NationStates Jolt Archive

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

Thats like saying when you say pro-life you need to finish it: pro-life to enlsave a woman by taking away the choice to her body. While we're at it lets start having the state making donating organs mandatory. Also if we are taking away the right to choose what one does with their private property lets beef up the eminent domain usage?

When I say "I am pro-choice" I mean I am for a woman's right to choose.

Even though I am personally "pro-life." (which you can spin in the same way you span "pro-choice:"

"[Pro-life]... you need to finish it: pro-life so women can be enslaved. pro-life makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually slavery...")

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

Pro-choice means pro a woman's right to choose what she wants to happen to her own body. Not your unintelligent emotive bullshittery. You lose.

pro-choice to kill a baby.
Good, we understand each other.

You're missing a fairly basic point here.
This is a baby:
http://livingbeing.com/images/walkergirl1.jpg
This is not a baby yet:
http://www.foodnews.ch/x-plainmefood/10_ernaehrung/images/Foetus_k.jpg

when i say pro-life, i say pro-life for the baby

(pro for the life to not enslave women?? that doesnt make sense. pro for the choicce to kill a baby)

But does the baby want to be unborn?

when i say pro-life, i say pro-life for the baby

(pro for the life to not enslave women?? that doesnt make sense. pro for the choicce to kill a baby)

Pro life removes the womans right to choose what to do with her body. If taking away rights isn't enslaving someone I don't know what is.

when i say pro-life, i say pro-life for the baby

(pro for the life to not enslave women?? that doesnt make sense. pro for the choicce to kill a baby)

Telling her what she can and can't do with her own body?

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?
It's only murder if you're killing a human being. A human being is more than just a lump of mindless human flesh. A fetus early in the pregnancy doesn't meet my definition of human.

And here I was thinking that the choice had to do with whether the baby would be eaten grilled or deep-fried. :rolleyes:

And here I was thinking that the choice had to do with whether the baby would be eaten grilled or deep-fried. :rolleyes:
Don't cook it! You'll ruin the nice, juicy stem cells.

Don't cook it! You'll ruin the nice, juicy stem cells.
Nah--you drain those off first and make a nice gravy with them.

Well... this will probably be locked as a copycat thread. Shall we try to save it by transforming it into a discussion about positivist or Orwellian phrases?

Pro-Life, as opposed to Anti-Abortion

Pro-Choice, as opposed to Pro-Abortion, as opposed to Pro-Abortion-Being-Legal

Compassionate Conservative, as opposed to Capitalistic and Religious

Morality, as opposed to Christian Morality

Global Warming, as opposed to Systematic Destruction of Earth's Protective Atmosphere

Free Thinker, as opposed to Trendy Nay-sayer

No Child Left Behind, as opposed to Standardize Test the Pants Off 'Em

So many more...

Well... this will probably be locked as a copycat thread. Shall we try to save it by transforming it into a discussion about positivist or Orwellian phrases?

Pro-Life, as opposed to Anti-Abortion

Pro-Choice, as opposed to Pro-Abortion, as opposed to Pro-Abortion-Being-Legal

Compassionate Conservative, as opposed to Capitalistic and Religious

Morality, as opposed to Christian Morality

Global Warming, as opposed to Systematic Destruction of Earth's Protective Atmosphere

Free Thinker, as opposed to Trendy Nay-sayer

No Child Left Behind, as opposed to Standardize Test the Pants Off 'Em

So many more...
Nah--dead baby recipes are more fun to talk about.

I wonder why the term pro-choice doesn't include someone choosing to control what happens to her body and not have sex, like plenty of people already do? It's easier, cheaper and far less of a moral dilemma.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?
Oooooohhhhh. The pro-choice crew just crumbled to bits under your scathing critique. Believe me when I say zing.

Ever noticed how people who are against abortion tend to be in favour of the death penalty for adults?

Ever noticed how people who are against abortion tend to be in favour of the death penalty for adults?

Strange, isn't it?

It is about the innocent.

It is about the innocent.
Like the various people who've been killed by some idiot burning down a family planning clinic?

Like the various people who've been killed by some idiot burning down a family planning clinic?
Yes.
Like my Uncle used to say...
"Kill them all and let god sort it out."

I wonder why the term pro-choice doesn't include someone choosing to control what happens to her body and not have sex, like plenty of people already do? It's easier, cheaper and far less of a moral dilemma.

It does. It also includes the choice to use protection if they do decide to have sex, and it also includes the choice to have an abortion if all else fails. Pro-life is anti-all those choices, except the one to not have sex.

Yes.
Like my Uncle used to say...
"Kill them all and let god sort it out."
I really hope this is a wind up and you're not seriously suggesting that a couple of ounces of meat that might become a person in six months time is more worth preserving than an adult who's been through medical school.

I really hope this is a wind up and you're not seriously suggesting that a couple of ounces of meat that might become a person in six months time is more worth preserving than an adult who's been through medical school.
Im saying someone who has been to medical school would be better saving someones life than killing ones.
Thats why we have Wars.

It does. It also includes the choice to use protection if they do decide to have sex, and it also includes the choice to have an abortion if all else fails. Pro-life is anti-all those choices, except the one to not have sex.

Not even that... after all, they do consider a fertilised cell a human being, so it cannot be "punished" for a crime another has commited

Im saying someone who has been to medical school would be better saving someones life than killing ones.
Thats why we have Wars.
I disagree: if people can't afford to look after kids, they shouldn't be having them in the first place. Unfortunately, the religious right has done everything it can to make information about other forms of contraception unavailable to many of those who need to know about this stuff.

I disagree: if people can't afford to look after kids, they shouldn't be having them in the first place. Unfortunately, the religious right has done everything it can to make information about other forms of contraception unavailable to many of those who need to know about this stuff.
But what about people who cant keep their legs shut and continually get it done?

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?Preaching will get you nowhere.

Read my sig. I am pro-choice on EVERYTHING. I am personally anti-abortion (the act) but not anti-abortion (the law/choice). Why? Because there are too many laws interfering in the private lives of people. Period. Untill such time as an unborn child gains the status of "member of society" it is, in legal fact, an unnecessary part of a woman's body that may be disposed of as SHE wishes. Period. If you want to make the abortion case one of "do fetuses have rights as minor citizens", fine. Take it to court and change THAT law/definition. Untill you do, I will continue to support a woman's right to CHOOSE what to do with her own body - just like I will continue to support an individual's right to CHOOSE to smoke/drink/use drugs/own firearms, etc. in ways that do not injure other MEMBERS OF SOCIETY (which fetuses aren't).

So no. being "pro choice"means being "pro choice"... at least if you are a Libertarian (I don't know about "pro-choice/anti-gun" Liberal hypocrites...)

It's only murder if you're killing a human being. A human being is more than just a lump of mindless human flesh. A fetus early in the pregnancy doesn't meet my definition of human.
The issue seems to be more of giving fetuses the status of personhood. Forgive me if I get this wrong, but fetuses are indeed human beings; just not 'persons.' While I would rather the abortion debate be handed back down the states, I take issue with the entire issue of depriving someone of personhood. Because it was the 'oh they're not people' argument that was used to justify the continuation of slavery in the states, and (pre-emptively Godwins self) how Hitler justified the killing of Jews, minorities, mentally ill etc.....

But what about people who cant keep their legs shut and continually get it done?
Have you ever actually met any women?
I suppose it's conceivable that somebody might need to continually get abortions if they're living in some godforsaken recess of the bible belt where the chemists refuse to sell contraceptives, but it's probably more likely that they'd decide to either move somewhere saner or become celibate after one or two. It isn't a very pleasant experience, from what I've been told.

But what about people who cant keep their legs shut and continually get it done?Two Words: Birth Control.

If a Kid comes out of the combination of Condoms + Pill/implant/IUD/Shield/Sponge/RU486/whatever then it is SuperBaby and will probably use its super powers to survive an Abortion too.

Nothing may be 100% effective, but for all intents and purposes, 87% + 92% = 99.99999999999%

The issue seems to be more of giving fetuses the status of personhood. Forgive me if I get this wrong, but fetuses are indeed human beings; just not 'persons.' While I would rather the abortion debate be handed back down the states, I take issue with the entire issue of depriving someone of personhood. Because it was the 'oh they're not people' argument that was used to justify the continuation of slavery in the states, and (pre-emptively Godwins self) how Hitler justified the killing of Jews, minorities, mentally ill etc.....
I wouldn't even dignify that comparison by calling it facile.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?
Nice troll ... not only did you include at least two debate and logic fallicies but you also manage to misrepresent your oposition and make yourself seem ignorant

Congrats

Two Words: Birth Control.

If a Kid comes out of the combination of Condoms + Pill/implant/IUD/Shield/Sponge/RU486/whatever then it is SuperBaby and will probably use its super powers to survive an Abortion too.

Nothing may be 100% effective, but for all intents and purposes, 87% + 92% = 99.99999999999%
Exactly and if they were Super Baby perhaps you should stop trying to kill them.

The issue seems to be more of giving fetuses the status of personhood. Forgive me if I get this wrong, but fetuses are indeed human beings; just not 'persons.' While I would rather the abortion debate be handed back down the states, I take issue with the entire issue of depriving someone of personhood. Because it was the 'oh they're not people' argument that was used to justify the continuation of slavery in the states, and (pre-emptively Godwins self) how Hitler justified the killing of Jews, minorities, mentally ill etc.....

Very good, it's usually 4 or 5 pages into an abortion thread before somebody makes Hitler/Nazi comparisons.:rolleyes:

Two Words: Birth Control.

If a Kid comes out of the combination of Condoms + Pill/implant/IUD/Shield/Sponge/RU486/whatever then it is SuperBaby and will probably use its super powers to survive an Abortion too.

Nothing may be 100% effective, but for all intents and purposes, 87% + 92% = 99.99999999999%
hmmm I must have did my math wrong I got 92 percent of the leftover from 87 percent as 98.96

Have you ever actually met any women?
I suppose it's conceivable that somebody might need to continually get abortions if they're living in some godforsaken recess of the bible belt where the chemists refuse to sell contraceptives, but it's probably more likely that they'd decide to either move somewhere saner or become celibate after one or two. It isn't a very pleasant experience, from what I've been told.
Yes i have met a Woman.
The world dosent revolve around America and especially the South so that is irrelevent.
If they dont like where they live they can shove off.

Very good, it's usually 4 or 5 pages into an abortion thread before somebody makes Hitler/Nazi comparisons.:rolleyes:
Look, I'm sorry I used the comparison - I'm not sorry I brought up the personhood argument tho.

Yes i have met a Woman.
The world dosent revolve around America and especially the South so that is irrelevent.
If they dont like where they live they can shove off.
Apart from a few parts of the middle east where they probably stone any unmarried woman who gets pregnant anyway, I can't imagine where else besides the 'States the population are so poorly informed that they'd imagine the only way to avoid having a kid if they want to get laid is to have an abortion.

Look, I'm sorry I used the comparison - I'm not sorry I brought up the personhood argument tho.

Well I wasn't really offended, just amused by the predictability of abortion threads in general.:p

Ok, here's a question for all the pro-lifers:

Should abortion be legal in the case of rape?

If no, I will be shocked by the barbaric nature of your 'morals' and the apparent return to 10 Commandment Law.

If yes, I'd like to know how the system would work (would you give out abortions to everyone who claimed rape or would there have to be a legal conviction first etc.).

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby.
actually I would finish it "pro-choice not to have my views forced upon you"

Should abortion be legal in the case of rape?

If no, I will be shocked by the barbaric nature of your 'morals' and the apparent return to 10 Commandment Law.

Whoa, hoss. "10 Commandment Law"? I know you're not referring to part about no killing, so which is it?

Should infanticide be legal in cases of rape? A man has kidnapped a woman, brought her to his secret lair, raped her, and kept her until the human is born. Shall we kill this baby, just so the rapist doesn't "win"?

No, no. Stick to the 'rights over own body' arguments; they're somewhat stronger.

Whoa, hoss. "10 Commandment Law"? I know you're not referring to part about no killing, so which is it?

Should infanticide be legal in cases of rape? A man has kidnapped a woman, brought her to his secret lair, raped her, and kept her until the human is born. Shall we kill this baby, just so the rapist doesn't "win"?

No, no. Stick to the 'rights over own body' arguments; they're somewhat stronger.

I'm refering to one of the lesser known rules after the main commandments, one is that if a man rapes a woman he has to pay her father a fine and then marry her.

As most pro-life arguements tend to work on the premise that 'she lost the right to avoid pregnancy when she consented to sex' I think your handling of the rape question is extremely important. By banning abortion even in this case you are clearly saying that the rights of the fetus outrank those of the mother. You're also treating women as little more than baby factories, saying they have no right to choose to remain childless.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby.

Ah, you mean "pro-choice to abort a fetus." Common mistake...

why not allow murder of "born" people?

... but, now that you mention it, I think we should kill infants with severe birth defects, too.

I'm refering to one of the lesser known rules after the main commandments, one is that if a man rapes a woman he has to pay her father a fine and then marry her.

Ah, yes.

No. As you said, most anti-abortionists are in favour of the death penalty and would make sure the immoral rapist suffered.
I'm not personally in favour of capital punishment, but I'm still in favour of harsh punishment.

Yes.
Like my Uncle used to say...
"Kill them all and let god sort it out."

If there has been a better arguement for Mutually Assured Destruction, I haven't heard it.

Apart from a few parts of the middle east where they probably stone any unmarried woman who gets pregnant anyway, I can't imagine where else besides the 'States the population are so poorly informed that they'd imagine the only way to avoid having a kid if they want to get laid is to have an abortion.
There are plenty of herbal remedies.

If there has been a better arguement for Mutually Assured Destruction, I haven't heard it.
It eventually took 12 Statetroopers to take him down.

It eventually took 12 Statetroopers to take him down.

Verily? It is still a good arguement.

I wonder why the term pro-choice doesn't include someone choosing to control what happens to her body and not have sex, like plenty of people already do? It's easier, cheaper and far less of a moral dilemma.

Dunno about you, but I got no moral dillema in relation to having sex.

But what about people who cant keep their legs shut and continually get it done?

The filthy whore argument is all over, eh?

Dunno about you, but I got no moral dillema in relation to having sex.

Do you have a moral dillema in not having sex?

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

When you say pro-life you need to finish it with "...pro-life in the terms that we will use violence, scare-tactics, bombings and even murder anyone who tries to make their own personal moral decision in a way that is entirely legal."

Do you have a moral dillema in not having sex?

Nope.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

I think abortion should be legal, and they should raise the upper limit to about 25 years. And let me decied on who is abortable.

I think abortion should be legal, and they should raise the upper limit to about 25 years. And let me decied on who is abortable.

Maddox?

... but, now that you mention it, I think we should kill infants with severe birth defects, too.
Wholeheartedly agreed upon. We need to get evolution going again! We've already brought it to a grinding halt, and started it in reverse...

Maddox?

Pro-lifers would put them on the same level.

Personally I think everyone should be gassed who deviates from the perfect human. Clean the gene pool up a bit.

Wholeheartedly agreed upon. We need to get evolution going again! We've already brought it to a grinding halt, and started it in reverse...

I think you meant "natural selection". But killing them would be more like "artificial selection", anyway.

ETA: And natural selection can't be stopped, it can only be meddled with.

when you say pro-choice...
... I mean pro-choice on everything, baby. ;)

It does. It also includes the choice to use protection if they do decide to have sex, and it also includes the choice to have an abortion if all else fails. Pro-life is anti-all those choices, except the one to not have sex.

But the most effective choice is not to have sex unless in a safe, secure environment. You're not going to get an ATD (Abstinence Transmitted Disease), but you can easily get an STD, even with condoms and other protection (HPV, anyone?) Plus, I believe that one of the major tenets of British Common Law, innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, should apply to abortion. In this case, the only way aborting a fetus would be justified would be to be able to absolutely, positively, 100% prove that a fetus is not a human being. Since we can't sentence anyone to prison without such proof, it stands to reason that we should apply that to an unborn life before it can be snuffed out without moral danger.

Also, I've heard the extreme proponent of the pro-choice movement (that partial birth abortion be allowed) more often than the extreme proponent of the pro-life movement (no contraceptives). I'm opposed to either extremity, but I find someone promoting the sticking of scissors and the sucking of the brains of a baby almost ready to be born far more morally reprehensible than trying to keep people from putting a sheet of rubber over their whatsit.

Dunno about you, but I got no moral dillema in relation to having sex.

Abortion, not sex.

*snip* Plus, I believe that one of the major tenets of British Common Law, innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, should apply to abortion. In this case, the only way aborting a fetus would be justified would be to be able to absolutely, positively, 100% prove that a fetus is not a human being. Since we can't sentence anyone to prison without such proof, it stands to reason that we should apply that to an unborn life before it can be snuffed out without moral danger. *snip*

I didn't realize in England not being human was punishable by death.

I didn't realize in England not being human was punishable by death.

I'm not saying "the law in Britain" (and I have a suspicion you are being confused on purpose). I'm talking about the Anglo-Saxon tradition of due process and having to prove that rights cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence to show that beyond a reasonable doubt it would not be wrong to follow such a course.

I'm not saying "the law in Britain" (and I have a suspicion you are being confused on purpose). I'm talking about the Anglo-Saxon tradition of due process and having to prove that rights cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence to show that beyond a reasonable doubt it would not be wrong to follow such a course.

Ooh, can we apply the same standard to animal rights?

But the most effective choice is not to have sex unless in a safe, secure environment. You're not going to get an ATD (Abstinence Transmitted Disease), but you can easily get an STD, even with condoms and other protection (HPV, anyone?) Plus, I believe that one of the major tenets of British Common Law, innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, should apply to abortion. In this case, the only way aborting a fetus would be justified would be to be able to absolutely, positively, 100% prove that a fetus is not a human being. Since we can't sentence anyone to prison without such proof, it stands to reason that we should apply that to an unborn life before it can be snuffed out without moral danger.

Okay: here we go.
The burdun of proof is on you. You can't disprove a negative. You must prove it is alive first. Once we conclude thst a fetus being alive isn't a negative, we know it is a possibility.

Now for sake of the argument:
To be dead: one must be a live first.
To be killed: one must be alive first.

Now under what requirements of life does a Fetus meet all criteria? A Virus you should know does not. Viruses by defination are un-dead (not dead nor alive).

Fetuses/embryos in this thread were proven not to meet criteria for equalling life. Link: for last page of thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452486&page=165

Look through it: you'll find the data.

The cells on a fetus are alive, but as a while it is not.

I'm pro-choice because you should have freedom. Govt should butt out of a women's womb! Unless invited ;)

I'm not saying "the law in Britain" (and I have a suspicion you are being confused on purpose). I'm talking about the Anglo-Saxon tradition of due process and having to prove that rights cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence to show that beyond a reasonable doubt it would not be wrong to follow such a course.

In point of fact, due process law is more supportive of the pro-choice position, given the invasiveness into personal decisions and medical treatment necessary to prohibit all forms of abortion (especially if one includes, as so many pro-lifers do, the "morning after" pill).

Partial-birth? Fine by me, so long as the baby would not have been reasonably viable had they just removed it. If the child can survive removal, however, then that's what should be done. It can be put up for adoption of the mother doesn't want it.

At any rate, under no circumstances should a woman be forced to carry a fetus longer than she wants to.

I'm not saying "the law in Britain" (and I have a suspicion you are being confused on purpose). I'm talking about the Anglo-Saxon tradition of due process and having to prove that rights cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence to show that beyond a reasonable doubt it would not be wrong to follow such a course.

So, how come it's fine to deny a woman her rights before proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it would not be wrong to follow such a course?

Okay: here we go.
The burdun of proof is on you. You can't disprove a negative. You must prove it is alive first. Once we conclude thst a fetus being alive isn't a negative, we know it is a possibility.

Now for sake of the argument:
To be dead: one must be a live first.
To be killed: one must be alive first.

Now under what requirements of life does a Fetus meet all criteria? A Virus you should know does not. Viruses by defination are un-dead (not dead nor alive).

Fetuses/embryos in this thread were proven not to meet criteria for equalling life. Link: for last page of thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452486&page=165

Look through it: you'll find the data.

The cells on a fetus are alive, but as a while it is not.

I'm pro-choice because you should have freedom. Govt should butt out of a women's womb! Unless invited ;)

This is not my argument, as I said innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent as you espouse, no matter what you say. You must prove that it does not have life, just as you must prove that it did a crime in order to deny a right (life). A right cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence otherwise. There is no set definition for the beginning of life, either, and there is a vast distinction between a virus, which does not even fall into the five animal kingdoms or have cells, and a fetus. There are various attempts to pin down personhood when X factor is fulfilled- i.e. when you have pain, consciousness, etc. Unfortunately, there is no distinct time at which these factors are truly identifiable, even if some aspects are (like pain hormones). If the earliest of these aspects were sufficient to legally make the fetus a human being, these aspects being heartbeat and brainwaves at 3 weeks to 8 weeks, then most abortions in the United States would be outlawed. Even so, the vast majority of people would not consider a human adult who is lacking certain biological functions (such as being on a respirator, having an artifical heart, brain not functioning in a coma, etc.) no longer human. The most certain certificate of personhood is conception, wherein the person is already mapped out from day one and the cells begin to form to provide form to that human being.

Also, a thread on the NationStates forum is not sufficient evidence for a concrete, solid, beyond a shadow of a doubt 100% verification of much anything. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but that's most likely not the most professional evidence possible.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

pro-choice is to get that damn government out of the lives of individuals and allow the individual to make a choice about the direction of his or her own life; you do not, as another individual, have the right to impose you warped sense of morality on another person. This isn't a theocracy, get used to it.

Didn't anybody here see that other thread dealing with the exact same subject? You know, the one with 165 pages?

This is not my argument, as I said innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent as you espouse, no matter what you say. You must prove that it does not have life, just as you must prove that it did a crime in order to deny a right (life). A right cannot be denied unless there is sufficient evidence otherwise. There is no set definition for the beginning of life, either, and there is a vast distinction between a virus, which does not even fall into the five animal kingdoms or have cells, and a fetus. There are various attempts to pin down personhood when X factor is fulfilled- i.e. when you have pain, consciousness, etc. Unfortunately, there is no distinct time at which these factors are truly identifiable, even if some aspects are (like pain hormones). If the earliest of these aspects were sufficient to legally make the fetus a human being, these aspects being heartbeat and brainwaves at 3 weeks to 8 weeks, then most abortions in the United States would be outlawed. Even so, the vast majority of people would not consider a human adult who is lacking certain biological functions (such as being on a respirator, having an artifical heart, brain not functioning in a coma, etc.) no longer human. The most certain certificate of personhood is conception, wherein the person is already mapped out from day one and the cells begin to form to provide form to that human being.

Also, a thread on the NationStates forum is not sufficient evidence for a concrete, solid, beyond a shadow of a doubt 100% verification of much anything. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, but that's most likely not the most professional evidence possible.

The embryo certainly isn't guilty of anything. But you can't take away the woman's sovereignty over her own internal organs because of the embryo, specially if you can't even prove that it's a human being. Things that aren't human beings don't have rights like human beings, and even human beings don't have the right to inhabit another human's body without consent.

The embryo certainly isn't guilty of anything. But you can't take away the woman's sovereignty over her own internal organs because of the embryo, specially if you can't even prove that it's a human being. Things that aren't human beings don't have rights like human beings, and even human beings don't have the right to inhabit another human's body without consent.
Has there ever been a court case though about the right to inhabit another's body?
I can picture a criminal hiding from cops in a women's womb. Eventually found when women called police.:
"But judge, I have at least the same rights to inhabit a womb as a fetus. More so because I've been proven alive. I'm too old to be aborted. What right doesshe have to remove me?"

Judge looks at him in disbelief: You certainly have a interesting argument.

lol

The embryo certainly isn't guilty of anything. But you can't take away the woman's sovereignty over her own internal organs because of the embryo, specially if you can't even prove that it's a human being. Things that aren't human beings don't have rights like human beings, and even human beings don't have the right to inhabit another human's body without consent.

Why not throw everyone who goes to court in jail? A lot of them you can't prove they didn't commit the crime, so if they can't then throw them in. Also, I didn't say the embryo was guilty of anything- rather, that you cannot take away a right unless you can prove that it's not taking it away. You cannot take away its right unless you can solidly prove it has no rights.

Also, I find the 'human beings don't have the right to inhabit another human's body without consent' bit somewhat amusing. I can just picture a fetus kicking in the cervix, putting down their couch and 1970's era TV inside of the uterus and drinking beer without being allowed to. Is it not consent enough that the woman had sex in the first place, seeing as how one would know that sex is the No. 1 (and only) cause of pregnancy?

Has there ever been a court case though about the right to inhabit another's body?
I can picture a criminal hiding from cops in a women's womb. Eventually found when women called police.:
"But judge, I have at least the same rights to inhabit a womb as a fetus. More so because I've been proven alive. I'm too old to be aborted. What right doesshe have to remove me?"

Judge looks at him in disbelief: You certainly have a interesting argument.

lol

And the pro-lifers picketting the woman's house calling her murderer for daring to want a say on what's going on in her body. Yeah, sadly enough, I can picture it...

And the pro-lifers picketting the woman's house calling her murderer for daring to want a say on what's going on in her body. Yeah, sadly enough, I can picture it...

The first thing I always say to those pro-lifers is, "are you willing to adopt the baby" - 99% of the time, the shrink away, realising that they wouldn't - and that the value of life extends only to the point of imposing their views on another, when the kid pops out, its none of their responsibility.

Why not throw everyone who goes to court in jail? A lot of them you can't prove they didn't commit the crime, so if they can't then throw them in. Also, I didn't say the embryo was guilty of anything- rather, that you cannot take away a right unless you can prove that it's not taking it away. You cannot take away its right unless you can solidly prove it has no rights.

The embryo doesn't have any rights as of yet. You can't take away rights from something that doesn't have any. The person who does have rights in the story is the woman. Funny how you don't seem to be the least bit concerned on proving her guilty of something before taking them away.

Also, I find the 'human beings don't have the right to inhabit another human's body without consent' bit somewhat amusing. I can just picture a fetus kicking in the cervix, putting down their couch and 1970's era TV inside of the uterus and drinking beer without being allowed to. Is it not consent enough that the woman had sex in the first place, seeing as how one would know that sex is the No. 1 (and only) cause of pregnancy?

No, it's not consent enough. Consent to sex is consent to sex, not pregnancy. A woman that uses birth control most definitely has not agreed to become pregnant.

By the way, ever heard of artificial insemination? How about rape, ever heard of rape?

The first thing I always say to those pro-lifers is, "are you willing to adopt the baby" - 99% of the time, the shrink away, realising that they wouldn't - and that the value of life extends only to the point of imposing their views on another, when the kid pops out, its none of their responsibility.

I have yet to see a pro-lifer disprove that...

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?
Pro-choice to be a responsible adult.

The embryo doesn't have any rights as of yet. You can't take away rights from something that doesn't have any. The person who does have rights in the story is the woman. Funny how you don't seem to be the least bit concerned on proving her guilty of something before taking them away.



No, it's not consent enough. Consent to sex is consent to sex, not pregnancy. A woman that uses birth control most definitely has not agreed to become pregnant.
Agreed Erisianna.

Greill, you didn't seriously use the Filthy Whore (tm) argument!?
(and yes it is trademarked)

Agreed Erisianna.

Greill, you didn't seriously use the Filthy Whore (tm) argument!?
(and yes it is trademarked)

At least he was polite about it, instead of just saying "she shoulda kept her legs shut", like so many do. Gotta give him points for that.

The embryo doesn't have any rights as of yet. You can't take away rights from something that doesn't have any. The person who does have rights in the story is the woman. Funny how you don't seem to be the least bit concerned on proving her guilty of something before taking them away.

When do you think it has rights? And what is your justification? There is no right to abortion because there has never been a right to take another's life. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that it has no life, then it wouldn't be any violation of a right and it would be just a service. You wouldn't say that every person have a right to a 56" Plasmascreen TV or a Dodge Viper, would you? Therefore, either it's a violation of a right or it's a service, and in neither case would it be a "right".

No, it's not consent enough. Consent to sex is consent to sex, not pregnancy. A woman that uses birth control most definitely has not agreed to become pregnant.

When you have sex, you must accept the consequences as well, much like any other action. This is especially so when dealing with the rights of others. For instance- let's say I am bringing a four year old to school. I have him in the front seat of my car and let him ride, warning him to put on his seatbelt on, but he does not and I do not push it further. I stop suddenly and he flies through the windshield, and he dies. According to your argument, this doesn't matter because I was merely consenting to drive him from point A to point B, and nothing more. I did not drive to get him killed. I didn't want him to die- I told him to put his seat belt on, but he didn't. I didn't agree to anything else when I consented to drive him, and I don't need to take any responsibility since I was always on the agreed path.

I have yet to see a pro-lifer disprove that...

I would. I love kids.

Yes lets be pro-life and force that young couple who's been together for a couple of years now and who even after taking all precautions got pregnant and now have to drop out of college to take care of the child. They'll live a modest life in a small apartment just outside the nice part of town. The father will work various part time jobs while the mom stays at home to take care of the kid. That is until of course the father disappears and the mom has to start working nightshifts as a host at the stripclub down by the highway. Her child now comes home from school to a babysitter who smokes pot in the bathroom while he tries to do his homework in the kitchen. He'll sometimes catch his mom coming home from work in the early mornings, she'll stop by his room to kiss him goodnight her cloths stinking of alcohol and sex. Eventually she'll meet a man. He's not the most handsome or charming guy and he does have a temper but he pays for dinner and he's nice with her child so she moves in with him. He is about 15 now and has to change schools but that's okay because he always got picked on because his cloths were old and worn and his pants were a couple of sizes too short.

So everything is going fine now, his mom is home more often and his cloths actually fit. That is until he starts to notice something strange going on. He'll come home to find his mom with a blackeye or bruise on her. She'll always have a good excuse for what happened but he knows she's lying. Also on top of that his stepdad has changed. He's more irritable and snaps at him for the smallest thing. He can also hear him yelling at his mom at night from the other room. He tries to ask her about it but it seems his stepdad's anger has spread to her and now whenever she gets a new bruise she comes after him for it. He deals with it and doesn't tell anyone because he knows it's not her fault. It's his stepdad's and he resents him for it. His problems at home affect both his grades and social life. He becomes distant with his peers and his grades start to suffer.

Eventually he reaches the end of highschool and passes by a hair. He starts to apply to various colleges. In the end he only gets accepted to one. Educational scholarships are out of the question and due to his stepdad's income finacial aid won't cover much of it and he has made it very clear that he won't be helping him. He extends himself to the limit: working extra hours, counting every penny he's ever earned, applying for every grant and scholarship he can find, even trying for loans in his own name but he doesn't come close to even making a fraction of the payment. Eventually the deadline comes and goes and he's left without any hope at all. Refusing to continue living the life the way it was he does the only thing he can do and kills himself. His body is found the next day and everyone in the community comments on what a nice boy he was, a little quiet, but nobody ever expected him to do something like this. His mom disappears acouple of weeks later and hasn't been heard from since, but none of that matters since we saved a child's "life" 18 years ago. A victory for us!



Some people are so ignorant it kills me. You talk of life yet you don't even know what kind of life this child is going to live. We have enough kids left without parents, living on the streets or in foster homes being abused. Do all you pro-lifers plan on adobting these kids and showing them a good life or will you just turn your back and pretend like it's not happening? For most of the people here I vote the latter.

It's strange... you are trying to humanize a fetus but at the same time you seem to forget that there are humans involved.

Though I guess as long as you have your iPod, an iced latte from Starbucks, and this weeks issue of Entertainment Weekly you can pretty much block out the mother with her child begging for change on the streets.

When do you think it has rights? And what is your justification? There is no right to abortion because there has never been a right to take another's life. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that it has no life, then it wouldn't be any violation of a right and it would be just a service. You wouldn't say that every person have a right to a 56" Plasmascreen TV or a Dodge Viper, would you? Therefore, either it's a violation of a right or it's a service, and in neither case would it be a "right".

It has rights when the law says it has rights. There is no "right to abort" just as there isn't a "right not to be aborted", but the woman does have sovereignty over her own body. Without it, there is no right to life or self-determination. I could even claim that this "right to abortion" is included in the right to freedom of torture, if you think of the horrors that pregnancy can do and does to women.

When you have sex, you must accept the consequences as well, much like any other action. This is especially so when dealing with the rights of others. For instance- let's say I am bringing a four year old to school. I have him in the front seat of my car and let him ride, warning him to put on his seatbelt on, but he does not and I do not push it further. I stop suddenly and he flies through the windshield, and he dies. According to your argument, this doesn't matter because I was merely consenting to drive him from point A to point B, and nothing more. I did not drive to get him killed. I didn't want him to die- I told him to put his seat belt on, but he didn't. I didn't agree to anything else when I consented to drive him, and I don't need to take any responsibility since I was always on the agreed path.

If you say that by having sex I consent to become pregnant even if I use birth control, you must agree that by having a door you consent to have your home broken into even if you keep it locked.

I would. I love kids.

You say you would, but have you?

Ever noticed how people who are against abortion tend to be in favour of the death penalty for adults?

Ever notice how preserving the life of a fetus is different from punishing people who have forfeited their lives in the action of taking another person's life? Ever notice how people who are for abortion tend to be against the death penalty for adults? How they want to kill the unborn human, yes it is a human, and let the murderer who took another unarguably living persons life go on living and even get out of jail to kill again on good behavior?

Okay: here we go.
The burdun of proof is on you. You can't disprove a negative. You must prove it is alive first. Once we conclude thst a fetus being alive isn't a negative, we know it is a possibility.

"Life begins with the mother's decision."
-Wesley Clark

A human being is a living member of the species homo sapiens. A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete. "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen." -Professor Jerome Lejeune "Regardless of whether one ultimately supports legalized abortion, it is a scientific fact that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Once joined, the combination forms a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code. The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity in the form of an infant at nine months or is terminated pre-maturely at six weeks." -Mark Smith

And on the issue of rape, I support legal abortion in that area. As said, in this case the mother did not consent to sex, life unfairly began without the mothers decision.

Govt should butt out of a women's womb! Unless invited ;)
And if I were govt, what women wouldn't invite me in? ;)

It has rights when the law says it has rights. There is no "right to abort" just as there isn't a "right not to be aborted", but the woman does have sovereignty over her own body. Without it, there is no right to life or self-determination. I could even claim that this "right to abortion" is included in the right to freedom of torture, if you think of the horrors that pregnancy can do and does to women.

I'm not denying that there are rights over one's body, like to not be shot, raped, tortured, etc. This is to protect rights. But, when you try to have one right supercede another, then there is a problem. Seeing as how it is the end of an entire life and that the other may be terrible, but less so, the lesser of two evils should be chosen. For that matter, I do not think that abortion is wrong in cases of medical conditions and rape. However, if it is in the second trimester I would greatly prefer a C-section, seeing as how viability has been greatly increased.

If you say that by having sex I consent to become pregnant even if I use birth control, you must agree that by having a door you consent to have your home broken into even if you keep it locked.

Again, back to my car analogy. The man did not consent tohaving the kid killed, even if he took some (rather weak) precautionary measures. He is still responsible for the child's life.

You say you would, but have you?

Yes.

At least in the United States, the law is pretty clear on abortion. If a fetus is not viable (it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb) it has no life of its own and can be aborted. As viability increases, the fetus's right to life increases, and the State's responsibility to safeguard the fetus's right to life increases. Once the fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be aborted.

Furthermore, as to "partial-birth abortions," you don't go in and suck out a fetus's brain. There is no brain to suck out. Such abortions are performed when a fetus is encephalic. There is no possible way such a fetus could ever survive, and giving birth is dangerous. Would you really risk the mother's life by forcing her to give birth to a body that will never be a person because it has a braincase filled only with water?

At least in the United States, the law is pretty clear on abortion. If a fetus is not viable (it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb) it has no life of its own and can be aborted. As viability increases, the fetus's right to life increases, and the State's responsibility to safeguard the fetus's right to life increases. Once the fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be aborted.

According to Roe v. Wade alone, you would be correct. Unfortunately, later Supreme Court ruling changed this to "not provide a burden for the woman."

Furthermore, as to "partial-birth abortions," you don't go in and suck out a fetus's brain. There is no brain to suck out. Such abortions are performed when a fetus is encephalic. There is no possible way such a fetus could ever survive, and giving birth is dangerous. Would you really risk the mother's life by forcing her to give birth to a body that will never be a person because it has a braincase filled only with water?

This would be one of the cases in which the abortion would be permissible, much like ectopic pregnancies. I would not risk it. However, partial birth abortions can and have been used on third-trimester infants. This is what I am speaking of.

Ever notice how preserving the life of a fetus is different from punishing people who have forfeited their lives in the action of taking another person's life? Ever notice how people who are for abortion tend to be against the death penalty for adults? How they want to kill the unborn human, yes it is a human, and let the murderer who took another unarguably living persons life go on living and even get out of jail to kill again on good behavior?

I'm against death penalty because the justice system is fallible. If it weren't, I'd be all for it.

"Life begins with the mother's decision."
-Wesley Clark

Decision to have a baby? Sure. But deciding to have sex and deciding to have a baby are very different things.

A human being is a living member of the species homo sapiens. A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete. "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen." -Professor Jerome Lejeune "Regardless of whether one ultimately supports legalized abortion, it is a scientific fact that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Once joined, the combination forms a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code. The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity in the form of an infant at nine months or is terminated pre-maturely at six weeks." -Mark Smith

I won't dispute the issue of whether or not it's a living human being because I'm no expert in that area. I'll concede that in my arguments for the sake of practicality. Let's say someone, a fully grown adult, undisputably a person with rights, somehow managed to shrink himself to the size of a fetus and crawled into your body without your authorization. This person then starts living in one of your internal organs and feeding by taking nutrients directly from your blood. Don't you think you're perfectly within your rights to have this person "evicted" from inside you?

And on the issue of rape, I support legal abortion in that area. As said, in this case the mother did not consent to sex, life unfairly began without the mothers decision.

Well, at least you're more reasonable than Avalon II. :D

And if I were govt, what women wouldn't invite me in? ;)

*shudder*

I'm not denying that there are rights over one's body, like to not be shot, raped, tortured, etc. This is to protect rights. But, when you try to have one right supercede another, then there is a problem. Seeing as how it is the end of an entire life and that the other may be terrible, but less so, the lesser of two evils should be chosen. For that matter, I do not think that abortion is wrong in cases of medical conditions and rape. However, if it is in the second trimester I would greatly prefer a C-section, seeing as how viability has been greatly increased.

There is no such thing as "one right supercede another", there is one person violating another's rights and the violated person taking those rights back.

Again, back to my car analogy. The man did not consent tohaving the kid killed, even if he took some (rather weak) precautionary measures. He is still responsible for the child's life.

I don't see how this applies. Care to explain?

Yes.

Good for you! Do you believe the government should've forced you to... do whatever it is you did?

This would be one of the cases in which the abortion would be permissible, much like ectopic pregnancies. I would not risk it. However, partial birth abortions can and have been used on third-trimester infants. This is what I am speaking of.
Which, as it has been pointed out to death on this forum, counts for less than 2% of all abortions performed. Indeed, it is illegal unless there is medical nessciety, such as the life of the mother.

Stop with the scare tactics of babies having their brains sucked out.

At least in the United States, the law is pretty clear on abortion. If a fetus is not viable (it cannot survive outside of the mother's womb) it has no life of its own and can be aborted. As viability increases, the fetus's right to life increases, and the State's responsibility to safeguard the fetus's right to life increases. Once the fetus can survive on its own, it cannot be aborted. *snip*

I have no problem with that.

I won't dispute the issue of whether or not it's a living human being because I'm no expert in that area. I'll concede that in my arguments for the sake of practicality. Let's say someone, a fully grown adult, undisputably a person with rights, somehow managed to shrink himself to the size of a fetus and crawled into your body without your authorization. This person then starts living in one of your internal organs and feeding by taking nutrients directly from your blood. Don't you think you're perfectly within your rights to have this person "evicted" from inside you?

He is, without a doubt, intentionally causing harm to me. I did nothing to deserve it, as he went into me unfairly. In order to save my life, it would be admissable to stop him from causing further harm to me. Of course, if it would be possible to stop his crime without killing him, then that course of action should be taken. However, a fetus is not intentionally trying to kill the mother, and about 98% of the time (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, who are pro-choice) the mother consented to sex. The intention of an abortion, 93% of the time (AGI again), is to kill the fetus. I would support the medical abortion because it is to save the mother, not to kill the fetus. That is why, in case of viability in the second trimester and beyond, I would rather have the fetus removed by c-section.

"Life begins with the mother's decision."
-Wesley Clark
And a retired general is, of course, the best source of knowledge about human growth and devlopment during pregnancy.

"Regardless of whether one ultimately supports legalized abortion, it is a scientific fact that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Once joined, the combination forms a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code. The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity in the form of an infant at nine months or is terminated pre-maturely at six weeks." -Mark Smith
Who is Mark Smith?

Which, as it has been pointed out to death on this forum, counts for less than 2% of all abortions performed. Indeed, it is illegal unless there is medical nessciety, such as the life of the mother.

Stop with the scare tactics of babies having their brains sucked out.

Fewer people are murdered by being pushed out of windows than are shot to be killed. Since it happens less, does that make it OK?

Also, this only came to be with the partial-birth abortion ban. It should stay this way, obviously.

The intention of an abortion, 93% of the time (AGI again), is to kill the fetus. I would support the medical abortion because it is to save the mother, not to kill the fetus. That is why, in case of viability in the second trimester and beyond, I would rather have the fetus removed by c-section.
I'd say 100% of abortions are with intent to "kill" the fetus. Even if the secondary reason is save the mother from death. You are purposely ending life support for the fetus.

I mean, if the women's life is in danger, do these count as accidental abortions? :eek:

In second trimester th fetus won't survive C-section vecause it hasn';t developed enough.
Third trimester I agree with you Greill, but second it does'nt even have the brain fully yet.

Why does everyone insist on telling others what to do? :headbang:

To tell someone that they are wrong for believing 'Pro-Choice' is just being an asshole.

Likewise to tell someone who is 'Pro-Life' that they are wrong is also just being an asshole.

Until you actually have to make the choice whether to have an abortion or not it doesn't apply to you. If someone else chooses to have an abortion they are not murdering you or your baby, so don't take it as a personal attack. These people are not out to get you. Forcing your beliefs on anyone is just being an asshole, so really, just shut the hell up.

He is, without a doubt, intentionally causing harm to me. I did nothing to deserve it, as he went into me unfairly. In order to save my life, it would be admissable to stop him from causing further harm to me. Of course, if it would be possible to stop his crime without killing him, then that course of action should be taken. However, a fetus is not intentionally trying to kill the mother, and about 98% of the time (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, who are pro-choice) the mother consented to sex. The intention of an abortion, 93% of the time (AGI again), is to kill the fetus. I would support the medical abortion because it is to save the mother, not to kill the fetus. That is why, in case of viability in the second trimester and beyond, I would rather have the fetus removed by c-section.

He's not intentionally harming you, he just doesn't have a a house to live in, or food. It'll cause you a great deal of discomfort, but it probably won't kill you.

Again, consent to sex != consent to pregnancy. That should be pretty obvious. If she wanted to have a baby in the first place, she wouldn't be seeking an abortion now, would she?

I'm against death penalty because the justice system is fallible. If it weren't, I'd be all for it.

Fallible, how so?

Decision to have a baby? Sure. But deciding to have sex and deciding to have a baby are very different things.

By deciding to have sex, you are on some level giving consent to have a baby. When you commit an action, whether you truly want to or not, you give your consent on some level to accept the consequences. Condoms, birth control pills, morning after, etc. are all things to help avoid or decrease the likeliness of consequences such as a baby.

I won't dispute the issue of whether or not it's a living human being because I'm no expert in that area. I'll concede that in my arguments for the sake of practicality. Let's say someone, a fully grown adult, undisputably a person with rights, somehow managed to shrink himself to the size of a fetus and crawled into your body without your authorization. This person then starts living in one of your internal organs and feeding by taking nutrients directly from your blood. Don't you think you're perfectly within your rights to have this person "evicted" from inside you?

Ewww. But this is a bit of stretch. I did not commit any action that had any possibility of having a shrunken person climb inside me. By having sex someone knows of the consequences that can result, having a child. What action could have possibly brought this about? And if I committed this action which brought about this consequence then I essentially gave consent to him coming into me and thus do not have the right to remove him. However if he is forced into me unwillingly (Rape) or his existence endangers my life (where birth of child endangers mother) then yes I do have the right and support the right to remove him, consent, consequences or not.

Well, at least you're more reasonable than Avalon II. :D

I'm sure I'm also sexier:D

*shudder*

It's the truth, and women know it.

Why does everyone insist on telling others what to do? :headbang:

To tell someone that they are wrong for believing 'Pro-Choice' is just being an asshole.

Likewise to tell someone who is 'Pro-Life' that they are wrong is also just being an asshole.

Until you actually have to make the choice whether to have an abortion or not it doesn't apply to you. If someone else chooses to have an abortion they are not murdering you or your baby, so don't take it as a personal attack. These people are not out to get you. Forcing your beliefs on anyone is just being an asshole, so really, just shut the hell up.

As someone who is pro-choice, I have nothing against someone who is morally against abortions. I wouldn't move a finger to change their decisions. The problem starts when they want to keep me from making mine. I can't just shut up and let them take my rights away.

I know, I know, internet forum, blah blah blah.

Fallible, how so?

They can make mistakes. Arrest innocent people, let criminals go. I think it's bad enough that innocent people can lose years of their lives in jail until the sentence is finally reversed, but there's no way to even try to make things up to the innocent people who were given death penalty.

By deciding to have sex, you are on some level giving consent to have a baby. When you commit an action, whether you truly want to or not, you give your consent on some level to accept the consequences. Condoms, birth control pills, morning after, etc. are all things to help avoid or decrease the likeliness of consequences such as a baby.

Again, by having a door, do you consent to having your home broken into? Of course people that engage in sexual activity have to be aware of the possible consequences, STDs, pregnancy, but that doesn't mean they accept it and have to let these consequences be carried to their fullest extent should they happen.

Ewww. But this is a bit of stretch. I did not commit any action that had any possibility of having a shrunken person climb inside me. By having sex someone knows of the consequences that can result, having a child. What action could have possibly brought this about? And if I committed this action which brought about this consequence then I essentially gave consent to him coming into me and thus do not have the right to remove him.

Again, by having a door, do you consent to have your home broken into?

However if he is forced into me unwillingly (Rape) or his existence endangers my life (where birth of child endangers mother) then yes I do have the right and support the right to remove him, consent, consequences or not.

We're in agreement here.

On a another note, can't remember where I saw this, but someone said abortions would decrease child abuse. That is statistically proven false.

And Mark Smith is "A conservative Commentator in the National Media." Dubbed by Ann Coulter "One of the fastest-rising legal stars in the country."

And I gotta go to bed now, with the way this thread has been going. I suspect I'll hve pages of replies to read, taking time I don't have. And as such this may be the last time I post here so, incase it is adios, good talking/arguins/agreeing with you all.

This would be one of the cases in which the abortion would be permissible, much like ectopic pregnancies. I would not risk it. However, partial birth abortions can and have been used on third-trimester infants. This is what I am speaking of.

Third-trimester abortions can only happen in extreme cases in this country. Basically, they occur in cases where the fetus is already dead, will be dead soon after any type of birth (severe hydrocephalus being an example of this and the woman being in danger), the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is severely chromosomally or physically deformed (the severity varies from state to state).

Dilation and extraction, or another procedure (which can more safely be used in the 2nd trimester than later) known as dilation and evacuation occur in these sorts of cases. These are the procedures which can safely be used in these cases, so why are you against them? Would you prefer that a woman be forced to carry to term when the fetus is already dead and will begin rotting inside of her? Or should she carry to term when it provides a risk to her health or life? Or should she carry to term when the fetus will not live more than a few minutes after birth?

A human being is a living member of the species homo sapiens.

Does it have to meet all of the biological requirements to be deemed an organism?

A human being, from the moment of fertilization, is genetically complete.

Every cell in my body, save my mature eggs, are "genetically complete". Every single one contains all necessary information to create an entire human being. Does that make each of my skin cells human beings?

And all human beings are not truly "genetically complete" from fertilization on. Some human beings are chimeras, developed from the fusion of two separate embryos with two separate sets of DNA. These people have two separate sets of DNA in their bodies, with parts developed from one set and parts developed from another. They are not "genetically complete" until the fusion of the two embryos.

"If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen." -Professor Jerome Lejeune

I could just as well say, "If a stem cell is not a liver, it could never become a liver, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen."

Of course, a stem cell does become a liver cell, which divides and populates the liver, thus becoming the liver....

Meanwhile, quite a bit is added to the zygote - nutrients, hormones, etc.

"Regardless of whether one ultimately supports legalized abortion, it is a scientific fact that human life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg. Once joined, the combination forms a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code. The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity in the form of an infant at nine months or is terminated pre-maturely at six weeks." -Mark Smith

This is false. Please look up chimeras.

And on the issue of rape, I support legal abortion in that area. As said, in this case the mother did not consent to sex, life unfairly began without the mothers decision.

Uh oh, it's the dirty whore argument again. "Women who choose to have sex give up their sovereign rights to their bodies...."

Also, I've heard the extreme proponent of the pro-choice movement (that partial birth abortion be allowed) more often than the extreme proponent of the pro-life movement (no contraceptives).

How many proponents of the pro-choice movement have argued that dilation and extraction should be used in any more cases than it already is - when the woman's life is in danger, the fetus is already dead, the fetus has a condition from which it will die soon after birth, or the fetus is chromosomally deficient or deformed?

... but, now that you mention it, I think we should kill infants with severe birth defects, too.


I was going to yell at you for this, then I realized you were being sarcastic. Sorry.

Yes lets be pro-life and force that young couple who's been together for a couple of years now and who even after taking all precautions got pregnant and now have to drop out of college to take care of the child.

Hey, let's not forget the daughter of that nice Christian couple who were so embarassed by sex that they neglected to tell her where babies come from... ... oh yes, it happens.

... but, now that you mention it, I think we should kill infants with severe birth defects, too.

I was going to yell at you for this, then I realized you were being sarcastic. Sorry.

Who said I was being sarcastic?

I meant every word of it.

And Mark Smith is "A conservative Commentator in the National Media." Dubbed by Ann Coulter "One of the fastest-rising legal stars in the country."
And so a conservative commentor is somehow knowledgeable about medical matters? And a recomendation from Ann Coulter is NOT what I call something that enhances the repuation and credability of a person. I wouldn't take a recomendation for a McDonalds from her.

Fewer people are murdered by being pushed out of windows than are shot to be killed. Since it happens less, does that make it OK?
Your analogy makes no sense.

Also, this only came to be with the partial-birth abortion ban. It should stay this way, obviously.
No, this was pre-ban. I would highly recomend you to go tangle with The Cat-Tribes over this. He LOVES to set folks like you straight on the numbers.

Locked per moderator review.

Re-opened, apologies to those debating in this thread.

--snip--
And Mark Smith is "A conservative Commentator in the National Media." Dubbed by Ann Coulter "One of the fastest-rising legal stars in the country."
--snip--

You have GOT to be kidding.

This makes Mark Smith no more than a toady. I wouldn't trust Ann Coulter to recommend a life vest if I were drowning.

Personally, I don't see the difference between a foetus and a tumour. They're both growing, tumours can become quite advanced and complex, with all sorts of body parts, and in the case of an abortion, they're both unwanted.

People keep bringing up the 'humanity' of the foetus, but until the foetus is a human, it's a foetus. If some guys nick some rolls of steel, you don't arrest them for stealing a 'potential' BMW, you arrest them for stealing some pieces of metal. Similarly, to claim that aborting a foetus is killing a 'potential' human is absurd. They're squishing a bunch of cells that are going to cause them much suffering and inconvenience. More power to them, I say.

You have GOT to be kidding.

This makes Mark Smith no more than a toady. I wouldn't trust Ann Coulter to recommend a life vest if I were drowning.

Agreed, Ann is very prejudiced and baised. He said he wanted to kill democrats in the past. She is as bad as Pat Roberson sounds like he is.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Who said I was being sarcastic?

I meant every word of it.


Well, I was born with a birth defect. You think I should be killed? Look -- my view on abortion is that it's not something I would do, but I'm a man: I'll never have to make that decision. Should fetuses found to have genetic defects be aborted, simply for that reason? IMO, no. However, I do not feel that I have the right to tell a woman who feels that that may be too much for her to deal with that she can't abort. Being pro-choice means just that -- supprting the right to choose. When did pro-life become about the right to dictate to someone else? The pro-life side is always concerned about the unborn baby. Why does the woman not matter?

Well, I was born with a birth defect. You think I should be killed? Look -- my view on abortion is that it's not something I would do, but I'm a man: I'll never have to make that decision. Should fetuses found to have genetic defects be aborted, simply for that reason? IMO, no. However, I do not feel that I have the right to tell a woman who feels that that may be too much for her to deal with that she can't abort. Being pro-choice means just that -- supprting the right to choose. When did pro-life become about the right to dictate to someone else? The pro-life side is always concerned about the unborn baby. Why does the woman not matter?

What kind of birth defect?
Was it serious?

What kind of birth defect?
Was it serious?


Spina Bifida. Yeah, pretty serious, I'm in a wheelchair.

Well, I was born with a birth defect. You think I should be killed? Look -- my view on abortion is that it's not something I would do, but I'm a man: I'll never have to make that decision. Should fetuses found to have genetic defects be aborted, simply for that reason? IMO, no. However, I do not feel that I have the right to tell a woman who feels that that may be too much for her to deal with that she can't abort. Being pro-choice means just that -- supprting the right to choose. When did pro-life become about the right to dictate to someone else? The pro-life side is always concerned about the unborn baby. Why does the woman not matter?

Thank you.

Well, I was born with a birth defect. You think I should be killed?

You apparently missed (or ignored) the qualifier "severe". If you are capable of typing coherent arguments on an Internet forum (and, indeed, you are), then yours clearly does not fall into the range of birth defects that I believe should be aborted... or humanely euthanized after birth.

Re: Spina Bifida: it is most certainly a severe condition.
To me it seems that pro-choice and pro-life preferences tend to coincide with different ideas about 'respect'. Pro-choice seems usually to follow from a 'respect for life' view, where-as pro-life tends to be in line with a 'respect for the sanctity of life'.
While I can appreciate arguments on both sides of this divide, one argument that I find silly in the extreme is the 'having sex is consenting to get pregnant' argument.

That's about as true as the statement 'crossing the road is consenting to being run-over'.

Re: Spina Bifida: it is most certainly a severe condition.


True enough. Thanks for the assist. After I fumed about what I thought he said, I think I understand what he actually meant. He's talking about severly retarded. I still disagree with him, though.

The world needs to understand the following.

For every baby that is 'not born' in the United States, or any other industrialised nation for that matter, more resources are avaible for the childern already living in 3rd world countries.

I can't understand how 'pro-life' people can live with themselves, knowing that by chaining themselves to the door of an abortion clinic they are setting in motiong a chain of events that will lead to the death of a child in zimbabwe from starvaton and dehydration.

... you need to finish it: pro-choice to kill a baby. pro-choice makes it sound fit for a democracy, when it is actually murder. why not allow murder of "born" people? shouldnt we have teh choice to kill our worst enemy whom we hate?Yes. In my case it would be a real baby (the 'baby' you refer to, as I am sure has been pointed out, only has the potential to become a baby person).

Not pro-choice, by the way. Pro-abortion!