NationStates Jolt Archive

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population. In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against PFFA for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also agreed that PP is a racist organization that targets minority women.

http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population.
Okay, so Margaret Sanger was an ass. What does that have to do with Planned Parenthood now?
Answer: Nothing. Sanger is dead. Organizations change over time, and Planned Parenthood is no exception.
The lawyer also agreed that PP is a racist organization that targets minority women.
I don't care how many lawyers agree with a statement, I care about actual evidence.

I not been posting on here long, but all I can say is "here we go again"

Anyway. Abortion should not be banned.

Destruction of a bunch of cells is not murder...

I find it incredible hard to care.26

I need facts, not unsupported statements.

And also, abortion is not murdering babies. Babies have been born, aborted embryos have not.

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

Okay, so Margaret Sanger was an ass. What does that have to do with Planned Parenthood now?
Answer: Nothing. Sanger is dead. Organizations change over time, and Planned Parenthood is no exception.

I don't care how many lawyers agree with a statement, I care about actual evidence.

i dont believe in condoms, but this might convince you in that it is wrong. i got this from the same article:

It's not surprising that the condom types distributed by PPFA that were tested finished 14th, 22nd, and 23rd (out of 23 types tested). In fact, the PPFA condoms that ranked 22nd and 23rd were the only condoms rated "poor" on strength.34

Innefective condoms generate more repeat business for the PPFA.

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)Really depends on your view, I suppose. To me, 40 million foetuses/zygotes/embryos have been legally killed since the case to which you refer.

I could express why I feel that way, but you might as well just search the forum for 'abortion' and all the many reasons will be detailed 1,000,001 times.

Godwins Law
"She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin,"

i dont believe in condoms, but this might convince you in that it is wrong. i got this from the same article:So first, they want to eliminate the black population, but then they use faulty material to try and achieve that goal?
Yes, that makes sense (not)..

I await the day when artificial valves (or something) can be implanted to prevent semen from being accidentally transmitted, thus getting rid of this whole issue.

more than 40 million babies have been murdered

hey except abortion isn't murder

So first, they want to eliminate the black population, but then they use faulty material to try and achieve that goal?
Yes, that makes sense (not)..

they want to generate as much money as possible and kill of the black population...

Hey Mullah Omar, you should have put "Inshallah, Victory over the infidels and reign of sharia taliban in the US. Inshallah, allahu ackbar!" As the title of this thread instead of "lets not see the blah blah blah."

When you get right down to it, this thread just goes to show there haven't been enough abortions in the last 3 decades..
:rolleyes:
(I'm kidding, I'm kidding... I don't wish retro-active non-existence for any of you)

Hey Mullah Omar, you should have put "Inshallah, Victory over the infidels and reign of sharia taliban in the US. Inshallah, allahu ackbar!" As the title of this thread instead of "lets not see the blah blah blah."

hm im not muslim you idiot

think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.

Mmk. Here is something that the OP fails to mention:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population. In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against PFFA for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also agreed that PP is a racist organization that targets minority women.

The link you drop to try to cite is actually a technical document from the CDC. The quote you have is actually from something published in 2002.

REAL cite for the quote: "Racism and Planned Parenthood" by Sandy Rios. I can't even find the original material online.

think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.

except that didn't actually happen and if it did happen then i wouldn't have to cognitive ability to know that i was missing anything.

think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.
But if they decided on killing him, you wouldn't be having this conversation, thus that statement never would have arisen, thus you have no logical complaint in the big picture.

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

Destroying a fetus is the same as injuring oneself: skinning one's shin, falling down the stairs, etc. I have no doubt that having an abortion destroys life; however, the life is not a human being yet, or a baby. An abortion destroys human cells, that is true, but it does not destroy a human life. That is the critical difference.

think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.
So assume you hadn't been born. Assume I hadn't. Whats the difference to the world? In an infinite number of parallel universes (Assuing they exist) you never were born. Whats the difference making it one more?

except that didn't actually happen and if it did happen then i wouldn't have to cognitive ability to know that i was missing anything.Exactly. It really wouldn't matter to me, since I wouldn't exist in order for it to matter.

think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.Doesn't piss me off. If I had never existed, I wouldn't have cared. And in fact my life hasn't been that great anyway.
And in case you wonder, I didn't exist until past the term where abortion is still allowed.

I personally like abortions, I think they are fun and cool. I hope there are more abortions.

Destroying a fetus is the same as injuring oneself: skinning one's shin, falling down the stairs, etc. I have no doubt that having an abortion destroys life; however, the life is not a human being yet, or a baby. An abortion destroys human cells, that is true, but it does not destroy a human life. That is the critical difference.

destroying cells is destroying life. it's a completely seperate entity with it's own DNA.

Destroying a fetus is the same as injuring oneselfI wouldn't say that. It's more like getting rid of a tapeworm. It's in many ways a parasite living off your body, and messing with your hormones to boot.

I just love it how it's ok to Liberals if a doctor sucks a baby out of you, and then stabs it in the head with a metal spike, but if the military wants to keep a terrorist awake for too long, they are evil.

I personally like abortions, I think they are fun and cool. I hope there are more abortions.

I too hope there are more abortions. The more abortions would decrease both crime (as proposed in Freakonomics) and the number of those living in poverty.

hm im not muslim you idiot
muslim, christian--at the fundy level, there's very little difference.

destroying cells is destroying life. it's a completely seperate entity with it's own DNA.Clapping your hand is destroying cells as well. Of course this is getting rediculous fast; plants are seperate entities with their own DNA, so stop friggin eating them!

they want to generate as much money as possible and kill of the black population...
You know, usually before you use a point as an example of a fact, you need some evidence.
think of this: had your parents decided on killing you (God forbid), our government would not have stepped in to save you. that just gets me pissed off.
Slight problem.
Unless you somehow prove that there is a soul, the 'you' that you claim would have been killed doesn't exist yet.

muslim, christian--at the fundy level, there's very little difference.

Too true.:D

I too hope there are more abortions. The more abortions would decrease both crime (as proposed in Freakonomics) and the number of those living in poverty.

depends entirely on the scenario of each individual abortion

muslim, christian--at the fundy level, there's very little difference.
All fundies are dangerous. Even the ones who want to kill babies.

I just love it how it's ok to Liberals if a doctor sucks a baby out of you, and then stabs it in the head with a metal spikeThat's not ok if it's a baby. But it is if it isn't one yet.
If it's a baby it can live on it's own.

but if the military wants to keep a terrorist awake for too long, they are evil.So you're saying terrorists are just big babies?

destroying cells is destroying life. it's a completely seperate entity with it's own DNA.

So...following your logic, we shouldn't eat anything; after all, that destroys life. Both the food you eat and the countless billions if not trillions of cheek cells you shave off in your mouth every time you chew are destroyed.

Clapping your hand is destroying cells as well. Of course this is getting rediculous fast; plants are seperate entities with their own DNA, so stop friggin eating them!

plants aren't seperate human DNA

I just love it how it's ok to Liberals if a doctor sucks a baby out of you, and then stabs it in the head with a metal spike, but if the military wants to keep a terrorist awake for too long, they are evil.It's not just liberals that are pro-abortion, you know. I fit into no real political box, but I am definitely not a liberal.

Not that it's a baby anyway.

if a doctor sucks a baby out of you, and then stabs it in the head with a metal spike
Ooh yes, because that's exactly how every abortion occurs. :rolleyes:

Not that I care about either of the things you mentioned.

depends entirely on the scenario of each individual abortion

Every aborted child is an unwanted child, and as any psychologist or sociologist can tell you, the hugely vast majority of criminals and poor people were unwanted children.

Every aborted child is an unwanted child, and as any psychologist or sociologist can tell you, the hugely vast majority of criminals and poor people were unwanted children.

hey i would love to see statistics for that.

but like i said, it depends entirely on the scenario. if a rich person has a child, thye're more likely to be better off and improve the economy through out there life. so you can't really apply that blanket claim.

plants aren't seperate human DNAYou didn't specify that.
However a foetus isn't seperate life, and can't life seperately after all.

Besides, cancer tumor have seperate human DNA as well (the minute difference in DNA is what underlines the uninhibited growth).

plants aren't seperate human DNA

Like I said, the cheeks cells you shave off every time you chew, the cells on your skin you shave off every time you put on clothes, and the cells on your hands you shave off every time you write or clap your hands have separate human DNA. In fact, you are killing human cells while you are typing right now. :D

So...following your logic, we shouldn't eat anything; after all, that destroys life. Both the food you eat and the countless billions if not trillions of cheek cells you shave off in your mouth every time you chew are destroyed.
Animals (as of yet) are not considered to have the same rights as human beings (or even future human beings). Furthermore, the cells that you shave off do not have the potential for life.

hey i would love to see statistics for that.

but like i said, it depends entirely on the scenario. if a rich person has a child, thye're more likely to be better off and improve the economy through out there life. so you can't really apply that blanket claim.

It doesn't matter nearly as much the socioeconomic background of the parents as much as the attention and support they give the child. True, rich parents often do lavish more attention on their children than poor parents, but what about the rich parents who don't pay attention to their child and compensate by giving him anything he wants? The child becomes a failure just like the poor kid who isn't attended to by his parents.

Animals (as of yet) are not considered to have the same rights as human beings (or even future human beings). Furthermore, the cells that you shave off do not have the potential for life.

What do you mean "the potential for life?" They already are living!

Like I said, the cheeks cells you shave off every time you chew, the cells on your skin you shave off every time you put on clothes, and the cells on your hands you shave off every time you write or clap your hands have separate human DNA. In fact, you are killing human cells while you are typing right now. :D

except for two things

1) those activities kill your own cells, not a seperate entities

2) destroying cells in the way that an aboriton does kills the whole thing, not just some of the cells on it's extremities.

The problem is overturnig Roe won't stop abortion. Will barely slow it down. What would slow it would be sex education, birth control, and (the big one) giving hope to the young women that hey and their baby will be taken care of for the next 20 years.

If those who are against abortion would "give to God what is God's" They wouldn't worry about if abortion was legal or not. They would eliminate demand by supporting sex education, free birth control, and support to the the poor and weak for as long as it takes to give hope.

What a concept! Religious people offering faith, hope and love rather than contempt, demands, and hate. Actually saying, "worry not, you and your child are so precious that we won't just care until it's born (and maybe for a few months after) but we will care for the entire life of you and the child."

That kind of LOVE would end most abortion. Something government action won't do.

except for two things

1) those activities kill your own cells, not a seperate entities

2) destroying cells in the way that an aboriton does kills the whole thing, not just some of the cells on it's extremities.

For item 1: a fetus is not a separate entity.

For item 2: What about the poison administered during chemotherapy? That kills countless numbers of cells, sometimes "the whole thing" of an organ.

Perhaps I'm being to serious, but there are actual philosophical arguments. I always liked the following.

(from Thomson, ‘A Defense Of Abortion’)
The thought experiment involves you imagining a situation in which you wake up in a hospital bed to discover that your circulatory system has been connected up to the circulatory system of an unconscious famous violinist. The reason given for this gross abuse of your privacy is that the violinist has a serious kidney infection. Unfortunately for you the appropriate treatment consists of connecting him up to you, since both you and the violinist have been found to possess the same rare blood type by the Society of Music Lovers. The hospital director informs you that even though the Society of Music Lovers was wrong to kidnap you and place you in this difficult position, you are morally compelled to remain as you are until such time as the violinist can function independently of you. To do otherwise, he points out, would result in the death of the violinist and to allow this, at least in the eyes of the hospital director, is patently impermissible. Given that the time frame involved is nine months, Thomson asks you whether you would feel morally obliged to defer to the wishes and beliefs of the hospital director.

(I'm kidding, I'm kidding... I don't wish retro-active non-existence for any of you)
Besides, we all know that's unconstitutional: it's ex post facto! :p
Seriously, I don't like Roe v. Wade either but it's Catch-22 to discuss abortion.

The problem is overturnig Roe won't stop abortion. Will barely slow it down. What would slow it would be sex education, birth control, and (the big one) giving hope to the young women that hey and their baby will be taken care of for the next 20 years.

If those who are against abortion would "give to God what is God's" They wouldn't worry about if abortion was legal or not. They would eliminate demand by supporting sex education, free birth control, and support to the the poor and weak for as long as it takes to give hope.

What a concept! Religious people offering faith, hope and love rather than contempt, demands, and hate. Actually saying, "worry not, you and your child are so precious that we won't just care until it's born (and maybe for a few months after) but we will care for the entire life of you and the child."

That kind of LOVE would end most abortion. Something government action won't do.

You think throwing money at poor women will solve this crisis? Get your head out of the clouds! :mad: Maximizing birth control and abortion is the only way out of this mess.

You are proposing enlarging the government again and instituting a new litany of socialist welfare that simply does not work.

All fundies are dangerous. Even the ones who want to kill babies.
What on earth ever made you think you could butter me up enough on the Poster Awards thread to get me to vote for you?

By the way, even though you won't listen to this, I'll give it a try for the others who might read this post. Most liberals don't like abortion. I'll go a step farther--most liberals hate it and wish there weren't as many as there are every year. But most liberals also know that shit happens and people get pregnant despite every possible precaution, and those women ought to have the ability to end the pregnancy if they so choose. After all, they have to live with the consequences either way.

So if you're serious about wanting to lower the number of abortions every year, then get your fucking politicians to stop preaching abstinence only in sex-ed classes. Get them to approve the over-the-counter morning after pill. Get them to approve RU-486.

But if all you want to do is talk shit and see abortions rise, or watch rich women continue to get their abortions in a hospital while poor women die in alleys, then by all means keep it up. But remember--every woman who dies from an illegal abortion is on your hands. And that blood doesn't wash off.

Furthermore, the cells that you shave off do not have the potential for life.Sure they do, you've heard of cloning right?

But if all you want to do is talk shit and see abortions rise, or watch rich women continue to get their abortions in a hospital while poor women die in alleys, then by all means keep it up. But remember--every woman who dies from an illegal abortion is on your hands. And that blood doesn't wash off.

Why does everyone have such animosity towards rich people? They're people too.

For item 1: a fetus is not a separate entity.

For item 2: What about the poison administered during chemotherapy? That kills countless numbers of cells, sometimes "the whole thing" of an organ.

1: it has seperate human DNA. it's seperate

2: it kills a clump of cells (your own cells, consentually, and not a third parties) for the purpose of healing. if an organ dies, it still doesn't represent the whole, as killing a phetus in an aboriton would. and chemotherapy is going to be consentual

So you're saying terrorists are just big babies?
No, I'm saying babies are far more innocent and deserving of compassion than some scumbag terrorist.

You think throwing money at poor women will solve this crisis? Perhaps if you use coins and throw hard enough...

1: it has seperate human DNA. it's seperate

2: it kills a clump of cells (your own cells, consentually, and not a third parties) for the purpose of healing. if an organ dies, it still doesn't represent the whole, as killing a phetus in an aboriton would. and chemotherapy is going to be consentual

You keep going on about the "whole" and "separate DNA." A FETUS IS STILL PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. She can do as she pleases with it, just like getting an amputation.

It doesn't matter nearly as much the socioeconomic background of the parents as much as the attention and support they give the child. True, rich parents often do lavish more attention on their children than poor parents, but what about the rich parents who don't pay attention to their child and compensate by giving him anything he wants? The child becomes a failure just like the poor kid who isn't attended to by his parents.

or the complete opposite could happen. we don't really know, which is why i don't like to assume things and make life and death decisions on it.

Perhaps if you use coins and throw hard enough...

That is probably one of the funniest and truest remarks I have heard in the past week.

No, I'm saying babies are far more innocent and deserving of compassion than some scumbag terrorist.You'd have to prove thos 'scumbags' are guilty first though. Innocent until proven guilty.
And the embryos (they're not babies) are sucking the life out of the mother, that's not so innocent. Not to mention the mother could die in childbirth from complications.

You keep going on about the "whole" and "separate DNA." A FETUS IS STILL PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. She can do as she pleases with it, just like getting an amputation.
So a congenital twin can kill his twin because they are attached, and it's perfectly legal?

And the embryos (they're not babies) are sucking the life out of the mother, that's not so innocent. Not to mention the mother could die in childbirth from complications.

I simply have one more thing to add. What about the agony a woman suffers from having to support a child she can't during the course of her lifetime?

You keep going on about the "whole" and "separate DNA." A FETUS IS STILL PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY. She can do as she pleases with it, just like getting an amputation.

no it's not. if it was part of the woman's body, a) always have been there, b) serve some kind of purpose for the woman instead of being a drain, and c) have the same DNA. because all of those things are untrue, it can't be rationally described as part of a woman's body.

So a congenital twin can kill his twin because they are attached, and it's perfectly legal?

Yup. That would be an interesting court case.

no it's not. if it was part of the woman's body, a) always have been there, b) serve some kind of purpose for the woman instead of being a drain, and c) have the same DNA. because all of those things are untrue, it can't be rationally described as part of a woman's body.

For a) none of our body parts have always been there. As you could tell me, we all started as just one fertilized cell.

For b) What about the appendix, or the sex organs? You could say those have no purpose in the life of a human.

For c) Every cell has a slight mutation in its DNA, making it slightly different than another cell's, even in the same body.

I simply have one more thing to add. What about the agony a woman suffers from having to support a child she can't during the course of her lifetime?
Easy way to fix that. If you're broke, and can't afford to take care of a child, DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Easy way to fix that. If you're broke, and can't afford to take care of a child, DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good idea, but what if she does?

and i hate the words "zygote" and "fetus." they are so demeaning to a human

I may find it morally wrong, but my biggest problem with it is that it lacks any real constitutional basis. It would have been far better for everyone involved if politics had been left out of the case and the states were left to decide.

and i hate the words "zygote" and "fetus." they are so demeaning to a human

Do you mind being called Homo sapiens or "the most advanced of the primates?" Zygote and fetus are simply scientific terms. Get over it.

and i hate the words "zygote" and "fetus." they are so demeaning to a humanIt's no more demeaning than baby or child or adolescent or adult. It's just a stage in the develepment of life.

Good idea, but what if she does?
If you make your bed, you must lie in it. It's called "personal responsibility" Something that Liberal policies are doing a fine job of destroying.

It's no more demeaning than baby or child or adolescent or adult. It's just a stage in the develepment of life.
BINGO!

I may find it morally wrong, but my biggest problem with it is that it lacks any real constitutional basis. It would have been far better for everyone involved if politics had been left out of the case and the states were left to decide.

My view towards Roe v. Wade is this, to quote Machiavelli, "Reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects."

What do you mean "the potential for life?" They already are living!
Intelligent life ie they think and act by themselves

If you make your bed, you must lie in it. It's called "personal responsibility" Something that Liberal policies are doing a fine job of destroying.

THANK YOU, i was just about to say that. nowadays, people are taking the easy way out. we need to learn to take full responsibility for our actions

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)


So? How many babies died between the beginning of time and Jan 22, 1973?

I'd say we still have a lot of catching up to do.

Besides, if we repeal RvW, what would Republicans eat?

If you make your bed, you must lie in it. It's called "personal responsibility" Something that Liberal policies are doing a fine job of destroying.

I'm a conservative through and through on fiscal issues: flat tax, no welfare, get rid of social security, but I personally benefit from abortion's legality. It makes me safer and wealthier.

My view towards Roe v. Wade is this, to quote Machiavelli, "Reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects."

The end does not always justify the means.

Intelligent life ie they think and act by themselves

Do bacteria act and think for themselves? Do plants think for themselves? We may never know, just as we may never know if feti can think for themselevs.

Why does everyone have such animosity towards rich people? They're people too.
I don't have animosity for rich people (over this)--I'm simply stating a fact. Before Roe, no matter what state you lived in, if you were rich and wanted an abortion, you got one in a safe and clean hospital room, performed by a doctor who knew what he was doing. If you were poor, you took your chances and had a solid chance of dying. If Roe is overturned, it'll be the same thing again--if you have the money, you're fine. If not, you're fucked.

The end does not always justify the means.

In this case, they do.

Sure they do, you've heard of cloning right?
They don't have the natural potential for life.

If you make your bed, you must lie in it. It's called "personal responsibility" Something that Liberal policies are doing a fine job of destroying.What if she lived in Chicago..
Wait... I mean, what if she was raped. That's hardly making your own bed.

They don't have the natural potential for life.

About cloning, what about organisms that reproduce asexually? We would call their offspring life, even though they almost exactly share their parent's DNA.

Every day, cloning takes place naturally.

Concerning DNA: How do you define "human" DNA? How many variations of "human" DNA is there?

In fact, assigning DNA the term "human" is a fallacy. There's nothing special about "human" DNA that isn't present in, say, the GOP's most hated animal, the wolf.

Concerning the Fetus: The fetus is a parasite until it is removed from the body. I don't think many people would cry about doctors tearing a tape worm out of a woman and then sticking a stick spike in its head. So why cry over a fetus?

Concerning the Positive Aspects of Abortion: We could use more abortions. It would at least slow population growth, if not reverse it. This is a good thing, considering that our planet could only support two billion people at levels most Westerners would be comfortable with.

In Japan, following World War II, abortion was subsidized by the government. This helped keep the Japanese population low enough that each Japanese man, woman, and child would be able to have a fairly high quality of life.

Of course, if you illegalize abortion, only criminals will get abortions. Much like guns, illegalizing it won't do any good. Far from it, it will do much more harm, as women partaking in abortions would either have to resort to backalley abortion clinics with questionable cleanliness, or try the good old "fling yourself down the stairs" tactic. Neither of these are safe and are likely to result in the death of both the woman and the fetus.

BINGO!Note the "devellopment of".
It is just one stage, it isn't live. Making steel is a stage in the devellopment of a car, but a steel plate is not a car.

Do bacteria act and think for themselves? Do plants think for themselves? We may never know, just as we may never know if feti can think for themselevs.
Bacteria and plants are lesser forms of life no matter what you do to them. If the reproductive system of a woman giving birth functions properly, a fetus will become a baby unless interfered with by other means.

For a) none of our body parts have always been there. As you could tell me, we all started as just one fertilized cell.

For b) What about the appendix, or the sex organs? You could say those have no purpose in the life of a human.

For c) Every cell has a slight mutation in its DNA, making it slightly different than another cell's, even in the same body.

a) yes, but gestation and growing are natural occurence due to operations of your body, having a phetus in you comes from a direct and specific act.

b) the appendix and the sex organs have purposes, we just don't always utilize them. the only purpose of that a phetus serves is to grow itself untill ready to go into the world.

c) but overall the same genetic coding. if this were true in the sense that i think your trying to convey, police DNA testing wouldn't work because none of our cells would be the same. well, it does work because we have an overall coding for every cell in our body. that overall coding is going to be different for the woman than it is going to be for the phetus. we can no this because it combines DNA from the father, a different person.

Bacteria and plants are lesser forms of life no matter what you do to them. If the reproductive system of a woman giving birth functions properly, a fetus will become a baby unless interfered with by other means.

Lesser in your opinion. Bacteria are far more important to complex organisms than humans are or ever will be.

About cloning, what about organisms that reproduce asexually? We would call their offspring life, even though they almost exactly share their parent's DNA.

Every day, cloning takes place naturally.
not with humans it doesn't

In this case, they do.

I do not think that going against the constitution is justified by its legalising of abortion.

a) yes, but gestation and growing are natural occurence due to operations of your body, having a phetus in you comes from a direct and specific act.

b) the appendix and the sex organs have purposes, we just don't always utilize them. the only purpose of that a phetus serves is to grow itself untill ready to go into the world.

c) but overall the same genetic coding. if this were true in the sense that i think your trying to convey, police DNA testing wouldn't work because none of our cells would be the same. well, it does work because we have an overall coding for every cell in our body. that overall coding is going to be different for the woman than it is going to be for the phetus. we can no this because it combines DNA from the father, a different person.

You are constantly changing your definitions of human life to suit your argument. Now it is things that come from a "direct and specific act." What about lasik?

They don't have the natural potential for life.Ah, I didn't know you were the ultimate authority on what is natural.
It's probably just a matter of switching on a few genes, and dropping it in the right environment. (Based on that that's how in work in some other life forms) It's an arbitary distinction at best, a foetus doesn't have a natural potential for life outside the womb. It's all down to circumstance. (At least marsupial fetusses climb out of the womb to the pouch and show they have some sense of life)

Lesser in your opinion. Bacteria are far more important to complex organisms than humans are or ever will be.
My point being that they're not humans, so they have no place in this discussion.

What if she lived in Chicago..
Wait... I mean, what if she was raped. That's hardly making your own bed.
Read my OP about what I think should be legal. You're jumoing to conclusions. I'll help you out, it's post #1.

I'm a conservative through and through on fiscal issues: flat tax, no welfare, get rid of social security, but I personally benefit from abortion's legality. It makes me safer and wealthier.
At least you're honest about it! ;)

You are constantly changing your definitions of human life to suit your argument. Now it is things that come from a "direct and specific act." What about lasik?

how in any way have i contradicted myself?

a) yes, but gestation and growing are natural occurence due to operations of your body, having a phetus in you comes from a direct and specific act.

An act that can be performed without consent. And that act is not actually the act of sex. It's the act of sperm DNA entering an egg. Which can occur with or with out sex.

b) the appendix and the sex organs have purposes, we just don't always utilize them. the only purpose of that a phetus serves is to grow itself untill ready to go into the world.

Not entirely unlike a tape worm.

c) but overall the same genetic coding. if this were true in the sense that i think your trying to convey, police DNA testing wouldn't work because none of our cells would be the same. well, it does work because we have an overall coding for every cell in our body. that overall coding is going to be different for the woman than it is going to be for the phetus. we can no this because it combines DNA from the father, a different person.

No one ever said that cops use real science, though did they?

It would have been far better for everyone involved if politics had been left out of the case and the states were left to decide.
Is it just me, or would leaving the states to decide not leave politics out of it?
I really don't get states' rights. Sure they're in the constitution, but that's no justification for whether they're a good thing. I don't see why letting individual states decide is a good thing, to me it just seems like the federal government on a smaller scale, so I don't see why I shouldn't be just as much opposed to it.

My point being that they're not humans, so they have no place in this discussion.

A fetus isn't human either.

Bacteria and plants are lesser forms of life no matter what you do to them. How judgemental. I've never seen a tree start a war, or pick a fight at a bar. They're far superior than most people.. And they give shade on a hot summers day, and shelter from rain. So that makes them better than most people that don't have an umbrella..

Ah, I didn't know you were the ultimate authority on what is natural.
It's probably just a matter of switching on a few genes, and dropping it in the right environment. (Based on that that's how in work in some other life forms) It's an arbitary distinction at best, a foetus doesn't have a natural potential for life outside the womb. It's all down to circumstance. (At least marsupial fetusses climb out of the womb to the pouch and show they have some sense of life)
yes, but when people have sex and the sperm joins with the egg etc., a fetus forms and not a cheek cell, or an octopus, or bacteria, or a baby kangaroo.

Of course, if you illegalize abortion, only criminals will get abortions.It's not such a problem only they get abortion. But moreso only they will perform abortions, also on the desperate girls that don't want to reproduce yet and are otherwise forced to.

yes, but when people have sex and the sperm joins with the egg etc., a fetus forms and not a cheek cell, or an octopus, or bacteria, or a baby kangaroo.

That depends on how much mutation the DNA undergoes.

A fetus isn't human either.
It has the potential to be one. I might have missed the news, but since when have we been able to turn bacteria into a human cell?

It's not such a problem only they get abortion. But moreso only they will perform abortions, also on the desperate girls that don't want to reproduce yet and are otherwise forced to.

Amended:

If abortions are illegal, only criminals will perform abortions.

An act that can be performed without consent. And that act is not actually the act of sex. It's the act of sperm DNA entering an egg. Which can occur with or with out sex.



Not entirely unlike a tape worm.



No one ever said that cops use real science, though did they?

a) it can, but it's impossible without the release of sperm from the male. you do the math.

b) not unlike but not a tapeworm either. human life.

c) are you denying that each individual (including phetuses) have seperate genetic coding?

How judgemental. I've never seen a tree start a war, or pick a fight at a bar. They're far superior than most people.. And they give shade on a hot summers day, and shelter from rain. So that makes them better than most people that don't have an umbrella..
I simply mean that no matter what you do to a tree, it is still a tree unless you cut it down and make it into lumber. If a fetus is born from a mother whose reproductive system functions normally, it becomes a human baby.

It has the potential to be one. I might have missed the news, but since when have we been able to turn bacteria into a human cell?

We presently lack the technological and biological understanding to make such a feat more probable. But it is certainly probable. Either that or Man came forth fully formed from the shin of Grishnaka the Benevolent and Smiting.

Is it just me, or would leaving the states to decide not leave politics out of it?
I really don't get states' rights. Sure they're in the constitution, but that's no justification for whether they're a good thing. I don't see why letting individual states decide is a good thing, to me it just seems like the federal government on a smaller scale, so I don't see why I shouldn't be just as much opposed to it.

Because the individual has more influence on the state than the federal government.

Read my OP about what I think should be legal. You're jumoing to conclusions. I'll help you out, it's post #1.Not of this thread it isn't :)
So what if it was a very naive girl raised in a sheltered environment, just come of age, and seduced by some wild casanova that promises to pull out just in time, and that nothing will happen, and yet it does.
You'd comdemn that girl for the poor job her parents and schooling did at preparing her for life?

That depends on how much mutation the DNA undergoes.
When has a human mother ever given birth to something other then a human?

When has a human mother ever given birth to something other then a human?Ooh, I know this one. When she's been abducted by aliens!

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)



http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics


Wow!!!!!!!!! 40 million???? Man that is a lot of welfare. How would the Republicans have handled that??????

That means the country would be 10% larger...........Can our economy handle that?? Or do we send 40 million European-Americans back to Europe to make things balance again????

Sheeee....all of these problems to contend with is giving me a headache. Maybe is time for some valium and an hour in the hot tub..................

We presently lack the technological and biological understanding to make such a feat more probable. But it is certainly probable. Either that or Man came forth fully formed from the shin of Grishnaka the Benevolent and Smiting.
I'll believe it when I hear it from a secondary source.

a) it can, but it's impossible without the release of sperm from the male. you do the math.

Put a man under anesthesia, stick a needle in his testicle, remove sperm.

Put a woman under anesthesia, stick said needle in her ovaries, inject sperm.

I don't see any sex there. Nor do I see any consent.

b) not unlike but not a tapeworm either. human life.

As much a human life as my liver.

c) are you denying that each individual (including phetuses) have seperate genetic coding?

Are we really individuals or part of some larger organism?

When has a human mother ever given birth to something other then a human?
July 6, 1946? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html) :D














It was too easy.

When has a human mother ever given birth to something other then a human?

Sometime shortly before Neadrathal went extinct. So long as your definition of "human" means, specifically, homo sapiens.

As much a human life as my liver.Or any transplanted organ, which would also be DNA other than your own as a bonus.

Wow!!!!!!!!! 40 million???? Man that is a lot of welfare. How would the Republicans have handled that??????

That means the country would be 10% larger...........Can our economy handle that?? Or do we send 40 million European-Americans back to Europe to make things balance again????

Sheeee....all of these problems to contend with is giving me a headache. Maybe is time for some valium and an hour in the hot tub..................
Yep, and since only Democrats have abortions, they'd be in charge of the government too, and the Soviet Union would never have fallen, and Bill Clinton would be on his fourth term after running for President promising to govern only with the brain in the Clenis.

I'll believe it when I hear it from a secondary source.

You're making the assumption that the improbable is impossible. It has happened. It will happen again.

I mean, unless you really, honestly believe that women were made from the rib of a man, and that God literally created man from mud.

Even Intelligent Design takes this sort of gradual, genetic change into account.

Well it's been fun, but it's really getting late here, so goodnight.

And remember, everytime you make a anti-abortion post, God kills a foetus!

If you make your bed, you must lie in it. It's called "personal responsibility" Something that Liberal policies are doing a fine job of destroying.
Why must I be a liberal to support abortion? I can be as economically right-wing as you, and also support abortion.
Frankly, I don't see what the issue is with abortion and responsibility. Responsibility, I had thought, was being held accountable for your choices. If I had an abortion, I could hold myself responsible, couldn't I? I'm not sure where the problem is there.

Sometime shortly before Neadrathal went extinct. So long as your definition of "human" means, specifically, homo sapiens.
Same genus at any rate. a very fine line there.

Put a man under anesthesia, stick a needle in his testicle, remove sperm.

Put a woman under anesthesia, stick said needle in her ovaries, inject sperm.

I don't see any sex there. Nor do I see any consent.



As much a human life as my liver.



Are we really individuals or part of some larger organism?

1: i think that's called rape

2: i've already explained the difference between your own organs and a phetus

3: legally and literally, individuals.

You're making the assumption that the improbable is impossible. It has happened. It will happen again.

I mean, unless you really, honestly believe that women were made from the rib of a man, and that God literally created man from mud.

Even Intelligent Design takes this sort of gradual, genetic change into account.
Not on an ordinary, day-to-day level, which is what we must consider when talking about abortion, or any curent issue for that matter.

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)



http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics

Lying about Margraget Sanger and Planned Parenthood won't make the fundamental human and Constitutional right to abortion go away.

That site certainly has some "interesting" *false* statistics and statements. That whole website is a Christian Theocracy horror-fest.

they want to generate as much money as possible and kill of the black population...

Ridiculous libel.

1: i think that's called rape

I think you win! What do you win? This:

How the hell does a woman get an abortion after she's raped if there are no abortion clinics in which to get said abortion performed? And even if there are a few left over if abortion is banned, it would be biased on class. Those who are poorest would be unable to afford to get an abortion.

2: i've already explained the difference between your own organs and a phetus

As someone else pointed out: What if I have a transplanted organ?

3: legally and literally, individuals.

Legally, yes. Literally? Depends on which book you're reading.

Not on an ordinary, day-to-day level, which is what we must consider when talking about abortion, or any curent issue for that matter.

Except this mutation occurs on a day-to-day level. It's not something that occurs once every million years or so. It's happening right now.

I just love it how it's ok to Liberals if a doctor sucks a baby out of you, and then stabs it in the head with a metal spike, but if the military wants to keep a terrorist awake for too long, they are evil.

I just love how often you go on about subjects without the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.

Except this mutation occurs on a day-to-day level. It's not something that occurs once every million years or so. It's happening right now.
Care to explain yourself

Care to explain yourself

Right now, your DNA is being constantly bombarded. Everytime it is struck, it changes. This occurs with everyone, everywhere. I forget the proper name for the particles which do it, but they fly through space at roughly the speed of light and we only know they exist thanks to electromagnetic technologies that I don't fully understand. These particles are postulated as being a possible cause of cancer.

Right now, your DNA is being constantly bombarded. Everytime it is struck, it changes. This occurs with everyone, everywhere. I forget the proper name for the particles which do it, but they fly through space at roughly the speed of light and we only know they exist thanks to electromagnetic technologies that I don't fully understand. These particles are postulated as being a possible cause of cancer.
The amount of change that happens within a lifetime isn't enough to change a fetus from having the potential to be human to not having the potential to be human, nor does it change anything that does not have the potential to be human and give it the potential to be human.

I think you win! What do you win? This:

How the hell does a woman get an abortion after she's raped if there are no abortion clinics in which to get said abortion performed? And even if there are a few left over if abortion is banned, it would be biased on class. Those who are poorest would be unable to afford to get an abortion.



As someone else pointed out: What if I have a transplanted organ?



Legally, yes. Literally? Depends on which book you're reading.

1: i didn't say ban all abortions. who can't afford to get an abortion? get a loan, because we all know a kid's going ot be more expensive.

2: then that's your liver. however, a liver does not represent a whole human life, but rather part of one. you remove your liver, you can live if you get another one, you kill a phetus... well that's the end of the phetus.

3: ok

Time line A: Stacy gets pregnant when she is a teen. She has to drop out of school and never gets a good education or job. She tries to raise this child alone while working two minimum wage jobs to get by (the child is neglected with traumatic psychological results). She had always planned on having three kids, but once she marries Bubba they just can't afford it and only end up having one child more who also isn't given a very good start in life because of their economic situation.

Time Line B: Stacy gets pregnant when she's a teen. She gets an abortion and goes to medical school like she always dreamed. When she gets married to her husband she meets there she has three children like she always planned who all grow up in a stable home.

In scenario 1 two children are born, in scenario 2 three are born abortion or no abortion. Wasn't more life created not less? If you don't let Stacy have an abortion that third child (whose name was Timmy by the way) would never have existed. Shame on you for wanting to murder poor unborn Timmy.

So everyone agrees that a sperm and an egg aren't life right.

Then what about a sperm and egg an inch away from each other? A centimeter? Touching? When their seperate DNA strands are breaking apart? When the DNA is half done recombining? After the first cell division? After the tenth cell division? All these steps have the same exact potential for life. How can ayone point to an exact millisecond when a lump of protien and protoplasm becomes sacred?

So everyone agrees that a sperm and an egg aren't life right.

Then what about a sperm and egg an inch away from each other? A centimeter? Touching? When their seperate DNA strands are breaking apart? When the DNA is half done recombining? After the first cell division? After the tenth cell division? All these step have the same exact potential for life. How can ayone point to an exact millisecond when a lump of protien and protoplasm becomes sacred?
You can't do that anymore then you can prove or disprove the existence of God, so if you believe in that stuff, you may as well just not take the chance in the first place and give birth to the damn thing.

Time line A: Stacy gets pregnant when she is a teen. She has to drop out of school and never gets a good education or job. She tries to raise this child alone while working two minimum wage jobs to get by (the child is neglected with traumatic psychological results). She had always planned on having three kids, but once she marries Bubba they just can't afford it and only end up having one child more who also isn't given a very good start in life because of their economic situation.

Time Line B: Stacy gets pregnant when she's a teen. She gets an abortion and goes to medical school like she always dreamed. When she gets married to her husband she meets there she has three children like she always planned who all grow up in a stable home.

In scenario 1 two children are born, in scenario 2 three are born abortion or no abortion. Wasn't more life created not less? If you don't let Stacy have an abortion that third child (whose name was Timmy by the way) would never have existed. Shame on you for wanting to murder poor unborn Timmy.
You can't think of human life in the same way you think of economics. Its not about net gain or net loss. Its about the individuality of life. The people who actually believe this stuff, its pointless to try to change their minds, just like its pointless to try to change the mind of someone who believes the opposite.

You can't do that anymore then you can prove or disprove the existence of God, so if you believe in that stuff, you may as well just not take the chance in the first place and give birth to the damn thing.

And just to be one the safe side, who knows, every sperm and egg might just be a sacred vessel in the eyes of God! Periods are murder! Male masturbation is the equivalent of genocide!! May God have mercy on our souls...

*starts humming Every Sperm is Sacred*

The amount of change that happens within a lifetime isn't enough to change a fetus from having the potential to be human to not having the potential to be human, nor does it change anything that does not have the potential to be human and give it the potential to be human.

Yet (at least recorded, anyhue).

We know it's enough for otherwise healthy feti to be stillborn, or for there to be a miscarriage.

And just to be one the safe side, who knows, every sperm and egg might just be a sacred vessel in the eyes of God! Periods are murder! Male masturbation is the equivalent of genocide!! May God have mercy on our souls...

*starts humming Every Sperm is Sacred*
meh, whatever. I'm off. nice talkin to ya.

And just to be one the safe side, who knows, every sperm and egg might just be a sacred vessel in the eyes of God! Periods are murder! Male masturbation is the equivalent of genocide!! May God have mercy on our souls...

*starts humming Every Sperm is Sacred*

no neither sperm nor egg are human life.

human life requires ass 46 chromosomes.

And just to be one the safe side, who knows, every sperm and egg might just be a sacred vessel in the eyes of God! Periods are murder! Male masturbation is the equivalent of genocide!! May God have mercy on our souls...

*starts humming Every Sperm is Sacred*

Nah. If God doesn't want you to have an abortion or has any purpose at all in store for that child, he'll smite the mother. How it is that the fetus will survive the mother's death is another question.

But, that's beside the point, abortion is part of God's plan, believe it or not.

Yet (at least recorded, anyhue).

We know it's enough for otherwise healthy feti to be stillborn, or for there to be a miscarriage.
It's all semantics anyway. Talk to ya some other time.

Women in the audience, you should all be ashamed. You could have had dozens of children by now each with their own unique personality and indiviuality, but instead you're choosing to kill them slowly through inaction. Last year you could have had a famous skiier named Johnathan, the year before that it was Juan the nobel prize winner. Get busy for the Lord!

no neither sperm nor egg are human life.

human life requires ass 46 chromosomes.

So those with Down's Syndrome and only 45 chromosomes aren't human?

Women in the audience, you should all be ashamed. You could have had dozens of children by now each with their own unique personality and indiviuality, but instead you're choosing to kill them slowly through inaction. Last year you could have had a famous skiier named Johnathan, the year before that it was Juan the nobel prize winner. Get busy for the Lord!

hey you're not too good at making sarcastic arguements

Destruction of a bunch of cells is not murder...

lets ponder this for a moment...

cells: The smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane.

organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

murder: To put an end to; destroy

cells are alive; they are the building blocks of many things, including human babies and life. to destroy them is then to murder them. thus, Destruction of a bunch of cells is indeed murder.

all definitions taken from www.dictionary.com

hey you're not too good at making sarcastic arguements

But pray tell, what's the difference between an abortion and choosing to not have a kid? It's the same outcome so why is one a sin and the other no big deal?

So those with Down's Syndrome and only 45 chromosomes aren't human?

technically no. that doesn't mean they odn't have rights though. even they were the combination of two reproductive cells.

lets ponder this for a moment...

cells: The smallest structural unit of an organism that is capable of independent functioning, consisting of one or more nuclei, cytoplasm, and various organelles, all surrounded by a semipermeable cell membrane.

organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

murder: To put an end to; destroy

cells are alive; they are the building blocks of many things, including human babies and life. to destroy them is then to murder them. thus, Destruction of a bunch of cells is indeed murder.

all definitions taken from www.dictionary.com

under your logic, eating a salad is also murder.

cells are alive; they are the building blocks of many things, including human babies and life. to destroy them is then to murder them. thus, Destruction of a bunch of cells is indeed murder.

all definitions taken from www.dictionary.com

And on this basis we can also conclude that suicide is murder, and attempted suicide is attempted murder.

technically no. that doesn't mean they odn't have rights though. even they were the combination of two reproductive cells.

Hang on: so people with that particular form of Down's Syndrome which means they only have 45 chromosomes aren't human? What are they then? Fish? Potatoes? Dinosaurs?

So everyone agrees that a sperm and an egg aren't life right.

Then what about a sperm and egg an inch away from each other? A centimeter? Touching? When their seperate DNA strands are breaking apart? When the DNA is half done recombining? After the first cell division? After the tenth cell division? All these steps have the same exact potential for life. How can ayone point to an exact millisecond when a lump of protien and protoplasm becomes sacred?

The key is not whether something is alive or is human.

The key is whether something is a person.

As it happens, pigs, chimps, and dolphins all have more characteristics of personhood than a zygote, embryo, or early-term fetus.

Quick poll...

How many people here agree with Goerge Carlin when he said...

"Have you ever noticed that most people who are against abortion are people you would never want to fuck in the first place?"

organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

all definitions taken from www.dictionary.com

But is a fetus really an organism if it can't live on it's own? What if I handed you a giant, broken freezer full of a thousand thawing fetuses from a fertility clinic that would all be nonviable with an hour? Would you feel at all guilty that they never became children and that you let them die?

People kill mosquitos all the time, and even the most pascifist Buddhist monk kills bacteria with his immune system. What's the difference between killing one unwanted parasite that is infringing your rights to survive and another?

under your logic, eating a salad is also murder.

indeed. but a salad isnt setient. human babies are, even from the first weeks of life. it might not be the same sentience that you or I have right now, but it is sentience.

But pray tell, what's the difference between an abortion and choosing to not have a kid? It's the same outcome so why is one a sin and the other no big deal?

well i'm not a christian so i don't know where your getting this sin thing from.

but biologically, a sperm cell or egg cell doesn't constitute complete human life untill they join with their respective partner to form human embryos. further more, they will never constitute human life enless tthe above act happens. so letting a sperm cell die naturally and forcefully extuingishing an embryo are two different things.

You can't do that anymore then you can prove or disprove the existence of God, so if you believe in that stuff, you may as well just not take the chance in the first place and give birth to the damn thing.

Again, you forget about the mother.

It is her body you want to "take the chance" with.

It is her life, her health, her social and emotional well-being.

But you care not for the only one of the two entities involved that we know for certain is a living, breathing, human person with rights and feelings.

indeed. but a salad isnt setient. human babies are, even from the first weeks of life. it might not be the same sentience that you or I have right now, but it is sentience.

Hey, watch your attribution. That was The Cat-Tribe, not me.

so letting a sperm cell die naturally and forcefully extuingishing an embryo are two different things.

But with the exact same outcome.

indeed. but a salad isnt setient. human babies are, even from the first weeks of life. it might not be the same sentience that you or I have right now, but it is sentience.

Bullshit. Prove an embryo is sentient.

But is a fetus really an organism if it can't live on it's own? What if I handed you a giant, broken freezer full of a thousand thawing fetuses from a fertility clinic that would all be nonviable with an hour? Would you feel at all guilty that they never became children and that you let them die?

People kill mosquitos all the time, and even the most pascifist Buddhist monk kills bacteria with his immune system. What's the difference between killing one unwanted parasite that is infringing your rights to survive and another?


a fetus would die without nutrients and other basic needs, the same as any other organism would. a human fetus is adapted and designed to live within a mothers womb. just like other organisms live in their own environt ment. for instance, fish live in the sea, dogs do not.

am i to understand that you consider a human fetus an "unwanted parasite that is infringing your rights to survive?

indeed. but a salad isnt setient. human babies are, even from the first weeks of life. it might not be the same sentience that you or I have right now, but it is sentience.

Actually a lump of a dozen human embyo cells has about the same sentience capabilities as a rock. Even a few months in the fetal brain has no ability to "think" in any significant way.

Bullshit. Prove an embryo is sentient.

prove its not.

Quick poll...

How many people here agree with Goerge Carlin when he said...

"Have you ever noticed that most people who are against abortion are people you would never want to fuck in the first place?"

Known that for a looooong time.

prove its not.

He asked you first...

But with the exact same outcome.

no.

using that logic, it doesn't matter when you kill something as long as the outcomes are the same.

For every baby you save, I'm going to abort three.

Actually a lump of a dozen human embyo cells has about the same sentience capabilities as a rock. Even a few months in the fetal brain has no ability to "think" in any significant way.

but any thought, even if it is not significant is more than your average lettuce leaf is capable of

For every baby you save, I'm going to abort three.

you do that. ill make sure not to save any babies then. ill just challenge ppl's conceptions.

prove its not.

They can do fetal brainwave scans that register electrical activity in the cortex, and no organized electric currents are present until around the end of the first trimester,

prove its not.

First, you made the assertion, you have the burden.

Second, easy. It does not have a functioning brain in the embryonic stage.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

but any thought, even if it is not significant is more than your average lettuce leaf is capable of

Yeah? So what. Dolphins are still thinking way more complex of thoughts than even a newborn baby and it's no big deal to kill -them-.

Yeah? So what. Dolphins are still thinking way more complex of thoughts than even a newborn baby.

Careful now, saving dolphins over babies sounds like PETA nutjobs.

They can do fetal brainwave scans that register electrical activity in the cortex, and no organized electric currents are present until around the end of the first trimester,

im not scientist, so im not too sure what that means. but i will take it to mean that thought and sentience are not possible without electrical currents?

and what is a baby after the first trimester? how would you define it? is it not still a grouping of cells (albiet a very large one)?

but any thought, even if it is not significant is more than your average lettuce leaf is capable of

But less thought than a chicken, a pig, or a cow is capable of. Those are all considered non-persons and eminently killable just 'cuz they are tasty.

im not scientist, so im not too sure what that means. but i will take it to mean that thought and sentience are not possible without electrical currents?

and what is a baby after the first trimester? how would you define it? is it not still a grouping of cells (albiet a very large one)?

No brain waves = no sentience.

A baby after the first trimester is a fetus.

hm im not muslim you idiot


Dont break the forum rules by flaming me, Mullah Omar.

You may claim not to be a muslim, but you want sharia law.

Dont break the forum rules by flaming me, Mullah Omar.

You may claim not to be a muslim, but you want sharia law.

Bad form. By accusing someone you know not to be a Muslim to be a Muslim anyway, implies being a Muslim is somehow in itself bad. And if you think it's not bad, why do you use it as an insult.

Using racist/bigoted/sexist references as insults hardly helps your argument I can assure you of that.

this has been a most enlightining debate. you will likely all take this as me conceeding my defeat. it is not such, though i will admit that at the moment i have no further arguments to give. at least not rational arguments that we could debate on. so i wish you a good noght (or day, depending).

adios

ps abortion is wrong cause it is murder. same way murder is wrong cause its murder. babies are alive in the womb, even early on. if not, they wouldnt be babies. they'd be dead cells.

have any of you ever met a woman that was truly glad she had an abortion? (not jumping up and down, but down the road really thought it was a good choice?)
I haven't, so I was just wondering if any of you had.

have any of you ever met a woman that was truly glad she had an abortion? (not jumping up and down, but down the road really thought it was a good choice?)
I haven't, so I was just wondering if any of you had.

I know several personally.

And I can cite studies showing the majority of women that have abortions are relieved and happy with their decision.

For example, http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/8/777

prove its not.
Brainwaves don't appear until 20 weeks or so after conception. In short, the embryo is not sentient at all. It doesn't even react to stimuli until several weeks into pregnancy. A bacterium is more sentient that it. An embyro is about as intelligent as Jell-O.

sorry off topic but
What is variation in a species?


I have evolution hw, and can some1 give me a one sentance answer please?

Variation within a species is generally known as microevolution or adaptation.

Thanks. I have a guess these forums will have lots of evolution questions over the next few weeks:D

Bad form. By accusing someone you know not to be a Muslim to be a Muslim anyway, implies being a Muslim is somehow in itself bad. And if you think it's not bad, why do you use it as an insult.

Using racist/bigoted/sexist references as insults hardly helps your argument I can assure you of that.


On the first page of this thread you can see what he was responding to.

If you still dont understand, telegram me and I'll explain.

hm im not muslim you idiot

So all us Muslims follow Mullah Omar? Strange. I must have missed a memo.

No matter. This whole thread is silly.

You think throwing money at poor women will solve this crisis? Get your head out of the clouds! :mad: Maximizing birth control and abortion is the only way out of this mess.

You are proposing enlarging the government again and instituting a new litany of socialist welfare that simply does not work.
Who said Government? I said religious people should be spending their energy on giving hope and love to young women instead of wasting their energy on government. Jesus said there is a place for government and a place for religion. Overturning Roe won't slow up abortion. There will be a lot of people traveling to where it is legal and a lot of back alley butcher shops. What will limit abortions is giving hope to the mother that she and the child will be cared for. NOT until the child is born and (maybe) a few weeks after, but throughout the growth of the child. That should be the work of religious people. It's something the government has no ability to do. Abortions are about a lack of hope in the future.

Faith, Hope, Love---I wonder what would happen if someone started a religion based on those?

murder: To put an end to; destroyYeah.. fine, just pick out one of the many possible meanings that don't fit in the context, and murder the english language.

Murder: "To spoil by ineptness"
Also from dictionary.com

am i to understand that you consider a human fetus an "unwanted parasite that is infringing your rights to survive?If it's unwanted, yes.

hey except abortion isn't murder

Can you prove it? A baby is a human. Abortion is destroying the baby. Destroying a human is murder.

I had to get into this once with my sister and her family and it got kinda ugly but here is my 2 cents worth. While I might not personally make the choice for someone to have an abortion, it is not my choice to make. Sorry if it sounds cruel, but I long ago learned that reasonable debate is not possible with moralists. Anyway, the hard-line stance I found myself forced to adopt is that a fetus meets the biological definition of a parasite. Whether it is old enough to be "viable outside of the womb" or not, as long as it is inside the womb it is a parasite, not a person, and the mother has the right to determine for herself if she wants to have that parasite within her or if she wants to get rid of it as she might want to rid herself of a tapeworm. I am much more concerned about babies that are born to a family that does not want them and find subjecting an innocent being to such a life to be cruel and indefensible. Also, everyone I have ever spoken with who is against freedom of choice for women, in the end admits that it is on the basis of their personal morals and beliefs (and sometimes nothing more than what they WANT to believe rather than what they actually believe) stemming from their religious beliefs so, making a choice to deny another another the right to make a good OR bad decision for themselves and to live with the consequences of their decisions (including guilt or remorse).

Now to follow up on the living with the consequences of their personal decisions, if a woman makes a choice to have a child on her own and/or against the wishes of the father or anyone else, she had no right to ask the father, etc. for financial support. If she cannot support a child she chooses by herself to have then she needs to give up the baby. On the other hand, if a mother is forced to have a baby that she does not want, she should have no burden to be financially responsible for the child or even to raise it if she doesn't want to. Those burdens should fall on those who choose to make decisions for other people. If a country should choose to make abortions illegal, then everyone who thinks that they should be illegal should be required to give 25% of their net (not gross, not after taxes) income to a fund to support unwanted children who have been brought into the world by their choices which they inflict upon others.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist


The only valid purpose of law is to protect people from each other, not to protect people from themselves. The only valid purpose for government is to enforce laws which protect people from each other and to do those things which individuals cannot do.

Rascism makes no sense to me. There are so many perfectly valid reasons for despising people that if you are reduced to using the color of their skin for an excuse you just aren't trying hard enough.

Can you prove it? A baby is a human. Abortion is destroying the baby. Destroying a human is murder.Killing a baby is murder, yes. However, abortion involves the killing of a zygote/embryo/foetus.

Concerning the Fetus: The fetus is a parasite until it is removed from the body. I don't think many people would cry about doctors tearing a tape worm out of a woman and then sticking a stick spike in its head. So why cry over a fetus?

Because its a human. You can whine about DNA all you want. The fact is left to itself it will develop into a human.

I dont care wether it truly is murder, or not.
I dont care if its right, wrong, or indifferent...

The truth is what I care about.

The truth is, the no group of people, should ever have the ability to take away the most important decision any woman can ever make.
No religion, should ever have the political clout, to change our Constitution.

Ever.

The law says that no one has the right to force anyone to give birth, if that person isnt willing to do so.
No other person has the right to take away that choice from anyone.

As for God, well...until he makes a personal appearance to answer for himself, his opinion is irrelavant.

Because its a human. You can whine about DNA all you want. The fact is left to itself it will develop into a human.

Left to itself, it will die.
Left attached to the mother and feeding of her, it has a chance of survival that is about 70 %

If the aim of some in the US to ban all avenues to abortion is fulfilled, it's not going to stop abortions. Illegal operators will take over this business and their clients will have absolutely no protection from bad operators which could accidently kill the potential mother.

Banning things does not work in general - look at the attempts to ban alcohol and now drugs, not working. The money will pass into gangsters hands instead of legit business with a loss of taxation as well.

Call this an aboriton thread? Ha! I remember the last one... it lasted for 300 pages... *reminisces quietly*

Weren't you there too Adriatica? I seem to remember you and another guy being the main pro-lifers in that particular debate.

Because its a human. You can whine about DNA all you want. The fact is left to itself it will develop into a human.

Left to itself, a 5 year old would die.

What the hell are you talking about?

Left to itself, a 5 year old would die.

What the hell are you talking about?

So it too is a parasite?

So it too is a parasite?No, it doesn't live inside a woman (or on it) and feed off her..

par·a·site
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

No, it doesn't live inside a woman (or on it) and feed off her..

If you call propagation of the species the same thing as “contributing nothing,” you win. If you think biological species have developed to propagate their species from one generation to the next, then you are wrong.

If you choose the former it's probably time to take more of those biological courses huh?

If you call propagation of the species the same thing as “contributing nothing,” you win.I don't recall ever saying it contributes nothing. But it certainly doesn't contribute to the survival of the host (mother). Certainly not in it's parasitic stage, in fact it increases the chance of early death through various mechanisms.

If you think biological species have developed to propagate their species from one generation to the next, then you are wrong.Biological species have develloped _such that_ they propagate their species, not _to_ propagate it. It's simple cause effect, not a rational process.
Besides which advantages to the species as a whole do not translate to advantages of the individual. (Bees killing themselves, by stinging intruders, to protect the hive aren't doing themselves any favors, e.g.)

"300 Dollars thats the price of living what?"
-nick cannon

more than 40 million babies have been murdered since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)



http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml (http://www.straight-talk.net/abortion/business.shtml)

^check out this site, it also has other intersting statistics

Murder is illegal.

Abortion is legal.

Therefore, abortion =/= murder. Basic math.

Murder is illegal.

Abortion is legal.

Therefore, abortion =/= murder. Basic math.

If it were as simple as that, war crimes couldn't exist.

If it were as simple as that, war crimes couldn't exist.

War crimes do not exist, unless the law says they do. And - when you have a war that includes two societies, or that exists on the world platform, you have to allow for the laws of BOTH societies, or the laws of the 'world platform'.

Most nations subscribe to Geneva Protocols. Those that do not, are not bound by them.

War crimes do not exist, unless the law says they do. And - when you have a war that includes two societies, or that exists on the world platform, you have to allow for the laws of BOTH societies, or the laws of the 'world platform'.

Most nations subscribe to Geneva Protocols. Those that do not, are not bound by them.

Who has to allow for the laws of the losing side?

Who has to allow for the laws of the losing side?

You are confusing the fact that the more powerful nation often simply opts NOT TO follow-up on the unsavoury deeds of their own people - with the question of whether 'war crimes' were committed.

You are confusing the fact that the more powerful nation often simply opts NOT TO follow-up on the unsavoury deeds of their own people - with the question of whether 'war crimes' were committed.

You implied that if it's 'legal' it's not 'wrong,' I implied that it's not that simple. Legality is not always an absolvement of wrong doing. Legality changes.

You implied that if it's 'legal' it's not 'wrong,' I implied that it's not that simple. Legality is not always an absolvement of wrong doing. Legality changes.

I didn't say, or even imply, that at all.

I said that if it is 'legal' it is not 'murder'.

The reasons for this are twofold:

One - 'murder' is a specific 'crime' that deals with humans. First Trimester foetuses may or may not be 'human lives'. Some argue it takes more than human DNA to constitute 'a human'. (Which IS fair... cancers are not people in their own right).

Two - 'murder' is specific to ILLEGAL KILLING. First Trimester abortion may or may not be 'killing' (the jury is still out one whether having 'live tissue' is the same as being 'a life')... but it is not ILLEGAL.

Thus, abortion is NOT murder. Pure and simple.

...

Thus, abortion is NOT murder. Pure and simple.

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
3. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
4. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
5. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
6. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.


Lots of different ways of defining the word Murder.

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
3. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
4. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
5. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
6. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.


Lots of different ways of defining the word Murder.

I assume we are no longer talking about 'legality', then?

The legal definition is quite specific.

But, feel free to quibble semantics, if you wish... if we are talking legality, then abortion is not murder.

So it too is a parasite?

A five year old? Yes.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

My five year old daughter contributes nothing to my survival, but she damn sure eats my food and basks in my house's heat and thrives at my expense.

So ... yeah ... I'd say most people under 18 are, in fact, parasites to their host parents. Some stay parasitic for years beyond 18.

I assume we are no longer talking about 'legality', then?

The legal definition is quite specific.

But, feel free to quibble semantics, if you wish... if we are talking legality, then abortion is not murder.

Then we are back to questioning which legal definition and who's law book you are using to define 'legal' AND we are back to saying, "if it were that simple, than war crimes couldn't exist."

Legality is fluid, it is defined differently by different people and interpreted differently by different justices and judiciary bodies even when they are using the same law code.

Your attempt to bring into question their ‘basic math’ skills because they chose to use the verb ‘murder’ in their description of how they see the question of abortion, was inaccurate and conveyed no real purposed outside of simply trying to deny them the use of an emotionally charged word.

Then we are back to questioning which legal definition and who's law book you are using to define 'legal' AND we are back to saying, "if it were that simple, than war crimes couldn't exist."

Legality is fluid, it is defined differently by different people and interpreted differently by different justices and judiciary bodies even when they are using the same law code.

Your attempt to bring into question their ‘basic math’ skills because they chose to use the verb ‘murder’ in their description of how they see the question of abortion, was inaccurate and conveyed no real purposed outside of simply trying to deny them the use of an emotionally charged word.

And of course, what would they do without emotionally charged words? More posters of an aborted fetus blown up 500X on the roadside?

A five year old? Yes.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

My five year old daughter contributes nothing to my survival, but she damn sure eats my food and basks in my house's heat and thrives at my expense.

So ... yeah ... I'd say most people under 18 are, in fact, parasites to their host parents. Some stay parasitic for years beyond 18.

So then, simply being a 'parasite' is not in itself sufficient cause to justify one's extermination or execution.

A five year old? Yes.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

My five year old daughter contributes nothing to my survival, but she damn sure eats my food and basks in my house's heat and thrives at my expense.

So ... yeah ... I'd say most people under 18 are, in fact, parasites to their host parents. Some stay parasitic for years beyond 18.

Eh, yeah, but technically, at that point the child could live off of anyone, or no one if they can get food and shelter for themselves.

Then we are back to questioning which legal definition and who's law book you are using to define 'legal' AND we are back to saying, "if it were that simple, than war crimes couldn't exist."

Actually you are quite wrong on this point, you are not using a "legal" definition (which, by definition would mean a definition established by law) out of any law book, you are using a common definition out of a dictionary. Webster's Dictionary (and other such) are written by the editors and staff of that dictionary, not by members of a legislative body or a judicial body with the authority or ability to create legal definitions.

Legality is fluid, it is defined differently by different people and interpreted differently by different justices and judiciary bodies even when they are using the same law code.

What a law means is fluid but legality is not fluid. To be illegal, something must be banned BY LAW. Interpreting those laws and defining or establishing their meaning is a power that is only give to a judiciary just as creating those laws is a power only given to a legislature and enforing those laws (and judicial interpretations) is a power that is only given to an executive authority.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

Then we are back to questioning which legal definition and who's law book you are using to define 'legal' AND we are back to saying, "if it were that simple, than war crimes couldn't exist."

Legality is fluid, it is defined differently by different people and interpreted differently by different justices and judiciary bodies even when they are using the same law code.

Your attempt to bring into question their ‘basic math’ skills because they chose to use the verb ‘murder’ in their description of how they see the question of abortion, was inaccurate and conveyed no real purposed outside of simply trying to deny them the use of an emotionally charged word.

If we are talking about the US (which, since Roe v's Wade was mentioned, seems like a fairly logical assumption), and we are talking about US law (which, again, since a US law decision is being referred to, seems like a fair assumption)... then the US interpretation of the 'law' created in the wake of Roe v's Wade is the subject of debate.

In case of 'war crimes' - the laws of BOTH parties AND any other parties to which they are signatories, are the subject of debate.

If two nations war on each other, and both allow the cannibalism of fallen enemies, neither side is likely to call the other for War Crimes.

If, however, they are Geneva Conventions signatories, there ARE other forces at work... and likely, BOTH will be cited for their 'crimes'. (In the eyes of the 'society' they belong to).

'War Crimes' is basically a political phrase anyway... little more than a buzzword.


In a way, though - you are correct. The other poster WAS just using emotional rhetoric, and my post was largely designed to invalidate that 'appeal to emotion', by pointing out that it is clearly NOT a logical statement, within the confines of the situation (that is, a discussion based on comments about Roe v's Wade).

A five year old? Yes.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

My five year old daughter contributes nothing to my survival, but she damn sure eats my food and basks in my house's heat and thrives at my expense.

So ... yeah ... I'd say most people under 18 are, in fact, parasites to their host parents. Some stay parasitic for years beyond 18.

This is a popular and humorous way to classify a child but it does not meet the scientific definition of a parasite.

So then, simply being a 'parasite' is not in itself sufficient cause to justify one's extermination or execution.

Yes, it does but saying that a child is a parasite is facetious rather than accurate. Sorry, you can't use that as an out to support your argument.

Left to itself, it will die.
Left attached to the mother and feeding of her, it has a chance of survival that is about 70 %
It's around 33%. 1/3 or so of the fertilized eggs never implant, and of those that do, about half are spontaneously aborted.

Actually you are quite wrong on this point, you are not using a "legal" definition (which, by definition would mean a definition established by law) out of any law book, you are using a common definition out of a dictionary. Webster's Dictionary (and other such) are written by the editors and staff of that dictionary, not by members of a legislative body or a judicial body with the authority or ability to create legal definitions.

Already discussed. Who's law book are you choosing to use?

What a law means is fluid but legality is not fluid. To be illegal, something must be banned BY LAW. Interpreting those laws and defining or establishing their meaning is a power that is only give to a judiciary just as creating those laws is a power only given to a legislature and enforing those laws (and judicial interpretations) is a power that is only given to an executive authority.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

And if the court in 73' limited itself to your description of a strict verbatim interpretation of the law, then, we would be stuck with a new problem, abortion would never have been decided to be a right in the first place, since it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the law books before that, except in the negative. Law changes with the times, even when it tries not to. Thankfully, most of us live in a country that recognized at least one way of adding or subtracting from the current laws. Law lives and breaths, it changes, it is fluid.

Already discussed. Who's law book are you choosing to use?


And if the court in 73' limited itself to your description of a strict verbatim interpretation of the law, then, we would be stuck with a new problem, abortion would never have been decided to be a right in the first place, since it isn’t mentioned anywhere in the law books before that, except in the negative. Law changes with the times, even when it tries not to. Thankfully, most of us live in a country that recognized at least one way of adding or subtracting from the current laws. Law lives and breaths, it changes, it is fluid.

Yes, but a dictionary is not a law book (law books are very easy to identify... just go into any law office or judges chamber and, what do you know, law books). What I am choosing is to NOT use a dictionary to give me a legal definition (unless it is a legal definition).

I said nothing about strict interpretation of the law, quite the opposite. I said that laws are fluid. What I said was not fluid is where the source of those laws (and hence, of legal definitions) comes from. What I also said is that only legislatures get to write laws and only judiciaries get to interpret those laws. However good a definition a dictionary may give it does not mean that it is a legal definition (I know of no legislative action or judicial decisions, for example, saying that "murdering the language" is legally murder).

You seem to do a lot of misrepresenting what other people say in order to seem like you know what you are talking about. Do you find that very effective in the real world or do you just get ignored a lot? Just curious.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

...

You seem to do a lot of misrepresenting what other people say in order to seem like you know what you are talking about. Do you find that very effective in the real world or do you just get ignored a lot? Just curious.
...

*holds up mirror*

*holds up mirror*

Yes? And what do you see in that mirror when you hold it up? (I can only assume that you are holding it up so that you can see in it, otherwise you are holding it up to a computer screen, through which I can neither see or be seen, which would just indicate that you are kind of an idiot. I'm sorry. It is terrible to be slow and stupid.)

Since you seem to have run out of any actual debate points to make (no matter how weak and/or pointless they may be), I can assume that I am done with you. Good-bye and have a nice day.

Falkeep
Libertarian Monarchist

1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
3. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
4. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
5. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
6. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.


Lots of different ways of defining the word Murder.

The only one that applies in terms of the use we are looking at is the first unless you are talking about murdering embryos the same way you're murdering your own argument. If you don't use the first definition then soldiers are murderers. Some cops. Doctors. Farmers. Etc. Or we could use the only definition that limits itself to humans. Otherwise, I'm a murderer when I cut down the bush that got too big in front of my house.

The only one that applies in terms of the use we are looking at is the first unless you are talking about murdering embryos the same way you're murdering your own argument. If you don't use the first definition then soldiers are murderers. Some cops. Doctors. Farmers. Etc. Or we could use the only definition that limits itself to humans. Otherwise, I'm a murderer when I cut down the bush that got too big in front of my house.

When you say 'we' I'll assume from the rest of your post that you are aligning your postions with Grave_n_idle and not Shqipes? The only one that applies according to your use of the word would have to be list 1. There is more than one that might be applied to Shqipes use definition 1.


...
more than 40 million babies have been murdered 2, 3 and 4* since the roe v. wade case allowing abortion (January 22, 1973)

Murder is illegal.

Abortion is legal.

Therefore, abortion =/= murder 1*. Basic math.

*
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
3. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
4. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
5. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
6. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

When you say 'we' I'll assume from the rest of your post that you are aligning your postions with Grave_n_idle and not Shqipes? The only one that applies according to your use of the word would have to be list 1. There is more than one that might be applied to Shqipes use definition 1.



*
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly
3. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
4. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
5. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
6. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

Okay. So I see that we aren't going to classify murder as more than simply killing things without respect of their lives. Good to know. Well, let's see. There are no babies. So the OP was wrong there. There is no slaughter nor is it wanton for most of the 40 million, so it doesn't fit that definition. There is no bruatality or inhumanity in most of the 40 million. So it doesn't fit that definition. The last three definitions aren't even referring to deaths or killing. The first one doesn't fit because it's not unlawful and there is no malice, assuming you don't care that it does not meet the definition of life in most cases. So your point pretty much sucks.

And we'll try not to mention that if we're not limited to the first definition then everyone who has ever spread weedkiller is a 'murderer', along with farmers, gardeners, lumberjacks, contractors, doctors, hunters, fishermen, and basically anyone who eats. So now that we've used a definition that qualifies EVERYONE as a murderer, what's the point of the conversation?

I gave the OP the credit of using a definition that makes the sentence say something about the institution of abortion rather than just comparing abortion to fishing. Apparently, you don't wish to give the OP the same credit.

An abortion destroys human cells, that is true, but it does not destroy a human life. That is the critical difference.

First, I'll stipulate that abortion is not murder. Murder is defined as the illegal taking of human life, and since abortion is clearly legal, abortion is not murder.

However, by the time the pregnancy is detectable, they're not just "cells". They're an embryo, which is a multicellular organism. Secondly, this organism is clearly human. Whether or not this organism is a "person" is a legal and philosophical question. But it's clearly human life.

Okay. So I see that we aren't going to classify murder as more than simply killing things without respect of their lives. Good to know. Well, let's see. There are no babies. So the OP was wrong there. There is no slaughter nor is it wanton for most of the 40 million, so it doesn't fit that definition. There is no bruatality or inhumanity in most of the 40 million. So it doesn't fit that definition. The last three definitions aren't even referring to deaths or killing. The first one doesn't fit because it's not unlawful and there is no malice, assuming you don't care that it does not meet the definition of life in most cases. So your point pretty much sucks.

And we'll try not to mention that if we're not limited to the first definition then everyone who has ever spread weedkiller is a 'murderer', along with farmers, gardeners, lumberjacks, contractors, doctors, hunters, fishermen, and basically anyone who eats. So now that we've used a definition that qualifies EVERYONE as a murderer, what's the point of the conversation?

I gave the OP the credit of using a definition that makes the sentence say something about the institution of abortion rather than just comparing abortion to fishing. Apparently, you don't wish to give the OP the same credit.

Good points, all... and a couple of good posts, well made, my friend.

Add to your arguments, the fact that the OP clearly referenced Roe v's Wade, which means we are ONLY talking about 'legal' meanings... and those specifically of the US since that case... and the DubyaGoat prevarication becomes obvious as nothing more than obfuscation.

First, I'll stipulate that abortion is not murder. Murder is defined as the illegal taking of human life, and since abortion is clearly legal, abortion is not murder.

However, by the time the pregnancy is detectable, they're not just "cells". They're an embryo, which is a multicellular organism. Secondly, this organism is clearly human. Whether or not this organism is a "person" is a legal and philosophical question. But it's clearly human life.

You sure about that? Can you explain how it meets the biological definition of life since "it's clearly human life"? Unless you're arguing that simply because there are living cells and thos cells are human it makes it human life, in which case we're going to have a problem with tonselectomies.

First, I'll stipulate that abortion is not murder. Murder is defined as the illegal taking of human life, and since abortion is clearly legal, abortion is not murder.

However, by the time the pregnancy is detectable, they're not just "cells". They're an embryo, which is a multicellular organism. Secondly, this organism is clearly human. Whether or not this organism is a "person" is a legal and philosophical question. But it's clearly human life.

The cells are clearly human. The cells are clearly alive.

But - are they 'clearly human life'?

Only if cancers are ALSO 'clearly human life'.

Good points, all... and a couple of good posts, well made, my friend.

Add to your arguments, the fact that the OP clearly referenced Roe v's Wade, which means we are ONLY talking about 'legal' meanings... and those specifically of the US since that case... and the DubyaGoat prevarication becomes obvious as nothing more than obfuscation.

Careful, if they're struggling with two sylable common words like murder, then prevarication and obfuscation are really gonna make some waves.

The cells are clearly human. The cells are clearly alive.

But - are they 'clearly human life'?

Only if cancers are ALSO 'clearly human life'.

Beat you to the punch and used more science than you. *Throws up arms* I WIN!!

Careful, if they're struggling with two sylable common words like murder, then prevarication and obfuscation are really gonna make some waves.

Harsh.

And, I'd like to say, unfair.

I really WOULD like to sy that..... *sigh*

;)

Beat you to the punch and used more science than you. *Throws up arms* I WIN!!

Damn... beaten to it AND out-scienced.

I bow to your obvious superiority. *curses*

There's nothing wrong with early term abortions. Before the fetus develops a functioning brain it's not going to feel any pain. A lump of meat with no more of a brain than a mouse is just not human.

Woohoo! another abortion thread!

abortion is murder. How can you take away the life of a human just because it will not fit the mother's socialite life?

just because it is convenient doesn't mean it should be allowed. It's not a parasyte. the parents put it there, and if it is for convenience, which the majority are, then by that i could say children should be killed because they depend on their parents. i don't agree with that, do you?

they want to generate as much money as possible and kill of the black population...
HA HA HA HA!

This is a condom holder from Planned Parenthood that I plan on getting as soon as possible if it is still available.

http://worldnetdaily.com/images2/condomkeychain.jpg

There's nothing wrong with early term abortions. Before the fetus develops a functioning brain it's not going to feel any pain. A lump of meat with no more of a brain than a mouse is just not human.

Actually, at the time of most abortions, there is no functioning brain at all. The brain begins to form but the earliest synapses are only forming at the point when the majority of abortions have already occurred. Real brain function isn't even possible at that time.

Harsh.

And, I'd like to say, unfair.

I really WOULD like to sy that..... *sigh*

;)

Let's pretend like I didn't misspell syllable and you didn't misspell say.

Woohoo! another abortion thread!

abortion is murder. How can you take away the life of a human just because it will not fit the mother's socialite life?

just because it is convenient doesn't mean it should be allowed. It's not a parasyte. the parents put it there, and if it is for convenience, which the majority are, then by that i could say children should be killed because they depend on their parents. i don't agree with that, do you?

Prove it's a life and you'd have an argument. Hell, prove it WILL become a life.

Let's pretend like I didn't misspell syllable and you didn't misspell say.

That was a low blow... I'd managed to refrain from commenting on your 'sylables'...

I would have typed it more accurately, but I had a three-month-old baby on my left arm.