound like something else.

Yes, you did. If stating that abortions are bad and should be avoided 'sounds' anti-choice then what 'sounds' pro-choice? Abortions are good and shouldn't be avoided? Listen to yourself. She has beliefs that lead her to think that abortions should not happen and she's nice enough to not enshrine them in law and force them on others. You should be commending her, not telling her how she sounds like the less-reasonable side.

then according to your definition I am not anti-choice, because I do not believe that abortion should be illegal.

It is a fact that if you have sex no matter how good your contraception is you might get pregnant. If you want a 100% way of not getting pregnant then you shouldn't have sex. I would say I am pro-responsibility for your own actions.

I think it would be helpful if you understood that in my eyes every action has consequences if you can't deal with the consequences you shouldn't do the action, that is how I live my life. That is my opinion on just about anything. If people ask me "what about this girl who didn't want to get pregnant at all and you know wanted to have sex, but didn't want a baby?" I am going to say that she shouldn't have had sex. Saying anything else would be lying.

I don't wish to push my veiws on other people, if I did I would be pro-life. I will not lie about what I believe to make myself fit into the 'pro-choice' crowd.

I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, by your own definition that makes me pro-choice.

Careful, Smunk, you don't want to suggest being responsible. It makes you 'sound' anti-choice.

I'm not saying he IS an idiot. I'm just saying he SOUNDED LIKE an idiot.

Yes, you did. If stating that abortions are bad and should be avoided 'sounds' anti-choice then what 'sounds' pro-choice? Abortions are good and shouldn't be avoided? Listen to yourself. She has beliefs that lead her to think that abortions should not happen and she's nice enough to not enshrine them in law and force them on others. You should be commending her, not telling her how she sounds like the less-reasonable side.

I said it not because she doesn't like abortions, but because she thinks people who absolutely don't want kids shouldn't have sex.

I said it not because she doesn't like abortions, but because she thinks people who absolutely don't want kids shouldn't have sex.
that would make me pro-abstinence.

I said it not because she doesn't like abortions, but because she thinks people who absolutely don't want kids shouldn't have sex.

No, actually she said they should be sterilized if by very random chance they do get pregnant she should have the baby and put it up for adoption. She believes that to be the right thing to do. However, she has not interesting in forcing her beliefs on anyone.

Pro-choicers have ONLY ONE thing in common. They believe in a woman's right to choose. She believes that so you is and sounded like a person who is pro-choice.

Does anyone think there's any point in continuing this thread? Anyone got a card up their sleeve? The ultimate argument to convince others to change their minds, if they haven't already?

This thread should go to an archive where it can be preserved and revisited, if not for any other reason, for having lasted this long.

But is there anything left to say?
I agree. Put the poor thing out of its misery. Even though we've spent most of the thread arguing with Avalon, the person I really feel sorry for is the OG, since clearly (and somewhere in here are his posts proving it), he meant this thread to be flamebait against pro-choicers. How disappointed he must be that it's gone on this long and we pro-choicers have been so civil and articulate throughout.

Careful, Smunk, you don't want to suggest being responsible. It makes you 'sound' anti-choice.

I'm not saying he IS an idiot. I'm just saying he SOUNDED LIKE an idiot.

Who, Avalon? 'Cause I'm a woman, and not sounding anywhere as stupid as you are by not reading what I was replying to.

It just so happens that I am anti-abortion like any reasonable person, and pro-choice like any self-respecting woman. I just don't go around saying consenting adults in a committed relationship should refrain from intimate contact just because they don't want kids. Does that make me irresponsible?

that would make me pro-abstinence.

Or that.

I simply said that when you tell women who don't want kids to not have sex, you sound anti-choice.

And, for the record, she says that ANYONE who absolutely doesn't wish to have kids should abstain, not just women. She holds men responsible as well, but accepts the biological fact that women must face the pregnancy.

Or that.
I have no problem admitting to being pro-abstinence. ;)

I agree. Put the poor thing out of its misery. Even though we've spent most of the thread arguing with Avalon, the person I really feel sorry for is the OG, since clearly (and somewhere in here are his posts proving it), he meant this thread to be flamebait against pro-choicers. How disappointed he must be that it's gone on this long and we pro-choicers have been so civil and articulate throughout.

Or we could at least change the subject or continue on a new thread. 121 pages is running a bit long...

And, for the record, she says that ANYONE who absolutely doesn't wish to have kids should abstain, not just women. She holds men responsible as well, but accepts the biological fact that women must face the pregnancy.

Good for her.

so?
I merely mean that abstinence is not a practical family planning suggestion for married couples. Even you didn't rely on it once you had decided not to have more children, right? You and I are not disagreeing on this issue. I'm just pointing out that there are good reasons why people can't do something that we feel they maybe should.

I have no problem admitting to being pro-abstinence. ;)

Alrighty, then. Anti-abortion, pro-choice, pro-abstinence. Except for that last one, we are in agreement.

Who, Avalon? 'Cause I'm a woman, and not sounding anywhere as stupid as you are by not reading what I was replying to.

It just so happens that I am anti-abortion like any reasonable person, and pro-choice like any self-respecting woman. I just don't go around saying consenting adults in a committed relationship should refrain from intimate contact just because they don't want kids. Does that make me irresponsible?

It makes you less responsible than an adult who accepts the consequences of having sex. What makes you irresponsible is suggesting that being pro-abstinence is anti-choice? Does having an opinion make you anti-choice? Because she has very clearly stated her position. I'm not sure how anyone could miss it.

If the point of your statement wasn't to chastise her (which I don't believe) and you already knew her position, what was the point of your statement?

And fine she. But I call them like I see them. Don't worry, I didn't say you ARE...

I merely mean that abstinence is not a practical family planning suggestion for married couples. Even you didn't rely on it once you had decided not to have more children, right? You and I are not disagreeing on this issue. I'm just pointing out that there are good reasons why people can't do something that we feel they maybe should.
all I am saying is that if you don't want to deal with a possible consequence you shouldn't do something that may have that consequence.

I don't necessarily want any more kids, I have lowered the risk of getting pregnant, if I do get pregnant I will have the child because it is my responsibility to do so. Does that make me a hypocrite? no, because I am willing to deal with the consequences of my action.

I realize that everyone does not agree that they should have to deal with the consequences of thier actions, so it is my opinion that those people should remain abstinent. I am not trying to make it a law or anything, so I don't see why so many people get mad about it.

It makes you less responsible than an adult who accepts the consequences of having sex.

Who says I don't?

What makes you irresponsible is suggesting that being pro-abstinence is anti-choice?

Well, "it's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! I've been plowing through this thread since 10am and I've actually caught up with it, and it's only 4:20pm!!

How can anyone be worse off with choice?

They can't. The mother has a right to do to her body what she wishes and if she wants to not have a baby. The government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. A child still in the womb in the early part of development is no more a human than we are fish.

Notice I used fish, because children have GILLS at a very early stage of development in the womb. If someone has born with gills, would they be considered human? I doubt it. Maybe a human mutant, but not a good ol' natural human being. There should be a time frame where abortion is legal. I don't believe in killing children, but a child in very early development in the womb is not yet enough of a human to be a human.

All things need time to develop and become what it will become, but that doesn't mean that it can be considered "that" at the very early part of development into "that."

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!! I've been plowing through this thread since 10am and I've actually caught up with it, and it's only 4:20pm!!

If you only skim over the repeated arguments you can go even faster than that.

:D It's my 100-pages-versary! Party on my nation, you're all invited. :D

all I am saying is that if you don't want to deal with a possible consequence you shouldn't do something that may have that consequence.

I don't necessarily want any more kids, I have lowered the risk of getting pregnant, if I do get pregnant I will have the child because it is my responsibility to do so. Does that make me a hypocrite? no, because I am willing to deal with the consequences of my action.

I realize that everyone does not agree that they should have to deal with the consequences of thier actions, so it is my opinion that those people should remain abstinent. I am not trying to make it a law or anything, so I don't see why so many people get mad about it.
I am by no means suggesting that you're a hypocrite. Far from it. It's true that lots of people are irresponsible, but we should remember that we are on the same side of this issue, arguing with people who make no allowance for responsibility or need or suffering or anything.

EDIT: What I mean is, let's not get caught up in splitting all the hairs on our side, because we get caught up bickering with each other, the other side makes it all moot by taking away all our rights.

If you only skim over the repeated arguments you can go even faster than that.
True, but the repeating patterns are so fascinating, it's like they're hypnotizing me... I be hypmotized. Hyp-mo-tized.... (we need a wonky-eyed smilie)

True, but the repeating patterns are so fascinating, it's like they're hypnotizing me... I be hypmotized. Hyp-mo-tized.... (we need a wonky-eyed smilie)

:rofl:

(That too.)

all I am saying is that if you don't want to deal with a possible consequence you shouldn't do something that may have that consequence.

Most people would agree. However, many disagree on what "dealing with the consequences" means. The possible consequence of having sex is getting pregnant. You can deal with that consequence in one of many ways. You can choose to abort. You can choose to carry to term and raise the resulting child. You can choose to carry to term and give the resulting child up for adoption.

Some of us think that the first option is the wrong one to take (at least in most cases), but it is a way of "dealing with the consequences". As Bottle would say, the only way that you could not "deal with the consequences" is to stick your fingers in your ears and go, "LALALALALALA, I'm not pregnant!"

I realize that everyone does not agree that they should have to deal with the consequences of thier actions, so it is my opinion that those people should remain abstinent.

Again, you are misstating the views of your oponents. No one is saying that anyone should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They simply feel that one way of doing so is abortion.

I am not trying to make it a law or anything, so I don't see why so many people get mad about it.

Perhaps because you misrepresent what is being said by assuming that your personal moral choices are the only possible way of "dealing with the consequences"?

Who says I don't?

Universal you. Well, actually, not universal, but I assumed we weren't actually talking about you, but I simply matched your question.

"Does that make me irresponsible?"


Well, "it's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."

Actually, I find it unremarkable. That's why I'm surprised you commented at all.

EDIT: What I mean is, let's not get caught up in splitting all the hairs on our side, because we get caught up bickering with each other, the other side makes it all moot by taking away all our rights.
agreed.:)

Most people would agree. However, many disagree on what "dealing with the consequences" means. The possible consequence of having sex is getting pregnant. You can deal with that consequence in one of many ways. You can choose to abort. You can choose to carry to term and raise the resulting child. You can choose to carry to term and give the resulting child up for adoption.

Some of us think that the first option is the wrong one to take (at least in most cases), but it is a way of "dealing with the consequences". As Bottle would say, the only way that you could not "deal with the consequences" is to stick your fingers in your ears and go, "LALALALALALA, I'm not pregnant!"
interesting. I hadn't thought of that, because of how I think.



Again, you are misstating the views of your oponents. No one is saying that anyone should not have to deal with the consequences of their actions. They simply feel that one way of doing so is abortion.
yes, I understand now, I need to be more careful with my words.



Perhaps because you misrepresent what is being said by assuming that your personal moral choices are the only possible way of "dealing with the consequences"?
bad assumption on my part. It is the only acceptable way for me, I am learing to be more tolerant. please be patient. ;)

Universal you.

Oh. Ok, sorry, I had misunderstood you.

Actually, I find it unremarkable. That's why I'm surprised you commented at all.

Unremarkable because you don't see it that often or because you see it so often that it no longer causes any reaction from you?

Oh. Ok, sorry, I had misunderstood you.

Actually, I changed my answer. It wasn't really universal you, but I did assume we weren't actually talking about you personally. I merely emulated your question - Does that make me irresponsible?

Unremarkable because you don't see it that often or because you see it so often that it no longer causes any reaction from you?

The latter.

interesting. I hadn't thought of that, because of how I think.



yes, I understand now, I need to be more careful with my words.



bad assumption on my part. It is the only acceptable way for me, I am learing to be more tolerant. please be patient. ;)
I like you so much. :D

I like you so much. :D
I am quite fond of you myself when we are not fighting:D
(which hopefully won't be much)

Actually, I changed my answer. It wasn't really universal you, but I did assume we weren't actually talking about you personally. I merely emulated your question - Does that make me irresponsible?

When I asked "does that make me irresponsible?" I had just compared and equated my personal opinion on abortion rights to that of Smukee's. You said she was responsible for being anti-abortion and pro-choice, but implied I'm irresponsible for the same reasons.

When I asked "does that make me irresponsible?" I had just compared and equated my personal opinion on abortion rights to that of Smukee's. You said she was responsible for being anti-abortion and pro-choice, but implied I'm irresponsible for the same reasons.

Actually, you were replying to me not to her and I said her position was responsible. You took that to mean that all other positions are irresponsible, but that cannot be found in the statement I made unless you insert it while reading it.

How can anyone be worse off with choice?

They can't. The mother has a right to do to her body what she wishes and if she wants to not have a baby. The government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. A child still in the womb in the early part of development is no more a human than we are fish.

She may have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, but not with someone elses. Its funny, pro-choicers always go on about how people dont have the right to interfere with anyones life. But they always forget that the embryo is a human life too. The embryo is worse off with choice, as it can be killed legally.


Notice I used fish, because children have GILLS at a very early stage of development in the womb. If someone has born with gills, would they be considered human? I doubt it. Maybe a human mutant, but not a good ol' natural human being. There should be a time frame where abortion is legal. I don't believe in killing children, but a child in very early development in the womb is not yet enough of a human to be a human.

Having gills is just a stage in human deveopment. It needs them because it is in the womb. Doesnt make it any less human.


All things need time to develop and become what it will become, but that doesn't mean that it can be considered "that" at the very early part of development into "that."

It is already human seing as how it is alvie and has its own unique human DNA and is growing and developing in the same way as all the other humans do. Just at a much earlier stage

Actually, you were replying to me not to her and I said her position was responsible. You took that to mean that all other positions are irresponsible, but that cannot be found in the statement I made unless you insert it while reading it.

Quoted back without inserting anything:

Careful, Smunk, you don't want to suggest being responsible. It makes you 'sound' anti-choice.

Here you had misunderstood my comment of "sounding anti-choice" as being related to her wanting to avoid abortion, if possible, which isn't what I said at all. And implied that, since Smukee is being so responsible and I supposedly disagree with her, I must be irresponsible.

It just so happens that I am anti-abortion like any reasonable person, and pro-choice like any self-respecting woman. I just don't go around saying consenting adults in a committed relationship should refrain from intimate contact just because they don't want kids. Does that make me irresponsible?

Here a repeat my opinion on the subject of abortion rights. Anti-abortion and pro-choice, just like Smunkee. So if she's responsible, I am too, right?

It makes you less responsible than an adult who accepts the consequences of having sex. What makes you irresponsible is suggesting that being pro-abstinence is anti-choice? Does having an opinion make you anti-choice? Because she has very clearly stated her position. I'm not sure how anyone could miss it.

Not responsible according to you, apparently. Smunkee is responsible 'cause she accepts the consequences of sex, but Erisianna is less responsible even though she has the same opinion.

Who says I don't?

Universal you. Well, actually, not universal, but I assumed we weren't actually talking about you, but I simply matched your question.
"Does that make me irresponsible?"

Where did I lose you?

She may have the right to do whatever she wants with her body, but not with someone elses. Its funny, pro-choicers always go on about how people dont have the right to interfere with anyones life. But they always forget that the embryo is a human life too. The embryo is worse off with choice, as it can be killed legally.

False. The embryo is not a life. You talked earlier about it's suffering. It's not sentient so it can't actually suffer during death. You, in fact, admitted it was painless. So where is the embryo suffering?

It is already human seing as how it is alvie and has its own unique human DNA and is growing and developing in the same way as all the other humans do. Just at a much earlier stage
And seeing as a sperm cell is developing the same way all the other humans do, it is already human, just at a much earlier stage. It's alive. You can't say it's dead. And it's human. Are you arguing it's not? So it must be a human life. I had a wet dream last night. Now I have like a thousand funerals to go to.

Having gills is just a stage in human deveopment. It needs them because it is in the womb. Doesnt make it any less human.

Wait, it needs gills because it's in the womb? You do realize the fetuses get their oxigen through the umbilical cord, not through "gills" or what have you.

Not that this makes her argument any better, but you are seriously lacking in basic biology knowlege.

Wait, it needs gills because it's in the womb? You do realize the fetuses get their oxigen through the umbilical cord, not through "gills" or what have you.

Not that this makes her argument any better, but you are seriously lacking in basic biology knowlege.

I didnt say it needs them for oxygen. I just assume there is a reason for it having them that is only aplicable in the womb, and not anywhere else.

interesting. I hadn't thought of that, because of how I think.

yes, I understand now, I need to be more careful with my words.

bad assumption on my part. It is the only acceptable way for me, I am learing to be more tolerant. please be patient. ;)

Sorry if I came off as being impatient. It's simply that this is a realization I had to come to myself. I used to say things like, "I respect a woman's right to make her own decisions, but I would take responsibility for my actions by having and caring for the child..."

Then I realized that the phrase I was using was based in my own way of thinking (which, it seems, is similar to yours). As much as I would suggest alternatives to abortion to any woman considering it, I must realize that she may decide that abortion is the responsible action for her. I know a woman who made that decision, and while I disagree with her, I respect her for doing what she felt (and still feels) to have been the most responsible option.

Having gills is just a stage in human deveopment. It needs them because it is in the womb. Doesnt make it any less human.


Technically incorrect. An embryo never needs gills. It gets all of it's oxygen through either diffusion (before the bloodstream) or through the bloodstream. The gills are completely vestigial.

I didnt say it needs them for oxygen. I just assume there is a reason for it having them that is only aplicable in the womb, and not anywhere else.

You know what they say about assuming, right?

False. The embryo is not a life. You talked earlier about it's suffering. It's not sentient so it can't actually suffer during death. You, in fact, admitted it was painless. So where is the embryo suffering?

Its dieing. Death is a form of suffering.


And seeing as a sperm cell is developing the same way all the other humans do, it is already human, just at a much earlier stage. It's alive. You can't say it's dead. And it's human. Are you arguing it's not? So it must be a human life. I had a wet dream last night. Now I have like a thousand funerals to go to.

No it isnt. A sperm cell is a sperm cell. It is not developing into anything. It only begins to develop when it fertilises an egg cell. Left to itself in its natural enviroment (in the testis) then it will not develop into anything or grow into anything in any way that the way an embryo will. It is human, and an indivdual life. A sperm cell is merely part of your body, not a body unto itself.

Quoted back without inserting anything:



Here you had misunderstood my comment of "sounding anti-choice" as being related to her wanting to avoid abortion, if possible, which isn't what I said at all. And implied that, since Smukee is being so responsible and I supposedly disagree with her, I must be irresponsible.

Um, no. It says that she took a position of responsibility and you suggested that made her sound anti-choice. If you remember I chastised you earlier for giving the APPEARANCE of pro-choice meaning anti-responsible. I was pointing out that her position on being responsible for one's actions is in no way anti-choice. You really have to redress it to make it me saying that you are irresponsible. Especially when you asked if I viewed it that way and I said no.

Here a repeat my opinion on the subject of abortion rights. Anti-abortion and pro-choice, just like Smunkee. So if she's responsible, I am too, right?

You asked if you were necessarily irresponsible and I said no. So yes, you would be responsible as well. But in my opinion (since that's what we're talking about) accepting the consequences of your actions in the way she described is more responsible. It was never suggested that any other choice is irresponsible. EVER.

Not responsible according to you, apparently. Smunkee is responsible 'cause she accepts the consequences of sex, but Erisianna is less responsible even though she has the same opinion.

If you have the SAME opinion then why did you question her when she voiced it? And didn't you suggest that you associate her opinion with anti-choice? Strange that you would say that if you have the SAME opinion.

Well, "it's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."
Referring to Smunkee's opinion. Did you forget you said this?

"Where did I lose you?"

Its dieing. Death is a form of suffering.

You really do like to redefine words to suit your own purposes, don't you?

No it isnt. A sperm cell is a sperm cell. It is not developing into anything. It only begins to develop when it fertilises an egg cell.

Your ignorance of biology is astounding. Sperm cells don't just pop into existence, you know. They have their own process of development that culminates with being ejaculated. Every cell in your body develops into something from earlier precursors.

Left to itself in its natural enviroment (in the testis) then it will not develop into anything or grow into anything in any way that the way an embryo will.

It develops in the testis, and then is naturally ejaculated. Are you saying that ejaculation is unnatural?

It is human, and an indivdual life. A sperm cell is merely part of your body, not a body unto itself.

What definition of individual life have you come up with that includes an embryo, but doesn't include an individual cell?

I didnt say it needs them for oxygen. I just assume there is a reason for it having them that is only aplicable in the womb, and not anywhere else.

I googled, couldn't find anything. Maybe you can do better.

I just cant understand why its the woman's right to choose who dies, just because its in her body. The fetus is alive anyway, no matter how you try to put it. It is not dead, or inanimate, its growing, feeding, kicking, blood is flowing through its veins. It is alive. If you want to rationalize killing an innocent life because its an inconveiniance, then you should give me the right to kill stupid people, because I see them as an inconveinance to me. Why? Because its my choice. Why is it that these people are so for killing babies, but at the same time all against the death penalty. I say, bring back the death penalty for dangerous murders and criminals, and maybe then I'll talk to you about abortion. I am 100% against abortion, but I am 100% for the death penalty. Those who deserve death get it. Those who do not, dont.

Its dieing. Death is a form of suffering.

Death is death. Many people would argue it's the end of suffering. Your opinion isn't any more valid than theirs.

What definition of individual life have you come up with that includes an embryo, but doesn't include an individual cell?

Because a cell is part of a whole, whereas an embryo is a whole. The embryo is its own life form. It has its own human DNA which is completly unique to it and to every other person in the entire world. That DNA came about from the fusion of two gammetes into a zygote. Every other cell in the body is just a copy of another cell, mitotsis. This is something completely diffrent.


Your ignorance of biology is astounding. Sperm cells don't just pop into existence, you know. They have their own process of development that culminates with being ejaculated. Every cell in your body develops into something from earlier precursors

The development and growth of an embryo is completely diffrent to that of every other cell in the body. And also the embryo is not a cell. Its a human. It is not a part of something else, it is its own entity. The development path it takes makes that clear. It is on that path from the moment it is concieved.

Your ignorance of biology is astounding. Sperm cells don't just pop into existence, you know. They have their own process of development that culminates with being ejaculated. Every cell in your body develops into something from earlier precursors.


What definition of individual life have you come up with that includes an embryo, but doesn't include an individual cell?

ok, if you are going to go with the "everything about you is alive, and we should consider sperm being alive" is takeing it a little extreme. Of course they are "alive" but its not like they are screaming, eating, or breathing. Of course cells are alive, but then that means that we are killing millions of cells every day. So does that make us mass murderers as well? Or does that rationalize abortion?

The development and growth of an embryo is completely diffrent to that of every other cell in the body. And also the embryo is not a cell. Its a human. It is not a part of something else, it is its own entity. The development path it takes makes that clear. It is on that path from the moment it is concieved.

Does anyone know what the official definition of a seperate entity is? Because Avalon here keeps saying its one without showing what standards are necessary to be a seperate entity.

Its dieing. Death is a form of suffering.

Dying. Actually, I disagree with Dem here because death is in the definition of suffering. However it suffers no more than the thousands of skin cells that die on me ever day. My poor suffering skin cells. Now please explain how it is different.

No it isnt. A sperm cell is a sperm cell. It is not developing into anything. It only begins to develop when it fertilises an egg cell. Left to itself in its natural enviroment (in the testis) then it will not develop into anything or grow into anything in any way that the way an embryo will. It is human, and an indivdual life. A sperm cell is merely part of your body, not a body unto itself.

It's going to develop barring some sort of natural or artificial intervention. It's just an earlier stage. It is developing in my body into a mature sperm. I love how you twist this. What is a sperm's purpose? Exactly. It's natural environment, what it's made for is to meet with an egg and fertalize it.

The testis are just where it develops.

Apparently, it's okay to block a baby from coming out during birth and to let it die rather than fulfill it's purpose in life. I mean that IS its natural environment. It is merely a part of your body, not a body unto itself.

Does anyone know what the official definition of a seperate entity is? Because Avalon here keeps saying its one without showing what standards are necessary to be a seperate entity.

Have its own DNA

Developing seperately from another life form (IE developing in a way that is not the same as its parent - In other words the embryo is not devloping and growing as part of the mother)

Consuming resorces itself (Here it is reciving resorces from the mother hence it cannot be part of the mother as the mother cannot give resorces to itself and consume them seperately to itself)

(there are proberbly more)

Does anyone know what the official definition of a seperate entity is? Because Avalon here keeps saying its one without showing what standards are necessary to be a seperate entity.

Avalon has already been shown that it does not meet the qualifications for a living organism that is used by biologists, but with his advanced knowledge in the arena of human development, he gave it the raspberries.

Have its own DNA

Developing seperately from another life form (IE developing in a way that is not the same as its parent - In other words the embryo is not devloping and growing as part of the mother)

Consuming resorces itself (Here it is reciving resorces from the mother hence it cannot be part of the mother as the mother cannot give resorces to itself and consume them seperately to itself)

(there are proberbly more)

Your saying points off the top of your head from your side of the arguement here. I want an actual defition from a unbiased source not the things that you claim support your side.

Have its own DNA

Developing seperately from another life form (IE developing in a way that is not the same as its parent - In other words the embryo is not devloping and growing as part of the mother)

Consuming resorces itself (Here it is reciving resorces from the mother hence it cannot be part of the mother as the mother cannot give resorces to itself and consume them seperately to itself)

(there are proberbly more)

"Probably" "resources" "receiving" I'm not a grammar nazi, but come on, your spelling is atrocious.

You mean you don't know? You're the expert. I mean the law should encapsulate your definition, right? That's what you've been arguing for a 120 pages, no? And you don't even know what you definition is. Dem already explained the biological definition and how it doesn't fit it. That's not a definition made up arbitrarily to deny a fetus rights. It is a definition used by biology to determine if something is an organism in and of itself or part of another organism.

"Where did I lose you?"

Right here: "It says that she took a position of responsibility and you suggested that made her sound anti-choice."

Did you mean that her saying "people that don't want kids shouldn't have sex" makes her responsible? Because that's what I was talking about when I said she sounded anti-choice. I agree with you that choosing to carry the baby to term can be the more responsible choice in most situations, but that's not what I was referring to.

Avalon has already been shown that it does not meet the qualifications for a living organism that is used by biologists, but with his advanced knowledge in the arena of human development, he gave it the raspberries.

No, I showed that it does meat those qualifications

# Living things are made of cells.

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

# Living things obtain and use energy.

Indeed the embryo does.

# Living things grow and develop.

Indeed the embryo does

# Living things reproduce.

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

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

Comatose people are alive but can do neither of these things

"Probably" "resources" "receiving" I'm not a grammar nazi, but come on, your spelling is atrocious..

Ad Homein (also proberbly not spelt correctly but the point is clear). Attacking my spelling is not the arguement


You mean you don't know? You're the expert. I mean the law should encapsulate your definition, right? That's what you've been arguing for a 120 pages, no? And you don't even know what you definition is. Dem already explained the biological definition and how it doesn't fit it. That's not a definition made up arbitrarily to deny a fetus rights. It is a definition used by biology to determine if something is an organism in and of itself or part of another organism.

Can I see this definition please. I only said there is proebrbly more because I wanted to consult someone who is more expert on this than I am.

I just cant understand why its the woman's right to choose who dies, just because its in her body. The fetus is alive anyway, no matter how you try to put it. It is not dead, or inanimate, its growing, feeding, kicking, blood is flowing through its veins. It is alive. If you want to rationalize killing an innocent life because its an inconveiniance, then you should give me the right to kill stupid people, because I see them as an inconveinance to me. Why? Because its my choice. Why is it that these people are so for killing babies, but at the same time all against the death penalty. I say, bring back the death penalty for dangerous murders and criminals, and maybe then I'll talk to you about abortion. I am 100% against abortion, but I am 100% for the death penalty. Those who deserve death get it. Those who do not, dont.

Yeah. It's growing IN her, feeding OFF OF her, kicking HER... no, wait, it would have to have feet to kick. And it would need veins for the blood to flow through. An embryo doesn't have either.

Right here: "It says that she took a position of responsibility and you suggested that made her sound anti-choice."

Did you mean that her saying "people that don't want kids shouldn't have sex" makes her responsible? Because that's what I was talking about when I said she sounded anti-choice. I agree with you that choosing to carry the baby to term can be the more responsible choice in most situations, but that's not what I was referring to.
I meant that her position on abstinence is a responsible one. Yes, that's what I was saying. And you suggested her responsible position (you've agreed she is advocating responsibility) was anti-choice. It seems we're on the same page, what's the problem. The only time I suggested you were irresponsible was in suggesting that her position 'sounds' anti-choice, even though you know she isn't.

The point is that I was under the (correct) assumption that pro-choice means that each person makes their own decision and has their own position on what is the right path, that no one's position was encapsulated in law, that choice fell to the woman. Her position certainly fulfills that requirement, and suggesting it's anti-choice suggests that the pro-choice movement is actually pro-abortion since she is advocating ways that allow a person to DEFINITELY avoid an abortion (abstain or carry the baby to term if pregnancy occurs).

To suggest her position 'sounds' anti-choice is to suggest that the only way to 'sound' pro-choice is to suggest using abortion as birth control if other methods fail (what pro-lifers call pro-abortion). Because there is only one alternative if one wants to avoid an abortion as birth control, no sex or carry it to term in the event of a pregnancy.

Because a cell is part of a whole, whereas an embryo is a whole. The embryo is its own life form. It has its own human DNA which is completly unique to it and to every other person in the entire world. That DNA came about from the fusion of two gammetes into a zygote. Every other cell in the body is just a copy of another cell, mitotsis. This is something completely diffrent.



The development and growth of an embryo is completely diffrent to that of every other cell in the body. And also the embryo is not a cell. Its a human. It is not a part of something else, it is its own entity. The development path it takes makes that clear. It is on that path from the moment it is concieved.

1- There are single-cell organisms, so a cell can be a whole
2- Every cell has its own DNA, whether it's part of a larger organism or not
3- How that DNA came about doesn't matter
4- The DNA of the embryo is also repeating itself
5- The growth of an embryo is not that different from that of other cells until specialization, and it's just like the rest of them after it
6- "Its own entity" is not well-defined, as an embryo can't possibly exist outside its mother, so it's a bit of a stretch to call it an entity of its own
7- There are many path, shortcuts (ok, maybe not) and possibilities of accidents along the way. No path is is clear cut and defined.

The fetus is alive anyway, no matter how you try to put it.

As is my liveer.

its growing,

As is my liver.

feeding,

As is my liver.

kicking,

Not at the point of elective abortions.

blood is flowing through its veins.

Not until it has them.

It is alive.

As is my liver.

If want to rationalize killing an innocent life because its an inconveiniance,

Who is doing this?

Why is it that these people are so for killing babies, but at the same time all against the death penalty.

What people are these? I have met no one "for killing babies".

Because a cell is part of a whole, whereas an embryo is a whole.

It isn't a whole organism. A whole organism requires a method for sensing and responding to stimuli, which an embryo never has.

The embryo is its own life form.

By what definition?

It has its own human DNA which is completly unique to it and to every other person in the entire world.

Not necessarily. Twins, for instance, have the same DNA. Chimeras have two separate sets.

That DNA came about from the fusion of two gammetes into a zygote.

Or maybe 4, in the case of a chimera. Of course, two cells fusing hardly makes a new life.

Every other cell in the body is just a copy of another cell, mitotsis.

Incorrect. Cell fusion occurs within the body. Various stem cells, for instance, have been shown to fuse with other cells in the body.

The development and growth of an embryo is completely diffrent to that of every other cell in the body.

If that were true, then the embryo definitely wouldn't be a human being, as its cells would be developing differently from human cells.

And also the embryo is not a cell.

It starts out as one.

Its a human.

You have yet to support this.

It is not a part of something else, it is its own entity.

My heart is its own entity, but is still a part of something else.

The development path it takes makes that clear.

Argument from potential, once again.

ok, if you are going to go with the "everything about you is alive, and we should consider sperm being alive" is takeing it a little extreme.

Not in the least. Avalon has yet to provide any way other than, "Well it might be a person someday," to distinguish between an individual human cell and an embryo as far as life is concerned. Every individual human organ is "alive" in the same way that an embryo is alive.

Of course they are "alive" but its not like they are screaming, eating, or breathing.

If screaming, eating, and breathing are your requirements for "alive", then you don't believe that an embryo or a fetus are alive, at any stage. After all, there is no screaming, eating, or breathing until after birth...

Of course cells are alive, but then that means that we are killing millions of cells every day. So does that make us mass murderers as well?

Good question! Until someone can come up with a definition of human person that includes an embryo, and excludes individual human cells or organs, they either admit that they themselves are mass murderers for scratching an arm, or admit that they cannot call women who get abortions murderers.

Have its own DNA

If this were necessary, then twins wouldn't count as two separate people and chimeras would be two people.

Developing seperately from another life form

Not an official descriptor of an organism, although:
(a) Growth and development is a descriptor
(b) One could argue that attachment to the bloodstream of the mother would preclude saying that it was actually developing separately from another lifeform.

Consuming resorces itself

Yup,

(there are proberbly more)

Yes, there are, but you conveniently ignore this one:
Sensing and responding to stimuli

Why do you ignore it? Apparently because you just don't like it.

Ad Homein (also proberbly not spelt correctly but the point is clear). Attacking my spelling is not the arguement

Ok, well, while you're looking up how to spell Ad Hominem, you can also look up what it is. I didn't use your spelling to dismiss your argument. I pointed out that you need to make an effort. It's horrendous. It's not an Ad hominem. It doesn't relate to the argument at all. It's simply a way to be less annoying.

Can I see this definition please. I only said there is proebrbly more because I wanted to consult someone who is more expert on this than I am.
Dem's in the thread. Ask her to define a living organism for you. She has already done so, but if she's feeling kind, she'll probably do so again. I'm not wading through 120 pages to find it.

And I'm saving this post, because it's an admission your definition is not based on expertise, but instead on a definition that fits your argument. Do you know what that's called? A circular argument. Look it up.

Thats better than being dead. And even if you think it isnt you dont have the right to make that judgement for the embryo.
Some people disagree, mostly those who are plunged into a life of nightmares and panic attacks by being raped. Constantly being reminded of that (even just for 9months) by being forced to carry a pregnacy to term is not going to help a woman's mental stability, so maybe, at least in this case the compassionate option should be considered?

uh... Dem.... serious question here...... you seem to know everything.........how is that possible?

I only ask because I wish to be well informed also......:)

I meant that her position on abstinence is a responsible one. Yes, that's what I was saying. And you suggested her responsible position (you've agreed she is advocating responsibility) was anti-choice. It seems we're on the same page, what's the problem. The only time I suggested you were irresponsible was in suggesting that her position 'sounds' anti-choice, even though you know she isn't. -SNIP-

Okay, so you agree with her. No need to bite my head off for not agreeing with your view of abstinence. Forgive me for going through well over a hundred pages of posts, many of which implied women should suffer for having sex, and being startled when reading something pro-abstinence from someone pro-choice.

As long as you're pro-choice in that matter of having sex too, it's got nothing to do with me.

As long as you're pro-choice in that matter of having sex too, it's got nothing to do with me.
I am, I just think that more thought should go into that choice than most people give.

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

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

Comatose people are alive but can do neither of these things

Adaptation isn't a technical part of the definition.

However, sensing and responding to the environment is a standard requirement. And yes, a comotose person does sense and respond to the environment. They still have reflexes, their body still responds to chemical stimuli. They still shiver if cold, and so on...

Dem's in the thread. Ask her to define a living organism for you. She has already done so, but if she's feeling kind, she'll probably do so again. I'm not wading through 120 pages to find it.

*Obtain and use nutrients (metabolism)
*Excretes wastes
*Growth and developement
*Senses and responds to stimuli

Other possible requirements are:
*Made of cells (I can't think of anything that is classified as life and doesn't meet this requirement, so it works)
*Reproduction (This one is generally applied to species, not to individuals, or mules and the sterile would not be "alive")

As is my liveer.

As is my liver.

As is my liver.

Your liver is on the development path of a liver. Nothing more nothing less. The embryo is on the development path of a human. IE it is a human at a very ealry stage


Incorrect. Cell fusion occurs within the body. Various stem cells, for instance, have been shown to fuse with other cells in the body.

Do these fusions create individual seperate life forms that begin to follow the life cycle of a human. No. NEXT


If that were true, then the embryo definitely wouldn't be a human being, as its cells would be developing differently from human cells.

You are now being intentionally dense. Do not do this again. The embryo is not a cell. It is not the cells of the embryo that are develoing. It is the embryo itself. Please, the only comparison here between embryos and cells is the size. Its like comparing an arm to a person.


You have yet to support this.

It has its own human DNA and is on the earliest stage of the human life cycle


My heart is its own entity, but is still a part of something else.

The heart is a functional part of something else, the embryo is not


Argument from potential, once again.

A tadpole is on the lifecycle of a frog. This makes it clear that it is an early form of a frog.


Not in the least. Avalon has yet to provide any way other than, "Well it might be a person someday," to distinguish between an individual human cell and an embryo as far as life is concerned. Every individual human organ is "alive" in the same way that an embryo is alive.

Firstly, its not a might. Its a will (aside from obviousl limits to life experianced by all humans. Secondly, the fact that it is developing proves it is a human.


Good question! Until someone can come up with a definition of human person that includes an embryo, and excludes individual human cells or organs, they either admit that they themselves are mass murderers for scratching an arm, or admit that they cannot call women who get abortions murderers.

Cells are parts of a whole. Humans are the whole


If this were necessary, then twins wouldn't count as two separate people and chimeras would be two people.

Please stop doing this. You are taking an arguement in isolation when you know it functions alongside others.


Yes, there are, but you conveniently ignore this one:
Sensing and responding to stimuli

Why do you ignore it? Apparently because you just don't like it.

Comatose people cant do that. Unconsious people cant do that. Does that mean they are dead?

I am, I just think that more thought should go into that choice than most people give.

Tru dat. I, for one, don't see a problem with restricting sex to those of legal age. Mostly because I'm already of legal age. :D

*Obtain and use nutrients (metabolism)

The embryo does this to grow


*Excretes wastes

The embryo's urine is used to create anabolic fluid. Also the resorces given to it at the earlier stages mean that it does not create waste seing as it given only what it needs. Thats not the fault of the organism, its just what it has been given


*Growth and developement

Definitely


*Senses and responds to stimuli

Comatose people dont do this. Are they dead.


Other possible requirements are:
*Made of cells (I can't think of anything that is classified as life and doesn't meet this requirement, so it works)
*Reproduction (This one is generally applied to species, not to individuals, or mules and the sterile would not be "alive")

You deal with these yourself. And yes the embryo is made of cells.

You know what they say about assuming, right?
It makes an @ss out of other people?

uh... Dem.... serious question here...... you seem to know everything.........how is that possible?

I only ask because I wish to be well informed also......:)

I'm not sure if I'm being made fun of here or not...

I definitely don't know everything (although I admit it is hard for me to admit it when I'm wrong). But, since my field is in the biological sciences, I tend to know a lot about biology at least.

Your liver is on the development path of a liver. Nothing more nothing less.

The right signals could send it on another path..

Do these fusions create individual seperate life forms that begin to follow the life cycle of a human. No. NEXT

Irrelevant. We have already demonstrated that the argument from potential is a fallacy.

You are now being intentionally dense. Do not do this again. The embryo is not a cell. It is not the cells of the embryo that are develoing. It is the embryo itself.

Incorrect. The cells are developing, and because they are developing, the embryo is developing. The cells have to develop first.

Please, the only comparison here between embryos and cells is the size. Its like comparing an arm to a person.

The only comparison is the size? Again, your ignorance of biology is astounding.

The heart is a functional part of something else, the embryo is not

A cancer isn't a functional part of something else, but we don't call it a human life. It also has its own unique DNA (or set of DNA) and is developing...

A tadpole is on the lifecycle of a frog. This makes it clear that it is an early form of a frog.

Of course, a tadpole meets all the requirements of life....

Firstly, its not a might. Its a will (aside from obviousl limits to life experianced by all humans.

I would say that a less than 50% chance is a *might*, not a *will*.

Cells are parts of a whole. Humans are the whole

So all cells are part of a human?

Please stop doing this. You are taking an arguement in isolation when you know it functions alongside others.

That argument cannot stand in either case if there are such obvious exceptions to it. "Unique DNA" cannot be a requirement for life if there are two organisms with the same DNA or a single organism with several sets, no matter how many more requirements you pile on.

Comatose people cant do that. Unconsious people cant do that. Does that mean they are dead?

Again, such ignorance of biology. Comotose people absolutely respond to stimuli. Their pupils dilate in response to light. Their reflexes work. Their heart rate speeds up in response to chemicals that cause this. They will begin to choke if something is caught in the esophogus. And so on, and so on...

The fact that you don't understand what it means to "sense and respond to stimuli" does not negate the requirement. No one said you had to consciously do so.

Kicking
Not at the point of elective abortions.

Quote any website or medical book you want, I know for a fact that, that is in error/wrong. I saw it with my own eyes (via ultrasound and a TV monitor) just a few weeks ago and then again two weeks later. An eight week fetus' can kick and squirm and a ten week fetus can dance a jig and squirt all over the place...


(p.s., mote: they don't normally do two ultrasounds so quickly one after the other but one blood test came back odd after the first one and so they wanted another look just to be sure - turns out everything is fine)

Quote any website or medical book you want, I know for a fact that, that is in error/wrong. I saw it with my own eyes (via ultrasound and a TV monitor) just a few weeks ago and then again two weeks later. An eight week fetus' can kick and squirm and a ten week fetus can dance a jig and squirt all over the place...

And, until they write about it on a medical book, you're the only one who'll know that "fact".

And, until they write about it on a medical book, you're the only one who'll know that "fact".

You don't have to believe it from me, go ask a nurse that does ultrasound tests at an OB/GYN clinic...

The right signals could send it on another path.

Can you explain


Irrelevant. We have already demonstrated that the argument from potential is a fallacy.

No you havent, since this isnt an arguement from potential. It IS on the human life cycle. IE IT IS a human in its earlist stage of development. Since it is a human and its alive, it is granted the human right of life


Incorrect. The cells are developing, and because they are developing, the embryo is developing. The cells have to develop first.

The embryo is the one I am talking about not the cells of the embryo. The cells of the embryo are developing in the same way that your cells are. They make up a whole. Are you now going to proceed to argue that because it is a whole human made of developing human cells that it still is not a human? Because


A cancer isn't a functional part of something else, but we don't call it a human life. It also has its own unique DNA (or set of DNA) and is developing....

A cancer is a malfunction, an embryo is as result of an intended biological process.


Of course, a tadpole meets all the requirements of life....

Its an analogy. The tadpole is the earlier stage of the frog life cycle, but it is still a frog. An embryo is the earlier part of the human life cycle but it is still a human.


I would say that a less than 50% chance is a *might*, not a *will*.

Thats only because of its situation. It will develop into a life baring natural causes and acidents. Its just that the level of damge that those things can cause at that stage is higher.


So all cells are part of a human?

Quit the cemantics. All human cells are part of humans. They are part of the human which they make up. The embryo makes up itself, not the woman.


That argument cannot stand in either case if there are such obvious exceptions to it. "Unique DNA" cannot be a requirement for life if there are two organisms with the same DNA or a single organism with several sets, no matter how many more requirements you pile on.

Unique DNA is just one part of it. Individual is another. Twins may have identical DNA but they are two individuals


Again, such ignorance of biology. Comotose people absolutely respond to stimuli. Their pupils dilate in response to light. Their reflexes work. Their heart rate speeds up in response to chemicals that cause this. They will begin to choke if something is caught in the esophogus. And so on, and so on....

And embryos will respond to diffrent stimuli. There growth rates change and as diffrent chemicals enter the womb they alter themselves to compensate.

You don't have to believe it from me, -snip-

I really don't. But, sure, next time I'm near a nurse or doctor I can ask, I will.

The embryo's urine is used to create anabolic fluid.

Incorrect. The embryo does not create urine at all - it doesn't have kidneys or a bladder. A later-stage fetus has these organs and does create urine, which is then released into the amniotic fluid.

Before that, once the bloodstream is developed, wastes are excreted into the mother's bloodstream.

Of course, I never claimed that an embryo didn't excrete wastes. However, to be a living thing, you must meet all of the requirements, not just one, not just two, but all.

Comatose people dont do this. Are they dead.

Yes, they do. Your lack of understanding is not an argument against the criteria.

Quote any website or medical book you want, I know for a fact that, that is in error/wrong. I saw it with my own eyes (via ultrasound and a TV monitor) just a few weeks ago and then again two weeks later. An eight week fetus' can kick and squirm and a ten week fetus can dance a jig and squirt all over the place...

As soon as you explain how it can kick (not have random muscle twitches, not have random movement due to pressures placed upon it) without a nervous system, you can have the Nobel Prize.

Of course, what you were seeing may have simply been random movement.

If a fetus was truly kicking at that point, it is either an older fetus than you think, or it is super-fetus, developing at a much faster rate than all other embryos and fetuses.

(p.s., mote: they don't normally do two ultrasounds so quickly one after the other but one blood test came back odd after the first one and so they wanted another look just to be sure - turns out everything is fine)

Good to hear.

that little bloodstreak in the petri dish, isn't human, they aren't human in my opinion until they have developed human organs, such as heart, brain etc. until then its not self-aware on any level, better that than have the kid dumped on somebody's doorstep.
if you're so pro-life, do us all a favour stop bugging us with your guilt mongering and adopt an unwanted child yourself.

furthermore, if they do make abortions illegal i will personally preform the operation on anybody willing to take the risk free of charge, i'm not trained but you can find information on anything on the internet

Quite frankly I am fed up with this thread and it has become too much of a distraction for me so I will leave it now. The fact is that I am right, and none of you have sucessfully proven to me that an embryo is not a human life and that it does not qulify for the human right of life. Ergo I am right, untill I am proven otherwise which given the level of repetion means you cant do so I am leaving.

Incorrect. The embryo does not create urine at all - it doesn't have kidneys or a bladder. A later-stage fetus has these organs and does create urine, which is then released into the amniotic fluid.

Before that, once the bloodstream is developed, wastes are excreted into the mother's bloodstream.

Of course, I never claimed that an embryo didn't excrete wastes. However, to be a living thing, you must meet all of the requirements, not just one, not just two, but all.


Dont snip and not tell people. Read the rest of that post

Also the resorces given to it at the earlier stages mean that it does not create waste seing as it given only what it needs. Thats not the fault of the organism, its just what it has been given

Quite frankly I am fed up with this thread and it has become too much of a distraction for me so I will leave it now. The fact is that I am right, and none of you have sucessfully proven to me that an embryo is not a human life and that it does not qulify for the human right of life. Ergo I am right, untill I am proven otherwise which given the level of repetion means you cant do so I am leaving.

Bye-bye.

Quite frankly I am fed up with this thread and it has become too much of a distraction for me so I will leave it now. The fact is that I am right, and none of you have sucessfully proven to me that an embryo is not a human life and that it does not qulify for the human right of life. Ergo I am right, untill I am proven otherwise which given the level of repetion means you cant do so I am leaving.
guess who failed philosophy, thats pretty flawed logic there :confused:

Quite frankly I am fed up with this thread and it has become too much of a distraction for me so I will leave it now. The fact is that I am right, and none of you have sucessfully proven to me that an embryo is not a human life and that it does not qulify for the human right of life. Ergo I am right, untill I am proven otherwise which given the level of repetion means you cant do so I am leaving.

You are right because you are right ? :rolleyes:

Interesting....

Can you explainp

Individual cells develop based on the cues given to them. If I give a cell that is developing towards a liver cell a different cue, it may become fat, or fibroblast, or any number of other cells.

No you havent, since this isnt an arguement from potential.

Yes, it is. You are arguing that it will eventually be a human person, therefore it should have the rights of a human person.

It IS on the human life cycle.

So are the separate sperm and egg just before they join.

Since it is a human and its alive, it is granted the human right of life

So human persons don't have to be organisms?

The embryo is the one I am talking about not the cells of the embryo.

And the problem is that you have yet to provide an objective definition of human being that includes embryos but excludes individual cells or organs. Everything you have used thus far is either an argument from potential, or something that applies to individual cells.

A cancer is a malfunction, an embryo is as result of an intended biological process.

Irrelevant, and technically untrue. Biology doesn't "intend" anything - it is not conscious. We are attempting to define what makes a human person with human rights. Thus, we must create a definition that excludes cancer, unless we are going to give cancer human rights.

Its an analogy. The tadpole is the earlier stage of the frog life cycle, but it is still a frog.

And this can be said because the tadpole itself meets all the requirements of life. A frog egg just after being fertilized, however, is not a frog. It is an egg.

Thats only because of its situation. It will develop into a life baring natural causes and acidents.

I hate to break it to you, but those "natural causes and accidents" are part of life.

Quit the cemantics. All human cells are part of humans. They are part of the human which they make up.

Really? So the cells I keep in cell culture are part of a human that they make up? That's news to me. I figured they were just cells in a petri dish.

Unique DNA is just one part of it. Individual is another. Twins may have identical DNA but they are two individuals

Logic is obviously not your strong point. If it must have unique DNA and be individual, then it must meet both requirements, not just one.

Of course, earlier you stated that unique DNA is what makes it individual...

And embryos will respond to diffrent stimuli. There growth rates change and as diffrent chemicals enter the womb they alter themselves to compensate.

Incorrect. An embryo does not do this as an entity. All the individual cells respond to these chemicals, just as the individual cells in my body react differently to different chemicals. The cohesion that leads to system-wide responses is not yet there.

Quite frankly I am fed up with this thread and it has become too much of a distraction for me so I will leave it now. The fact is that I am right, and none of you have sucessfully proven to me that an embryo is not a human life and that it does not qulify for the human right of life. Ergo I am right, untill I am proven otherwise which given the level of repetion means you cant do so I am leaving.

You really don't understand the situation, do you?

It is not up to us to convince you of anything. We are not the ones trying to legislate our views. It is up to you to provide an objective reason for us to accept your view. You have yet to provide anything but emotion and logical fallacies.

Dont snip and not tell people. Read the rest of that post

I read the entirety of the post and responding to that which needed responding to.

Also the resorces given to it at the earlier stages mean that it does not create waste seing as it given only what it needs. Thats not the fault of the organism, its just what it has been given

Do you read? I mean, seriously, did you not read my post? I clearly stated that an embryo DOES create wastes. At first, the individual cells exrete them (thus, it does not excrete wastes as an entity). Once the bloodstream has developed, it excretes them into the mother's bloodstream across the placenta. However, an entity must meet all the requirements of life, not just a few.

You can't just make up explanations to problems you think you see. If you want to argue biology, at least make an attempt to learn about it first.

I'm not sure if I'm being made fun of here or not...

I definitely don't know everything (although I admit it is hard for me to admit it when I'm wrong). But, since my field is in the biological sciences, I tend to know a lot about biology at least.
not making fun of you at all, in fact I have found myself in awe of your knowledge on many subjects, biology is really your forte though.

I support mandatoy abortions for all pregnant females.

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.

And they can tell how old a dead body is by aging effects too. You still haven't answered my question, what is the atomic difference between life and death? How do you know the person is not trapped inside the body, just unable to control it?

I support mandatoy abortions for all pregnant females.

Of all species? o.0

Of all species? o.0

Yes. But mainly humans.

Yes. But mainly humans.

Care to give us your reasons why? I've heard of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/), but they're voluntary.

Care to give us your reasons why? I've heard of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/), but they're voluntary.

I hate people.

Care to give us your reasons why? I've heard of VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/), but they're voluntary.

Also, I like aborting babies.

I hate people.
Also, I like aborting babies.

Come on, you're not even trying.

Incorrect. The embryo does not create urine at all - it doesn't have kidneys or a bladder. A later-stage fetus has these organs and does create urine, which is then released into the amniotic fluid.

Before that, once the bloodstream is developed, wastes are excreted into the mother's bloodstream.

Of course, I never claimed that an embryo didn't excrete wastes. However, to be a living thing, you must meet all of the requirements, not just one, not just two, but all.



Yes, they do. Your lack of understanding is not an argument against the criteria.



As soon as you explain how it can kick (not have random muscle twitches, not have random movement due to pressures placed upon it) without a nervous system, you can have the Nobel Prize.

Of course, what you were seeing may have simply been random movement.

If a fetus was truly kicking at that point, it is either an older fetus than you think, or it is super-fetus, developing at a much faster rate than all other embryos and fetuses.



Good to hear.
Hmm... interesting debate. I'd just like to point out that as I'm sitting looking at my med school lecture on embryology it states that "movements and sensory(touch) responses begin in the 8th week." Soo... for what that's worth. But one thing that I'd like to point out is that many of the arguments that allow for abortion would also justify the killing of an infant that has been born. Especially the convenience argument. What about a premature baby that can't live on it's own? Would it be morally permissable to let one die of exposure? I just really wonder what the real difference is between a 27 week baby that is inside the womb and one that is outside of it. In one case is a womans "choice" over her body to kill the fetus and in the other case it would be considered murder if the mother stabbed the baby in the brain. Most people can see this argument but why don't pro-choicers want to draw a line at some point in pregnancy? They pay lip service to the idea that abortion shouldn't occur and that it shouldn't occur late in pregnancy but oppose any legislation to stop late term abortions.
One other thing I'd like to weigh in on is the idea that an embryo is just a blob of tissue. This blob is one of the most highly organized and amazing structures in nature. (This would have to be said for all species of embryos) It is definately not part the mother's body but instead resides inside of it. I could go on but this is getting rather long so I'll just let it go at that. I don't know if this thread is still really alive anyway.

I don't know if this thread is still really alive anyway.
it is the thred that will never die. :p

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:

I am going to have to dredge this up fpr a response. It's amazing how many posts grew here while I was asleep.

These are not fear tatics. This is the TRUTH. I am a woman and I have had a baby. I delivered my child naturally... no drugs, so I was perfectly aware of everything going on. Can you say that for yourself? Have you had a baby? Have you expereinced ANY process of carrying, delivering and raising a baby? As a matter of fact pregnancy isn't like floating in the clouds on a bubble. My mother was in labor with me for 48 hours... that's two days of pain you can't imagine unless you've been there. There was no over-amplification of any of the statements I made. Just straight-to-your-narrow-brain facts.

I would also like to point out a topic that I brought up earlier regarding a molar pregnancy. I bring this up because it was something I never even knew existed until it happened to me. A partial mole (different from a complete mole) is the result of twins gone bad... if you want the full-on details look it up on the web. To simplify, I had to have chemo-shots because a tumor developed as a direct result of this pregnancy. No that's not dangerous, is it?

Hmm... interesting debate. I'd just like to point out that as I'm sitting looking at my med school lecture on embryology it states that "movements and sensory(touch) responses begin in the 8th week." Soo... for what that's worth. But one thing that I'd like to point out is that many of the arguments that allow for abortion would also justify the killing of an infant that has been born. Especially the convenience argument. What about a premature baby that can't live on it's own? Would it be morally permissable to let one die of exposure? I just really wonder what the real difference is between a 27 week baby that is inside the womb and one that is outside of it. In one case is a womans "choice" over her body to kill the fetus and in the other case it would be considered murder if the mother stabbed the baby in the brain. Most people can see this argument but why don't pro-choicers want to draw a line at some point in pregnancy? They pay lip service to the idea that abortion shouldn't occur and that it shouldn't occur late in pregnancy but oppose any legislation to stop late term abortions.
One other thing I'd like to weigh in on is the idea that an embryo is just a blob of tissue. This blob is one of the most highly organized and amazing structures in nature. (This would have to be said for all species of embryos) It is definately not part the mother's body but instead resides inside of it. I could go on but this is getting rather long so I'll just let it go at that. I don't know if this thread is still really alive anyway.

No one here (except trolls) is advocating baby killing. Once it's out of the mother, she can give it up for adoption "easily". The whole problem is that the fetus can't stay alive outside the mother's womb, but it doesn't have a right to stay there without her consent. So, since you're gonna be a doctor an' all, go work on a way to remove fetuses and embryos without killing them.

Come on, you're not even trying.
I wish I was aborted.

it is the thred that will never die. :p

We're getting some obvious trolls that aren't getting kicked out, so maybe it's showing a few signs of wearing out.

I wish I was aborted.

I'm not your mother, sorry. Nothing I could've done.

I'm Pro-Choice.

Not pro-abort. Not pro-life. I'm pro-choice. I leave decisions up to those involved directly in the pregnancy: IE: The mother and father. If they're big enough to have sex, then they can work out what needs to be done.

Keep in mind I'm basing it off couples engaging in consensual sex, not in instances of rape, incest, illness, and other factors. If it were one of these other factors, most likely, having another opinion would be helpful..especially on illnesses and such..



-Asylum Nova

I'm Pro-Choice.

Not pro-abort. Not pro-life. I'm pro-choice. I leave decisions up to those involved directly in the pregnancy: IE: The mother and father. If they're big enough to have sex, then they can work out what needs to be done.

-Asylum Nova

Well, other than the troll, there's no one "pro-abort" here.

Well, other than the troll, there's no one "pro-abort" here.

I made a trollish post? I was editing while you posted apparently. But even without my additional comments...how am I being a troll? *is curious*

-Asylum Nova

I made a trollish post? I was editing while you posted apparently. But even without my additional comments...how am I being a troll? *is curious*

-Asylum Nova

Not you the other guy posting that he wished he was aborted.

I made a trollish post? I was editing while you posted apparently. But even without my additional comments...how am I being a troll? *is curious*

-Asylum Nova

I'm pretty sure you were not the one being referred to as a troll.

No one here (except trolls) is advocating baby killing. Once it's out of the mother, she can give it up for adoption "easily". The whole problem is that the fetus can't stay alive outside the mother's womb, but it doesn't have a right to stay there without her consent. So, since you're gonna be a doctor an' all, go work on a way to remove fetuses and embryos without killing them.

I get that no one here is advocating baby killing, but I don't think that it is that far off logically. I mean personally my belief in God and in moral absolutes is what prevents me from going down that road. If I didn't believe in God and the afterlife, I wouldn't have any problem with killing unwanted infants. Really without God it wouldn't matter, life is just a unique chemical reaction that is ultimately meaningless, my conciousness is just an illusion performed by nature and my decision are decided by the compilation of the cells of my brain, and body. Since I do believe that there is meaning in the world and that there is a higher power I feel obliged to care for others, even those that are undesirable. So while I could see how a woman would feel imposed upon by the life developing inside her, and that an undesired fetus could feel like a parasite, I believe that it is a seperate human developing in her womb. I'm not claiming that I know when a soul is imparted to a person, but I do think it is before people even know that they're pregnant. I know that the obvious attack on my argument is that you can't legislate morality... however I really think that morality is legislated all the time. If you can't legislate morality why can't people have drunken orgies in a park during daylight. That would seem to be a law based on accepted morality. I think the fact is this argument will never end because of the different worldviews that people bring to it. People with one worldview view the life as being sacred even in the womb and all others see is a parasitic blob of tissue. This is an argument that science in the end is incapable of solving. Calling an embryo life comes down to semantics... some people will accept a def that considers it to be life and some won't. In the end there are many that won't care if it is scientifically defined as a life, their worldview will justify an embryo's destruction.

I made a trollish post? I was editing while you posted apparently. But even without my additional comments...how am I being a troll? *is curious*

-Asylum Nova

No no no, I was refering to The Holy Mtn.

I get that no one here is advocating baby killing, but I don't think that it is that far off logically. I mean personally my belief in God and in moral absolutes is what prevents me from going down that road. If I didn't believe in God and the afterlife, I wouldn't have any problem with killing unwanted infants. Really without God it wouldn't matter, life is just a unique chemical reaction that is ultimately meaningless, my conciousness is just an illusion performed by nature and my decision are decided by the compilation of the cells of my brain, and body. Since I do believe that there is meaning in the world and that there is a higher power I feel obliged to care for others, even those that are undesirable. So while I could see how a woman would feel imposed upon by the life developing inside her, and that an undesired fetus could feel like a parasite, I believe that it is a seperate human developing in her womb. I'm not claiming that I know when a soul is imparted to a person, but I do think it is before people even know that they're pregnant. I know that the obvious attack on my argument is that you can't legislate morality... however I really think that morality is legislated all the time. If you can't legislate morality why can't people have drunken orgies in a park during daylight. That would seem to be a law based on accepted morality. I think the fact is this argument will never end because of the different worldviews that people bring to it. People with one worldview view the life as being sacred even in the womb and all others see is a parasitic blob of tissue. This is an argument that science in the end is incapable of solving. Calling an embryo life comes down to semantics... some people will accept a def that considers it to be life and some won't. In the end there are many that won't care if it is scientifically defined as a life, their worldview will justify an embryo's destruction.

Maybe you'd be a happy baby killer if you didn't believe in God, but that doesn't mean the rest of us would. In fact, I'm willing to bet a lot of us don't believe in God and are not wannabe baby killers.

Maybe you'd be a happy baby killer if you didn't believe in God, but that doesn't mean the rest of us would. In fact, I'm willing to bet a lot of us don't believe in God and are not wannabe baby killers.

My point is just that really there woulndn't be any problem with killing babies that noone really cared about.

My point is just that really there woulndn't be any problem with killing babies that noone really cared about.

You have one twisted morallity there. If you had read anything from the last 128 pages you'd know how ridiculous what you just said is.

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.


I'm pro-choice for one reason: this earth is so f*cking over populated, the last thing we need is more people to speed up it's decline, especially no more North Americans. Lets make life better for those that are already here and stop bringing so many unwanted children into this world.

I'm pro-choice for one reason: this earth is so f*cking over populated, the last thing we need is more people to speed up it's decline, especially no more North Americans. Lets make life better for those that are already here and stop bringing so many unwanted children into this world.

Overpopulation. Good point.

I'm Pro-Choice.

Not pro-abort. Not pro-life. I'm pro-choice. I leave decisions up to those involved directly in the pregnancy: IE: The mother and father. If they're big enough to have sex, then they can work out what needs to be done.

Keep in mind I'm basing it off couples engaging in consensual sex, not in instances of rape, incest, illness, and other factors. If it were one of these other factors, most likely, having another opinion would be helpful..especially on illnesses and such..



-Asylum Nova

I don't really understand how you can be pro-choice and not think that abortion is acceptable. You must think that it's a viable option so I think that honestly you are pro-abortion.

I mean, what would you say if I said that I thought that people molesting their children was wrong and I'm not for that but you know if they keep it in their family that is just fine with me. I mean they're big enough not only to have sex but to actually give birth and keep the child alive while they abuse it. I think in most camps that people would think that I'm for pedophilia and incest. But people want to say that people should have the choice to do something but that they're not for it... in fact they're against it but what right do they have to interfere? Well I'm against pedophilia and the north american man boy lovers association, and I think that I have a right to interfere in what they morally believe to be right.

Overpopulation. Good point.

true,
but doesnt that mean that some people better stop having
sex just for fun and either
a) close their legs and knock it off
b) use a condom
c) or they can get a vaisectemy and have all the sex they want.

In the end, a lot of the abortions I have seen are dumb girls (and some women) who cant keep thier legs closed during high school and college and get pregnant when they are not ready. They see it as an inconveniance, so they get it aborted. Then they think an abortion is just another way to enjoy sex without the worry of having to deal with a new life.

You have one twisted morallity there. If you had read anything from the last 128 pages you'd know how ridiculous what you just said is.

All I'm saying is that if all life is meaningless, what difference does it really make. In the end you're not going to even know that you ever lived, you will just cease to exist. I'm not saying that people that don't believe in God don't have morals but really I don't understand why you would have any moral principles that are hard to accept. You could just go alone with the norms of society, but why? Well it's been fun but I've got to pick up a friend at the airport. Adios.

I don't really understand how you can be pro-choice and not think that abortion is acceptable. You must think that it's a viable option so I think that honestly you are pro-abortion.

Just because you don't understand it, don't make it a less valid point of view.

I mean, what would you say if I said that I thought that people molesting their children was wrong and I'm not for that but you know if they keep it in their family that is just fine with me. I mean they're big enough not only to have sex but to actually give birth and keep the child alive while they abuse it. I think in most camps that people would think that I'm for pedophilia and incest. But people want to say that people should have the choice to do something but that they're not for it... in fact they're against it but what right do they have to interfere? Well I'm against pedophilia and the north american man boy lovers association, and I think that I have a right to interfere in what they morally believe to be right.

Your analogy is wrong. The parents would be hurting their children (who are persons with rights, differently from an embryo, that isn't yet a person and doesn't have rights) with the simple intent to hurt them (as opposed to abortion, where the woman wants to remove the embryo from her body, but there's no way of doing it without killing it).

true,
but doesnt that mean that some people better stop having
sex just for fun and either
a) close their legs and knock it off
b) use a condom
c) or they can get a vaisectemy and have all the sex they want.

In the end, a lot of the abortions I have seen are dumb girls (and some women) who cant keep thier legs closed during high school and college and get pregnant when they are not ready. They see it as an inconveniance, so they get it aborted. Then they think an abortion is just another way to enjoy sex without the worry of having to deal with a new life.

Birth control is fallible. Wanting to enjoy sex without having a kid isn't illegal. You're using the Dirty Whore argument, which has already been thoroughly debunked. Read back a few pages before posting.

I am going to have to dredge this up fpr a response. It's amazing how many posts grew here while I was asleep.

These are not fear tatics. This is the TRUTH. I am a woman and I have had a baby. I delivered my child naturally... no drugs, so I was perfectly aware of everything going on. Can you say that for yourself? Have you had a baby? Have you expereinced ANY process of carrying, delivering and raising a baby? As a matter of fact pregnancy isn't like floating in the clouds on a bubble. My mother was in labor with me for 48 hours... that's two days of pain you can't imagine unless you've been there. There was no over-amplification of any of the statements I made. Just straight-to-your-narrow-brain facts.
I was in labor with my first child for 65 hours with no drugs, I can vouche for the fact that labor is very un-fun.

I would do it again in a heartbeat, but wouldn't think of ever forcing someone else to do it against thier will.

All I'm saying is that if all life is meaningless, what difference does it really make. In the end you're not going to even know that you ever lived, you will just cease to exist. I'm not saying that people that don't believe in God don't have morals but really I don't understand why you would have any moral principles that are hard to accept. You could just go alone with the norms of society, but why? Well it's been fun but I've got to pick up a friend at the airport. Adios.

Life isn't meaningless just because someone doesn't believe in God. Please keep your suicidal tendencies off semi-serious debates.

A lot of people find joy in making the world a better place for future generations, or leaving their mark in history, or making the lives of the people around them better. Just because you can't find a justification for your existence other than following some God's moral code to selfishly get some reward when you die, don't assume everyone else has the same problem.

I was in labor with my first child for 65 hours with no drugs, I can vouche for the fact that labor is very un-fun.

I would do it again in a heartbeat, but wouldn't think of ever forcing someone else to do it against thier will.

Exactly. Thank you.

The whole issue of abortion leaves me with mixed feelings. I don't want to see children brought up in some of the horrible conditions that they are, but everyone has a chance to ultimately be happy. I guess overpopulation is a valid point, but not the best argument for abortion. Religion is important to many people, and the whole "soul" argument, but it's not necessarily where I have problems with the issue.
I have been pro choice all of my life, but also have to admit that there is one child that was never born to be my child, and I now regret it. I would have liked to have been his/her father.

So, I'm taking another position on the whole matter. I am for mandatory birth control, until someone makes an intentional decision to have a baby. They would then have to file a form that they made the decision to have a baby and get whatever done to stop the birth control from functioning. The technology exists today that it could be done. The government would not say no, but it would have to be a conscious decision on the part of the prospective parents, and there would be a three day waiting period to get the "baby pill" (or whatever). No minors could get it, so it would eliminate teenage pregnancies. The birth control could even be for males. Nothing says it has to be for females only. Males could get the new "reversable vasectomy". When they are ready, they go in and have the valve opened and then make a baby with their wife/girlfriend. Then they go back and have the valve shut again. Failure to get it shut again would result in revocation of, oh, I don't know. . .maybe their drivers license.

Okay, it sounds kind of ludicrous, but give it some thought. Would it not be better than the current situation?

What do you think about that idea?

The whole issue of abortion leaves me with mixed feelings. I don't want to see children brought up in some of the horrible conditions that they are, but everyone has a chance to ultimately be happy. I guess overpopulation is a valid point, but not the best argument for abortion. Religion is important to many people, and the whole "soul" argument, but it's not necessarily where I have problems with the issue.
I have been pro choice all of my life, but also have to admit that there is one child that was never born to be my child, and I now regret it. I would have liked to have been his/her father.

So, I'm taking another position on the whole matter. I am for mandatory birth control, until someone makes an intentional decision to have a baby. They would then have to file a form that they made the decision to have a baby and get whatever done to stop the birth control from functioning. The technology exists today that it could be done. The government would not say no, but it would have to be a conscious decision on the part of the prospective parents, and there would be a three day waiting period to get the "baby pill" (or whatever). No minors could get it, so it would eliminate teenage pregnancies. The birth control could even be for males. Nothing says it has to be for females only. Males could get the new "reversable vasectomy". When they are ready, they go in and have the valve opened and then make a baby with their wife/girlfriend. Then they go back and have the valve shut again. Failure to get it shut again would result in revocation of, oh, I don't know. . .maybe their drivers license.

Okay, it sounds kind of ludicrous, but give it some thought. Would it not be better than the current situation?

What do you think about that idea?

Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

I'm sorry you didn't get to be a father, but I'm glad you respected your SO's decision to terminate the pregnancy (assuming that's what happened). She probably loved you all that much more for it.

true,
but doesnt that mean that some people better stop having
sex just for fun and either
a) close their legs and knock it off
b) use a condom
c) or they can get a vaisectemy and have all the sex they want.

In the end, a lot of the abortions I have seen are dumb girls (and some women) who cant keep thier legs closed during high school and college and get pregnant when they are not ready. They see it as an inconveniance, so they get it aborted. Then they think an abortion is just another way to enjoy sex without the worry of having to deal with a new life.

Bullshit myths.

About 1/2 of all women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime.

About 60% of women who have abortions were using contraception when they got pregnant.

Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.

The overall abortion rate has been consistently dropping in the US for 20 years. It has been dropping even more among teenagers.

Your filthy whore (tm) argument is ignorant, misogynist, or both.

The whole issue of abortion leaves me with mixed feelings. I don't want to see children brought up in some of the horrible conditions that they are, but everyone has a chance to ultimately be happy. I guess overpopulation is a valid point, but not the best argument for abortion. Religion is important to many people, and the whole "soul" argument, but it's not necessarily where I have problems with the issue.
I have been pro choice all of my life, but also have to admit that there is one child that was never born to be my child, and I now regret it. I would have liked to have been his/her father.

So, I'm taking another position on the whole matter. I am for mandatory birth control, until someone makes an intentional decision to have a baby. They would then have to file a form that they made the decision to have a baby and get whatever done to stop the birth control from functioning. The technology exists today that it could be done. The government would not say no, but it would have to be a conscious decision on the part of the prospective parents, and there would be a three day waiting period to get the "baby pill" (or whatever). No minors could get it, so it would eliminate teenage pregnancies. The birth control could even be for males. Nothing says it has to be for females only. Males could get the new "reversable vasectomy". When they are ready, they go in and have the valve opened and then make a baby with their wife/girlfriend. Then they go back and have the valve shut again. Failure to get it shut again would result in revocation of, oh, I don't know. . .maybe their drivers license.

Okay, it sounds kind of ludicrous, but give it some thought. Would it not be better than the current situation?

What do you think about that idea?

So you would simply throw out my fundamental rights?

My right to security in my own person, my right to privacy, my right to control my own body ....

Scary stuff.

Your filthy whore (tm) argument is ignorant, misogynist, or both.

Can I gloat just a little bit that people are using the expression I made up? It makes me all giddy to see it on the screen, and makes me feel so cool at the same time. :D

Teehee :D

The whole issue of abortion leaves me with mixed feelings. I don't want to see children brought up in some of the horrible conditions that they are, but everyone has a chance to ultimately be happy. I guess overpopulation is a valid point, but not the best argument for abortion. Religion is important to many people, and the whole "soul" argument, but it's not necessarily where I have problems with the issue.
I have been pro choice all of my life, but also have to admit that there is one child that was never born to be my child, and I now regret it. I would have liked to have been his/her father.

So, I'm taking another position on the whole matter. I am for mandatory birth control, until someone makes an intentional decision to have a baby. They would then have to file a form that they made the decision to have a baby and get whatever done to stop the birth control from functioning. The technology exists today that it could be done. The government would not say no, but it would have to be a conscious decision on the part of the prospective parents, and there would be a three day waiting period to get the "baby pill" (or whatever). No minors could get it, so it would eliminate teenage pregnancies. The birth control could even be for males. Nothing says it has to be for females only. Males could get the new "reversable vasectomy". When they are ready, they go in and have the valve opened and then make a baby with their wife/girlfriend. Then they go back and have the valve shut again. Failure to get it shut again would result in revocation of, oh, I don't know. . .maybe their drivers license.

Okay, it sounds kind of ludicrous, but give it some thought. Would it not be better than the current situation?

What do you think about that idea?

In theory it's a pretty good idea, except that birth control does have health risks of it's own. The reversable vasectomy is also an interesting idea, but how many guys would actually be willing to do that? Well, you are saying that it would be mandatory, but I have a feeling very few men would let that pass into law. It still comes down to forcing someone into doing something with their own body. Very good thoughts though, really.

So you would simply throw out my fundamental rights?

My right to security in my own person, my right to privacy, my right to control my own body ....

Scary stuff.

Yeah, there's that... Gotta find a middle ground, not forcing men to be sterilized, and specially not forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

So you would simply throw out my fundamental rights?

My right to security in my own person, my right to privacy, my right to control my own body ....

Scary stuff.

Well, you would still have the right to control your body in the sense that you would be able to make the decision to create the child. But as for the rest of it, yeah; I guess so. The trade-off for so many abortions and unwanted children, children growing up in horrible conditions, etc., would be the infringement on everyone's rights in that sense. In my hypothetical scenario, Yup; that's what it would mean.

Well, you would still have the right to control your body in the sense that you would be able to make the decision to create the child. But as for the rest of it, yeah; I guess so. The trade-off for so many abortions and unwanted children, children growing up in horrible conditions, etc., would be the infringement on everyone's rights in that sense. In my hypothetical scenario, Yup; that's what it would mean.

I suppose the government could make it voluntary, but give some good incentives. Other than the direct one, I mean.

Well, you would still have the right to control your body in the sense that you would be able to make the decision to create the child. But as for the rest of it, yeah; I guess so. The trade-off for so many abortions and unwanted children, children growing up in horrible conditions, etc., would be the infringement on everyone's rights in that sense. In my hypothetical scenario, Yup; that's what it would mean.

At least in the US, this scheme is unconstitutional.

You can't take over my body and take away my reproductive rights. This is just as bad as banning abortion.

I suppose the government could make it voluntary, but give some good incentives. Other than the direct one, I mean.

Just out of curiousity, what type of incentives? I'm just trying to think of some. Maybe a tax break?

Hmm... interesting debate. I'd just like to point out that as I'm sitting looking at my med school lecture on embryology it states that "movements and sensory(touch) responses begin in the 8th week." Soo... for what that's worth.

Interesting. What book, out of curiosity? All the ones I have seen have placed it closer to 12 weeks.

I just really wonder what the real difference is between a 27 week baby that is inside the womb and one that is outside of it.

No one is talking about 27 weeks. The only way to obtain an abortion that late in this country is if the fetus is already dead, the pregnancy is causing a severe threat to the life or health of the mother, or the fetus has some sort of deformity (chromosomal, usually) that the state has deemed ok to abort.

Most people can see this argument but why don't pro-choicers want to draw a line at some point in pregnancy?

Pretty much every pro-choice person does draw an absolute line. You won't find many, if any, who agree with abortion up to the moment of birth. Most don't agree with it after about 20 weeks.

They pay lip service to the idea that abortion shouldn't occur and that it shouldn't occur late in pregnancy but oppose any legislation to stop late term abortions.

There's a reason for this - being that these abortions are already banned, except in the cases listed above. Any legislation to ban them thus is likely to place the lives of pregnant women in danger, or force them to finish a pregnancy and deliver (a dangerous situation) even if the resulting infant will not live past the end of the day.

Yeah, there's that... Gotta find a middle ground, not forcing men to be sterilized, and specially not forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

We already have mandatory innoculations, by the way. So the line has already been moved a little.

Maybe you'd be a happy baby killer if you didn't believe in God, but that doesn't mean the rest of us would. In fact, I'm willing to bet a lot of us don't believe in God and are not wannabe baby killers.

And some of us do believe in God, but are still disturbed by the statement. I believe there is a God, but I don't need that belief to feel that it is wrong to harm others. It's this crazy human trait known as empathy - everyone but sociopaths seem to have it.

I don't really understand how you can be pro-choice and not think that abortion is acceptable. You must think that it's a viable option so I think that honestly you are pro-abortion.

Not really. I believe that abortion is the wrong decision - and my morals would never allow me to have an elective abortion. However, those decisions stem from *my* religion, and I do not force my religion upon others.

I mean, what would you say if I said that I thought that people molesting their children was wrong and I'm not for that but you know if they keep it in their family that is just fine with me.

I would say that you are creating a strawman argument. Molestation can be objectively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, shown to harm another human being.

In the end, a lot of the abortions I have seen are dumb girls (and some women) who cant keep thier legs closed during high school and college and get pregnant when they are not ready. They see it as an inconveniance, so they get it aborted. Then they think an abortion is just another way to enjoy sex without the worry of having to deal with a new life.

That's interesting and all, but I haven't met many women like that at all. In fact, come to think of it, I've met none.

I've also seen the statistics. A large number of women who have abortions are older and married - often already with kids.

At least in the US, this scheme is unconstitutional.

You can't take over my body and take away my reproductive rights. This is just as bad as banning abortion.

I don't believe I suggested actually taking away your reproductive rights. I did say that the govt would not be able to deny you the right to reproduce. You would just have to get some sort of procedure done, or take a pill, or whatever. (For the purpose of discussion, I'm assuming that the medical profession could have a pretty fool-proof method of accomplishing this in place. But if you want to argue health risks, etc., that's fine, too.)

But if you are saying that any control placed on reproduction is taking away your reproductive rights, in that your rights include creating a child whenever and wherever you want, without any forethought, then I get your point. So is that what you are saying?

I suppose the government could make it voluntary, but give some good incentives. Other than the direct one, I mean.

The government (depending on where you are) could even fund it, so that someone could have it done for free. I can guarrantee my boyfriend (provided it didn't involve actual surgery on the penis) would probably be first in line for any male birth control they could give him.

I don't believe I suggested actually taking away your reproductive rights. I did say that the govt would not be able to deny you the right to reproduce. You would just have to get some sort of procedure done, or take a pill, or whatever. (For the purpose of discussion, I'm assuming that the medical profession could have a pretty fool-proof method of accomplishing this in place. But if you want to argue health risks, etc., that's fine, too.)

But if you are saying that any control placed on reproduction is taking away your reproductive rights, in that your rights include creating a child whenever and wherever you want, without any forethought, then I get your point. So is that what you are saying?

As a voluntary program with incentives, your idea is fine.

But if you cannot see that mandatory sterilization violates basic human rights, then I can't help you.

I am quite fond of you myself when we are not fighting:D
(which hopefully won't be much)
We never fight. We have "frank and open exchanges of ideas." ;)

Its dieing. Death is a form of suffering.



No it isnt. A sperm cell is a sperm cell. It is not developing into anything. It only begins to develop when it fertilises an egg cell. Left to itself in its natural enviroment (in the testis) then it will not develop into anything or grow into anything in any way that the way an embryo will. It is human, and an indivdual life. A sperm cell is merely part of your body, not a body unto itself.
Another assumption? How do you know?

As a voluntary program with incentives, your idea is fine.

But if you cannot see that mandatory sterilization violates basic human rights, then I can't help you.

Sterilization implies a permanent condition. I'm not saying that. My scenario includes the point that it would be reversible. I suggested a three day waiting period because that is what is used for gun purchases. It seems to me that creating a child is much more important that buying a gun, so a short waiting period would not be unreasonable. But even that is not preventing you from procreating. You just go to a doctor, clinic, or hospital to have the procedure reversed after the waiting period is over. Heck, you can even file the form online. Or even eliminate the form and waiting period. Just go and get the procedure. As long as it is a conscious, intentional act. The doctor could file the form for you so that you would still have to have the condition reset back to "non-reproductive mode" after conception has occurred. But you are not sterilized.

Dying. Actually, I disagree with Dem here because death is in the definition of suffering. However it suffers no more than the thousands of skin cells that die on me ever day. My poor suffering skin cells. Now please explain how it is different.



It's going to develop barring some sort of natural or artificial intervention. It's just an earlier stage. It is developing in my body into a mature sperm. I love how you twist this. What is a sperm's purpose? Exactly. It's natural environment, what it's made for is to meet with an egg and fertalize it.

The testis are just where it develops.

Apparently, it's okay to block a baby from coming out during birth and to let it die rather than fulfill it's purpose in life. I mean that IS its natural environment. It is merely a part of your body, not a body unto itself.
Interesting. What is its purpose in life? If it's a boy baby, I mean. Obviously, following the trend of your argument in this thread, the purpose of girls is to be life-support machines for fetuses. But what are boys for?

Just out of curiousity, what type of incentives? I'm just trying to think of some. Maybe a tax break?

Money speaks the loudest. He could also get extra medical benefits, and his SO could get a "free" abortion if there was an accident (even a vasectomy isn't 100% safe). I don't know, they could give all sorts of stuff to encourage volunteering.

Interesting. What is its purpose in life? If it's a boy baby, I mean. Obviously, following the trend of your argument in this thread, the purpose of girls is to be life-support machines for fetuses. But what are boys for?

Boys are the ones who plug in the machines.

We already have mandatory innoculations, by the way. So the line has already been moved a little.

Public health. Also a good point. Ugh, I'm confused!! :(

The government (depending on where you are) could even fund it, so that someone could have it done for free. I can guarrantee my boyfriend (provided it didn't involve actual surgery on the penis) would probably be first in line for any male birth control they could give him.

Yeah, fund it, but do more. Like "get snipped and leave with a brand new mp3 player! talk to our doctors today!" or something else equally obviously intended to catch young men's attention.

Yeah, fund it, but do more. Like "get snipped and leave with a brand new mp3 player! talk to our doctors today!" or something else equally obviously intended to catch young men's attention.

LMAO. Or "Free Pair of Egyptian Cotton Boxers With Every Procedure"!

Interesting. What is its purpose in life? If it's a boy baby, I mean. Obviously, following the trend of your argument in this thread, the purpose of girls is to be life-support machines for fetuses. But what are boys for?

For giving the girls the great honor of bearing their seed?

LMAO. Or "Free Pair of Egyptian Cotton Boxers With Every Procedure"!

Ooooh fancy! :D

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

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

Here are the facts as I see them. If a woman is in danger of losing her life, or the pregnancy was caused by an act of violence (rape), it should be the woman's choice. I DO NOT under any circumstances believe that abortion should be used as an alternate form of birth control.

Here are the facts as I see them. If a woman is in danger of losing her life, or the pregnancy was caused by an act of violence (rape), it should be the woman's choice. I DO NOT under any circumstances believe that abortion should be used as an alternate form of birth control.

No one here says they should be used as an alternate form of birth control. By Eris, I wish people would stop replying to a 131 page thread after reading only the first page, or only the original post.

Boys are the ones who plug in the machines.
So funny and so blood-curdling at the same time. :D (happy times)

Here are the facts as I see them. If a woman is in danger of losing her life, or the pregnancy was caused by an act of violence (rape), it should be the woman's choice. I DO NOT under any circumstances believe that abortion should be used as an alternate form of birth control.

1. Are you saying rape and danger to life are the ONLY circumstances where abortion should be legal? Why?

2. What do you mean by "used as an alternative form of birth control." Do you have any evidence it is so used?

So funny and so blood-curdling at the same time. :D (happy times)

That might have been my sub-intenet. :cool:

Money speaks the loudest. He could also get extra medical benefits, and his SO could get a "free" abortion if there was an accident (even a vasectomy isn't 100% safe). I don't know, they could give all sorts of stuff to encourage volunteering.


First, I know that my idea would never happen, so it's really all for discussion.

That being said, we know pretty well that voluntary "anything" would not work. If someone is responsible enough to volunteer for it, they're responsible enough to practice it on their own. It's the ones who don't bother to practice birth control that I am suggesting be targeted. Those are the ones who end up needing abortions or giving birth to unwanted children (the miniscule number of times that birth control does not work notwithstanding).

So it would have to be something that was a requirement. If the statistics show that a particular group were responsible, then they could be targeted.:sniper: But it seems to be across the boards. Sure, you can argue that welfare recipients could not get a check without obeying the requirement, but there would still be that "basic human rights" argument. But how intrusive is it, really? If the procedure or method were there to accomplish this type of birth control as I have suggested, would not the benefits far outweigh the other issues?

Yeah, fund it, but do more. Like "get snipped and leave with a brand new mp3 player! talk to our doctors today!" or something else equally obviously intended to catch young men's attention.

Or "Get snipped and have a free date with a hooker"

First, I know that my idea would never happen, so it's really all for discussion.

That being said, we know pretty well that voluntary "anything" would not work. If someone is responsible enough to volunteer for it, they're responsible enough to practice it on their own. It's the ones who don't bother to practice birth control that I am suggesting be targeted. Those are the ones who end up needing abortions or giving birth to unwanted children (the miniscule number of times that birth control does not work notwithstanding).

So it would have to be something that was a requirement. If the statistics show that a particular group were responsible, then they could be targeted.:sniper: But it seems to be across the boards. Sure, you can argue that welfare recipients could not get a check without obeying the requirement, but there would still be that "basic human rights" argument. But how intrusive is it, really? If the procedure or method were there to accomplish this type of birth control as I have suggested, would not the benefits far outweigh the other issues?

Talk about a tricky question. I like it.

Doesn't mean I'm able to answer it objectively, though. :(

For giving the girls the great honor of bearing their seed?
Ah, yes. The honor.

I was talking with my mother (irony intended for those who wish to see any), who is pro-choice (irony intended for those who wish to see any), and she said that some of the bizarre anti-choice statements reminded her of that god-awful novel The Handmaid's Tale. Anybody ever read that? It's about this future world in which some undefined pandemic severely reduced human fertility, and all fertile women are enslaved as breeders by the state and loaned out for baby-making. And these women are so reduced as human beings, so lowered to the level of breeding/life-support machines, that they don't even have names anymore. They are called by the name of the guy whose house they are sent to, like labeled property -- "Of-Richard," "Of-Wilfred," etc. The book was actually quite lousy, and my mom and I both especially resent it when real life reminds us of lousy art/literature.

So it would have to be something that was a requirement. If the statistics show that a particular group were responsible, then they could be targeted.:sniper: But it seems to be across the boards. Sure, you can argue that welfare recipients could not get a check without obeying the requirement, but there would still be that "basic human rights" argument. But how intrusive is it, really? If the procedure or method were there to accomplish this type of birth control as I have suggested, would not the benefits far outweigh the other issues?

Don't you know that would ruin the whole welfare proces?!? The more kids you have, the more money you get from welfare!

Or "Get snipped and have a free date with a hooker"

As I understand, after a vasectomy the guy can't get much play for a couple of days. Or weeks. Whatever. But! this could be a better procedure, that heals faster. In which case, a hooker would be the best possible gift with purchase for this.

Ah, yes. The honor.

I was talking with my mother (irony intended for those who wish to see any), who is pro-choice (irony intended for those who wish to see any), and she said that some of the bizarre anti-choice statements reminded her of that god-awful novel The Handmaid's Tale. Anybody ever read that? It's about this future world in which some undefined pandemic severely reduced human fertility, and all fertile women are enslaved as breeders by the state and loaned out for baby-making. And these women are so reduced as human beings, so lowered to the level of breeding/life-support machines, that they don't even have names anymore. They are called by the name of the guy whose house they are sent to, like labeled property -- "Of-Richard," "Of-Wilfred," etc. The book was actually quite lousy, and my mom and I both especially resent it when real life reminds us of lousy art/literature.

*whimper*

*runs off to hide under the bed*

Don't you know that would ruin the whole welfare proces?!? The more kids you have, the more money you get from welfare!

LMAO!

As I understand, after a vasectomy the guy can't get much play for a couple of days. Or weeks. Whatever. But! this could be a better procedure, that heals faster. In which case, a hooker would be the best possible gift with purchase for this.


It would surely get that young male interest that you mentioned. (LOL)
:D

*whimper*

*runs off to hide under the bed*
Yeah, I have that reaction to bad writing, too. ;)

Don't you know that would ruin the whole welfare proces?!? The more kids you have, the more money you get from welfare!


Ah yes. There is that argument. And please understand that I was not trying to be politically incorrect.:rolleyes:

Yeah, I have that reaction to bad writing, too. ;)

But but... the story! No names! *cries*

Ah, yes. The honor.

I was talking with my mother (irony intended for those who wish to see any), who is pro-choice (irony intended for those who wish to see any), and she said that some of the bizarre anti-choice statements reminded her of that god-awful novel The Handmaid's Tale. Anybody ever read that? It's about this future world in which some undefined pandemic severely reduced human fertility, and all fertile women are enslaved as breeders by the state and loaned out for baby-making. And these women are so reduced as human beings, so lowered to the level of breeding/life-support machines, that they don't even have names anymore. They are called by the name of the guy whose house they are sent to, like labeled property -- "Of-Richard," "Of-Wilfred," etc. The book was actually quite lousy, and my mom and I both especially resent it when real life reminds us of lousy art/literature.

Hi, my name is Bob and I am the new F60 incubation model- What do you mean I am not supposed to talk?! F- this! I'm outta here! (How truly horrifying.)

But but... the story! No names! *cries*
Oh, that's the least of it. The book is a big liberal, feminist, secularist American rant, far ahead of its time -- for which I commend it :D -- but it somehow manages to be as boring and grinding as hell. So I cannot recommend it in good conscience.

However, if you're in the mood for that oh-so-fun Cassandra experience, dip in. The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, that's the author's name, I think. But like I said, it's bad, so I'm not recommending it. So don't blame me.

Hi, my name is Bob and I am the new F60 incubation model- What do you mean I am not supposed to talk?! F- this! I'm outta here! (How truly horrifying.)
Not even that much fun. It's the "near future" and it takes place in some mid-western, affluent, suburban hellscape.

EDIT: There was a boring movie made of it, too. That would use up less of your time, if you're curious.

Oh, that's the least of it. The book is a big liberal, feminist, secularist American rant, far ahead of its time -- for which I commend it :D -- but it somehow manages to be as boring and grinding as hell. So I cannot recommend it in good conscience.

However, if you're in the mood for that oh-so-fun Cassandra experience, dip in. The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, that's the author's name, I think. But like I said, it's bad, so I'm not recommending it. So don't blame me.

But... s- s- sc- scary... :(

But... s- s- sc- scary... :(
Now I'm worried you won't be able to sleep tonight. Listen, it's okay. They all run away to Canada in the end. ;) (They do, actually.)

Now I'm worried you won't be able to sleep tonight. Listen, it's okay. They all run away to Canada in the end. ;) (They do, actually.)

Yaaaaaaay!! :D I love Canada. :D

Another assumption? How do you know?
He has died before obviousdly :p

Not even that much fun. It's the "near future" and it takes place in some mid-western, affluent, suburban hellscape.

EDIT: There was a boring movie made of it, too. That would use up less of your time, if you're curious.

Sounds like my imagination is exactly where this plot line needs to stay.

He has died before obviousdly :p
Didn't take, though, did it? Maybe Death gets driven crazy by circular arguments, too. Maybe Avalon has solved the riddle of eternal life.

Oh, that's the least of it. The book is a big liberal, feminist, secularist American rant, far ahead of its time -- for which I commend it :D -- but it somehow manages to be as boring and grinding as hell. So I cannot recommend it in good conscience.


Canadian, surely?

You really don't understand the situation, do you?

It is not up to us to convince you of anything. We are not the ones trying to legislate our views. It is up to you to provide an objective reason for us to accept your view. You have yet to provide anything but emotion and logical fallacies.

I have provided several logical reasons to argue my point. You just refuse to accept them. And ridiculing someones arguement is sort of stupid. It is a valid series of points, like it or not. You disagree with them, thats fine. But that disagreement does not give you the right to say I am stupid or that my arguement is based on logical falacies.

The whole issue of abortion leaves me with mixed feelings. I don't want to see children brought up in some of the horrible conditions that they are, but everyone has a chance to ultimately be happy. I guess overpopulation is a valid point, but not the best argument for abortion. Religion is important to many people, and the whole "soul" argument, but it's not necessarily where I have problems with the issue.
I have been pro choice all of my life, but also have to admit that there is one child that was never born to be my child, and I now regret it. I would have liked to have been his/her father.

So, I'm taking another position on the whole matter. I am for mandatory birth control, until someone makes an intentional decision to have a baby. They would then have to file a form that they made the decision to have a baby and get whatever done to stop the birth control from functioning. The technology exists today that it could be done. The government would not say no, but it would have to be a conscious decision on the part of the prospective parents, and there would be a three day waiting period to get the "baby pill" (or whatever). No minors could get it, so it would eliminate teenage pregnancies. The birth control could even be for males. Nothing says it has to be for females only. Males could get the new "reversable vasectomy". When they are ready, they go in and have the valve opened and then make a baby with their wife/girlfriend. Then they go back and have the valve shut again. Failure to get it shut again would result in revocation of, oh, I don't know. . .maybe their drivers license.

Okay, it sounds kind of ludicrous, but give it some thought. Would it not be better than the current situation?

What do you think about that idea?

isn't that taking away someone's right to do whatever they want with thier body?

I have provided several logical reasons to argue my point. You just refuse to accept them. And ridiculing someones arguement is sort of stupid. It is a valid series of points, like it or not. You disagree with them, thats fine. But that disagreement does not give you the right to say I am stupid or that my arguement is based on logical falacies.

That's right, we can't say your arguments are based on logical fallacies unless they really are. Wait...

I don't think the 8 week fetus I saw was a 'super' baby just because it was kicking and moving a bit... And that it was dancing all over the place at 10 weeks pretty much showed me it was moving under it's own volition and not just jerking body parts around like a plant that is growing pushes through dirt.

But since some people said the nervous system isn't even formed yet, I went and looked around to see what I could find.

Week 7:

With your child's biggest growth spurt until puberty, the embryo more than doubles in size from .16 to .44 inches. The legs and arms extend and grow from the torso and the heart divides into right and left chambers. The forebrain also divides into two hemispheres.
http://www.yourbabytoday.com/babyplace/pregnancy/preg_health/inutero_guide.html

Or another site:

Day 40: Brain waves can be detected.

Week 6: The liver functions fully, and the brain begins to control muscle
movement and organs.

Week 7: The jaw, teeth buds, and gums develop.

Week 8: The unborn child is now referred to as a fetus and has everything
that is found in a fully developed adult.

Week 9: Fingerprints are apparent in the skin, and the grasping reflex is
now present.

Week 10: Squinting, swallowing, and wrinkling of the forehead are added
to the list of the fetus' abilities.
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/develop.htm

Week 8 - (6 Weeks Gestational)
The process of ossification (hardening of the bones) begins as the bones of the fingers and toes have already reached the first joint. Your baby is already getting smarter as his brain continues to develop and grow. Your baby starts to show signs of reflex activity - an automatic response to certain types of stimuli Connecting you and your baby, the umbilical cord with all its blood vessels, are starting to function. In fact, what will be your baby's intestine is forming in the umbilical cord as well. An ultrasound done this week would show your baby's fluttering heart and reflex movements.
http://www.babiesonline.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week8.asp

8th WEEK:
Major organs begin development.
Now about size of hen's egg.
Embryo is 1" long and about 4 grams.
Hands and feet are seen.
Baby is extremely reactive to its environment.
Male sex hormone (testosterone) produced by testes
Masculine development in males - no change in females.
http://www.dcdoctor.com/pages/rightpages_wellnesscenter/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment.html#PREGNANCY-STAGES%20OF%20FETAL%20DEVELOPMENT-embryonic%20development

It looks as though the reflex activity IS supposed to have started by week 8 (as shown with brain waves and reflexes statements above) and by 10 weeks it’s dancing a jig, just like I witnessed (as seen below). It’s not random growth and cell movements (like a plant) it’s reflexes and nervous system

Week 10 - (8 Weeks Gestational)
Your baby’s body systems, such as circulatory, nervous, reproductive and digestive, are fully formed during this time. His heart is beating approximately 160-170 beats per minute. Your baby is 27 - 35 mm or 1.06 - 1.38 inches with ½ the length being attributed to the head.
http://www.babiesonline.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week10.asp


Whatever you think it is, you can’t say it’s just a void clump of cells, that’s just denial of the facts.

Canadian, surely?
No, not Canadian, Captain Cross-Border-Sarcasm. American, but written on the top of a soapbox.

That's right, we can't say your arguments are based on logical fallacies unless they really are. Wait...

They arent. So you cant.

I have provided several logical reasons to argue my point. You just refuse to accept them. And ridiculing someones arguement is sort of stupid. It is a valid series of points, like it or not. You disagree with them, thats fine. But that disagreement does not give you the right to say I am stupid or that my arguement is based on logical falacies.
Well, excuse me, but haven't you been doing that, too, through this whole thread -- simply refusing to accept others' points, that is?

The fact is you have not presented logical arguments in support of your points. To support your argument, you would have to (a) provide sources other than yourself that confirm/prove your statements as to fact (such as medical sources), (b) provide sources other than yourself that agree with your statements as to cause and effect, potentiality, and other non-factual conclusions (such as history, ethics, or philosophy sources), and (c) directly address challenges to your views in such a way as to show that, in fact, your views can withstand those challenges.

Instead, you respond to challenges simply by throwing back a barrage of talking-point-style statements, many of which contradict each other. In fact, you have again and again contradicted yourself, even within individual posts. You state your opinions as if they are facts and when challenged to prove them or justify them, you simply repeat them as if they are their own proof or justification. Over time, your argument has become so confused that I, for one, am starting to see what appear to be cracks in a facade: You claim to honor women's rights but argue for reduction of women's rights; you claim to recognize women as equal human beings, but describe a social function for women akin to machinery; you claim to care about human suffering but then deny any obligation on your part to care for the poor or for unwanted children.

You undermine your own argument. I have pointed this out to you 3 times, including now, and advised you to rethink your approach, but of course, you haven't. Can you blame others for seeing you as stubborn, closed-minded, even arrogant? Can you blame us for losing respect for you as a debater?

You are obviously a zealot and, thus, full of zeal. You are also very young (I checked out your "Ask a Christian" thread). You are talking here with many people who are older than you (I am 42), have more experience in many areas of life, and have more experience in debating issues. You should listen when we suggest you are doing it wrong. Nobody here is interested in silencing anyone else, but no one is interested in being dictated to, either -- nor in pointlessly beating our heads against walls.

*snipped big long insulting post to call someone else names and demean them whom doesn't agree with themself and then pulls the age card... *


:rolleyes:

*Snip**Applauds*

:rolleyes:
Considering the hostile tone of many of your posts here, I'll take that as praise from the master. At least Avalon's inexperienced. What's your excuse?

You claim to honor women's rights but argue for reduction of women's rights;.

Honour womens rights up to the point the contridict other humans rights. Women do not have the right to kill other humans because they are women


you claim to recognize women as equal human beings, but describe a social function for women akin to machinery.

Only in terms of pregnancy are they a machine to keep the fetus alive. They dont have the right to kill the fetus. Obviously they are not machines in complete contex but in the context of pregnancy they are.


you claim to care about human suffering but then deny any obligation on your part to care for the poor or for unwanted children.

I deny that the postion of being pro-life encourages me to do those things. I should do those things anyway, out of regard for fellow humans


You are obviously a zealot and, thus, full of zeal. You are also very young (I checked out your "Ask a Christian" thread). You are talking here with many people who are older than you (I am 42), have more experience in many areas of life, and have more experience in debating issues. You should listen when we suggest you are doing it wrong. Nobody here is interested in silencing anyone else, but no one is interested in being dictated to, either -- nor in pointlessly beating our heads against walls.

Older people =/= more right people.

*Applauds*
I don't mean to scold Avalon. It's clear he has a strong opinion, and if all he wants to do is state it and not be challenged, then he can do that simply by not responding to challenges. But if he is going to respond, I think he needs to be clear about why he is responding. Does he want to be understood? Does he hope to persuade others to agree with him? There are right and wrong ways to go about that.

I don't see debates like this as conflicts. I think they can be useful in the world if we listen, critique, and take critiques openly and honestly. I love it when I can find common ground with someone I thought of as an opponent. If I can't find common ground with someone, I'm not going to just beat them over the head, attacking their views over and over. But if I think I can bridge the gap between us, then I will keep at it. But it has to go both ways.

Considering the hostile tone of many of your posts here, I'll take that as praise from the master. At least Avalon's inexperienced. What's your excuse?


What's my excuse/defense? Let's see here, my post three posts above your personal attack on Avalon post, that's a decent enough defense post for here, for arguing and providing evidence that validates many of Avalon's statements anyway, and additionally for showing that one side is being more 'correct/honest' in this discussion than the other side is when it comes to describing the condition of the pre-born during the predominate abortion age/phase as performed in elective abortions...


I don't mean to scold Avalon. ...

Yes you did. Only now you're trying to pretend you were 'only trying to help' so other people don't think you are big meanie... :p :rolleyes:

*Snip again*I agree with everything you said here too. I didn't support your earlier post because I necessarily support your arguments in general (which I do, by that's by the by); I merely agreed that in order to present debates on a subject such as this (or others, for that matter), rationality and evidence - and a lack of self-contradiction - is of paramount importance. Avalon and others are perfectly entitled to their opinion, and I wish not to deny them of it.

Honour womens rights up to the point the contridict other humans rights. Women do not have the right to kill other humans because they are women



Only in terms of pregnancy are they a machine to keep the fetus alive. They dont have the right to kill the fetus. Obviously they are not machines in complete contex but in the context of pregnancy they are.



I deny that the postion of being pro-life encourages me to do those things. I should do those things anyway, out of regard for fellow humans



Older people =/= more right people.
I'm sorry, Avalon, but this response seems to me to be a blanket rejection of everything I said without real consideration. You are again merely repeating your points. You are insisting on your own rightness about everything and refusing even to allow any legitimacy to others' objections. Yes, it's true that older people are not necessarily wiser people, but a blanket dismissal of the experience gained by others is not avery practical way to go through life. I wasn't suggesting you should agree with our viewpoints. I was merely suggesting that you should consider your techniques of debate and communication in comparison with what others with more experience have done before you.

Do you see how such a dismissive response can be felt as insulting to others? No wonder you're starting to get some of the same treatment back. Read the thread. You'll see we didn't start out that way.

Some people have claimed that I havent provided enough evidence for my claims here. So I am now going to do so

1. The embryo has its own unique DNA

See full link: HERE (http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm)

The Human Genome Project, by having published but one example of a human genome, has made the point that even a solitary copy is meaningful. Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique

2. The Embryo is a seperate entity

See full link: http://www.epm.org/articles/unbornpart.html

A body part, such as the arm or leg, is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body. Every cell of the mother's tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs shares the same genetic code. The unborn child also has a genetic code, but it is distinctly different from his mother's. Every cell of his body is uniquely his, each different than every cell of his mother's body. Often his blood-type is also different, and half the time even his gender is different

3. The Embryo is alive

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/662/1/

http://www.geocities.com/sonyaelflady/nrhhatad.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when4.htm

Full site: http://www.all.org/abac/dni006.htm

The science of human embryology has long demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that these early human embryonic stages to which Dr. Varmus refers are all really developing stages of a whole human being, not just a part of a human being, e.g., not just stem cells, as Dr. Varmus states. While it is true that the single-cell human embryonic zygote, and the multi-cell developing human organism up to the blastocyst stage, is "totipotent" (relatively speaking), it is not scientifically true, as reflected in Dr. Varmus's statement, that it is just a stem cell. Scientifically it is far more than that. A stem cell is only a part of a whole organism; an organism is the whole thing.
Take the example of the "Dolly" experiment. The skin cell that was used as the donor cell was just part of the mother sheep, not the whole mother sheep herself. Or, a skin cell on Joe's face is not Joe; it is just a part of Joe. To destroy the skin cell on Joe's face does not destroy Joe. But to take out Joe's guts and insides does destroy Joe (as happens when living human embryos are the source of stem cells for the kinds of research referred to in this present discussion, as well as the source of gene fragments used in some somatic and germ line gene therapy research).

In defining these stages as just "totipotent stem cells," and leaving out the critical scientific fact that this is a whole human being or organism, Dr. Varmus knowingly misrepresents the full truth about the objective human embryological scientific facts, and in so doing he misleads the U.S. Senate subcommittee on the pivotal point of the debate. Whether their own theoretical argument is that there is no whole human being there yet, or whether it is that there is no human "person" there yet, both of these positions must be grounded on the correct and complete objective scientific facts of human embryology. For Dr. Varmus to selectively pick out bits and pieces of the correct human embryological scientific facts, and to selectively leave out other correct human embryological scientific facts - for whatever reasons - and to present these "selections" as the full official scientific explanation of stem cell research to the U.S. Senate subcommittee, seems to me to fit into the category of scientific fraud.

Indeed, it is very reminiscent of many earlier official scientific obfuscations with their persistent and calculated use of the scientifically discredited term "pre-embryo." In thus referring now to the early stages of the developing human embryo as just "totipotent stem cells," is Dr. Varmus's selective use of this phrase simply the new reincarnation of the old fake "scientific" term "pre-embryo"?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0027.html

Is that enough evidence for you for now?

I'm sorry, Avalon, but this response seems to me to be a blanket rejection of everything I said without real consideration. You are again merely repeating your points. You are insisting on your own rightness about everything and refusing even to allow any legitimacy to others' objections. Yes, it's true that older people are not necessarily wiser people, but a blanket dismissal of the experience gained by others is not avery practical way to go through life. I wasn't suggesting you should agree with our viewpoints. I was merely suggesting that you should consider your techniques of debate and communication in comparison with what others with more experience have done before you.


It wasnt a dismissial. It was an explaination. You explained how I contricted myself. I clarified. I fail to see any problem with that. As to how I conduct myself in the debate. As to my conduct in the debate, from the outset all people have said to me is that womens right to body overides that of the embryo which is blantently not true. She is not losing as much as the embryo by having an abortion.

I don't mean to scold Avalon. It's clear he has a strong opinion, and if all he wants to do is state it and not be challenged, then he can do that simply by not responding to challenges. But if he is going to respond, I think he needs to be clear about why he is responding. Does he want to be understood? Does he hope to persuade others to agree with him? There are right and wrong ways to go about that.

I don't see debates like this as conflicts. I think they can be useful in the world if we listen, critique, and take critiques openly and honestly. I love it when I can find common ground with someone I thought of as an opponent. If I can't find common ground with someone, I'm not going to just beat them over the head, attacking their views over and over. But if I think I can bridge the gap between us, then I will keep at it. But it has to go both ways.

I apologise if I have not been clear. I have been trying as best I can to explain my viewpoints. I dont see how I am not finding common ground. I explain that I know what your viewpoints are, but I also explain about why they can be considered wrong. So far all people on here have been doing is attacking my views and I have shown where those views attacking mine are false.

I have provided several logical reasons to argue my point. You just refuse to accept them.

Yes, yes, very logical. Like, "It is going to be a person so it is a person." and "A living person has both unique DNA and is individual, therefore someone who does not have unique DNA but is individual is a living person."

And ridiculing someones arguement is sort of stupid.

I haven't ridiculed you or your argument. I have pointed out holes in your argument. A logical person would realize that this means they need to modify their argument. You, on the other hand, just keep repeating it.

You disagree with them, thats fine.

As does quite a bit of science. I've noticed how you just make things up too, like, "The embryo must have a use for gills, so I'm just going to say they need them because they are in the womb." or "What! An embryo doesn't have a method for excreting wastes as an entity before the kidneys are developed! I'm just going to make up something like, 'Well, it is only getting what it needs, so it doesn't have wastes' even though it is a completely biologically incorrect statement."

But that disagreement does not give you the right to say I am stupid or that my arguement is based on logical falacies.

I have never said you are stupid.

And you are right, disagreement does not mean that your arguments are based on logical fallacies. However, basing your arguments on logical fallacies (as you do) does mean that I can say that they are.

*snip*

Interesting. I'll look into these links. Could be that the data I have seen in the past is outdated.....

Whatever you think it is, you can’t say it’s just a void clump of cells, that’s just denial of the facts.

I've never made any such comment. In fact, I've never really discussed what I thought of abortion at all, much less my reasons for opposing it.

1. The embryo has its own unique DNA

No one has ever disputed this. We have simply shown that this cannot be a base requirement for assigning humanity.

2. The Embryo is a seperate entity

Again, has not been disputed. It is also, however, a subset of the above. They seem to be arguing that distinct genetic code = indivuality as a person. Again, the problems of twins, chimeras, and even cancer comes into play.

As for the rest of your links, non-biased links are generally expected in a debate. Thus, you can't use dinstinctly anti-abortion links in order to make your point. You will generally need some sort of peer-reviewed scientific article.

Some people have claimed that I havent provided enough evidence for my claims here. So I am now going to do so

1. The embryo has its own unique DNA

See full link: HERE (http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm)



2. The Embryo is a seperate entity

See full link: http://www.epm.org/articles/unbornpart.html



3. The Embryo is alive

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/662/1/

http://www.geocities.com/sonyaelflady/nrhhatad.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when4.htm

Full site: http://www.all.org/abac/dni006.htm



http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0027.html

Is that enough evidence for you for now?


All religious/biased sources. And, seriously, a geocities link?? double-you tee eff...