NationStates Jolt Archive

pro-life is a word that you hear mentioned mostly with anti-abortion. however, this doesnt only include abortion. if youre prolife but for the death penalty, you are pro-death. we all sin. why is the value of the life of a deathrow inmate any less than ours?

and thereis nothing that angers me more than abortion. nowadays, people care more about the life of an animal than that of an innocent human whos not fully developed. a pre-teen isnt fully developed. should we start killing them too? let it be for God's sake, give the child a chance to live. if anything put it up for adoption.

i feel that animals are very important and shouldnt be killed for fun. however, i would much rather see a million animals die than one baby. this says alot since i love animals

scenario: a girl gets raped and cant take care of a baby as a result of financial reasons. in this case, it is not the baby's fault. why does he have to be punished for the crimes of his father? do we punish the children of osama? no. by killing the baby, you actually add to the emotional hurt that comes with a rape

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.

what has this world come to?

40 million fellow humans have been massacred since January 22, 1973. this culture of death needs to stop

and, by the way, planned parent hood was started by a racist (Margaret Sanger) whose initial mission was to kill off the black race. why condone this evil corporation which originated with racist and evil intentions?
/rant

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.
Just the girl has two miss/screw up two or three semesters at school. The girl will probably fail most of the courses she is taking at the time, and depending on when she gets pregnant she could miss an etire semester and enough of another semester to make passing nearly impossible. Basically, the girl gets about a year of her schoollife fuck, which dramatically increases her chances of dropping out entirely and using welfare programs.

Plus, if parents need to adopt so badly, adopt a Chinese baby.

You've probably guessed by now that I am pro-freedom :).

Just the girl has two miss/screw up two or three semesters at school. The girl will probably fail most of the courses she is taking at the time, and depending on when she gets pregnant she could miss an etire semester and enough of another semester to make passing nearly impossible. Basically, the girl gets about a year of her schoollife fuck, which dramatically increases her chances of dropping out entirely and using welfare programs.

Plus, if parents need to adopt so badly, adopt a Chinese baby.

You've probably guessed by now that I am pro-freedom :).

first of all, were just accounting for 1 percent of rapes

second of all, we do have freedom. freedom to choose life (if we didnt have freedom murder, stealing, etc. wouldnt be possible)

third of all, again, its not the babies fault. what is a semester of college when there is a human life at stake?

fourth, there is no college in america or in the world that would fail a raped woman because she got pregnant through the rape. they would understand, excuse her absence, and would let her continur the next semester

name on college or university that would fail a woman

:)

ps: about the freedom part, isnt murdering someone in line with "freedom." with true freedom to do whatever the hell you want, a society would not last, my friend. there needs to be some limitations

Unless, she was Raped in which case I would allow Abortion. It was her own damn fault. Just because someone can't say NO doesn't mean they have to kill an innocent child. Abstinence is the best Birth Control.

by the way, im also pro-freedom

a person should not have the ability to murder someone or to steal something which isnt theirs(unless they need it to survive)

I'm with Shqipes, why should we kill an innocent life? I mean I hear all the time about "What if the mother would die, what if she was raped/incest, what if she was poor etc." However, what people don't realize is that those scenario account for a small percentage of abortions. Most abortions are done because the woman made a "miskate", or that the baby wasn't "right" (disabled), or the condom broke. Wow... I'm suprised the streets aren't flooded with blood by now. My church has a memorial for the killed babies, and every month I put a rose on that memorial and I say a small prayers for the lives that were never given a chance.

What happend to following the Consitution? You know, the right to LIFE Liberty and Happiness? I guess we just follow what we want to follow and screw the rest of it.

first of all, were just accounting for 1 percent of rapes

second of all, we do have freedom. freedom to choose life (if we didnt have freedom murder, stealing, etc. wouldnt be possible)

third of all, again, its not the babies fault. what is a semester of college when there is a human life at stake?

fourth, there is no college in america or in the world that would fail a raped woman because she got pregnant through the rape. they would understand, excuse her absence, and would let her continur the next semester

name on college or university that would fail a woman

:)

ps: about the freedom part, isnt murdering someone in line with "freedom." with true freedom to do whatever the hell you want, a society would not last, my friend. there needs to be some limitations
I was taking about highschool aged girl, but whatever.

PS-What has more pazaz, Choice or Freedom?

first of all, were just accounting for 1 percent of rapes

second of all, we do have freedom. freedom to choose life (if we didnt have freedom murder, stealing, etc. wouldnt be possible)

third of all, again, its not the babies fault. what is a semester of college when there is a human life at stake?

fourth, there is no college in america or in the world that would fail a raped woman because she got pregnant through the rape. they would understand, excuse her absence, and would let her continur the next semester

name on college or university that would fail a woman

:)

ps: about the freedom part, isnt murdering someone in line with "freedom." with true freedom to do whatever the hell you want, a society would not last, my friend. there needs to be some limitations


Well, in the case of Rape, Incest, or danger to the mother, abortion has to be considered an avaliable option for even the most stringent opponent of baby killing.

I mean I hear all the time about "What if the mother would die, what if she was raped/incest, what if she was poor etc." However, what people don't realize is that those scenario account for a small percentage of abortions.

even if they happened at a larger scale, it would still be wrong to kill the baby

i know that you would be against it even if it happened at a larger scale, im just clarifying

What happend to following the Consitution? You know, the right to LIFE Liberty and Happiness? I guess we just follow what we want to follow and screw the rest of it.
The Canadian Constitution does not kick in until you are born.

I'm suprised Roe V. Wade haven't been declared unconsitutional. I mean for crying out loud, in the first sentance of the consitution it says that We have the right to Life, Liberty and Happiness. I mean if we kill an unborn child, then aren't we denying him the right to life?

The Canadian Constitution does not kick in until you are born.

Well I am talking about the United States Consitution.

Well, in the case of Rape, Incest, or danger to the mother, abortion has to be considered an avaliable option for even the most stringent opponent of baby killing.

nope. abortion is murder, it doesnt matter what the circumstances are. let the baby have a chance to live. if a mothers life is in danger if the baby is born, whats to say that her life is more important than that of the baby's? let is play out. chances are the mother will be fine

abortion makes a woman more likely to have breast cancer. with the baby in her womb (ever since conception), her body is releasing hormones to account for this baby. by killing the baby, it messes with the mom's hormones, somehow causeing cancer

and by the way, the abortion pill is known to increase the risk of cancer, as well as other horrible side effects

give the child a chance to live. if anything put it up for adoption.

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.



Ahhh the adoption argument. Sounds nice. Looks great on paper too.

However, it is not as easy as you think. A friend had 3 cases of second thoughts when she tried to adopt.

Also, people only want to adopt cute healthy BABIES! There are many kids in the system. Some with special needs.

If I read there are no kids in the system left to adopt, then I will join your camp.....

The Canadian Constitution does not kick in until you are born.

that, my friend, is a common flaw

I'm with Shqipes, why should we kill an innocent life? I mean I hear all the time about "What if the mother would die, what if she was raped/incest, what if she was poor etc." However, what people don't realize is that those scenario account for a small percentage of abortions. Most abortions are done because the woman made a "miskate", or that the baby wasn't "right" (disabled), or the condom broke. Wow... I'm suprised the streets aren't flooded with blood by now. My church has a memorial for the killed babies, and every month I put a rose on that memorial and I say a small prayers for the lives that were never given a chance.

What happend to following the Consitution? You know, the right to LIFE Liberty and Happiness? I guess we just follow what we want to follow and screw the rest of it.

Heavy cafine injesting can cause miscarriages in some women. So if a woman micarries should she be held for murder?

The Constitution does not apply until you are born.

Ahhh the adoption argument. Sounds nice. Looks great on paper too.

However, it is not as easy as you think. A friend had 3 cases of second thoughts when she tried to adopt.

Also, people only want to adopt cute healthy BABIES! There are many kids in the system. Some with special needs.

If I read there are no kids in the system left to adopt, then I will join your camp.....

So we will adopt AND kill disabled babies. HEIL HITLER!

Ahhh the adoption argument. Sounds nice. Looks great on paper too.

However, it is not as easy as you think. A friend had 3 cases of second thoughts when she tried to adopt.

Also, people only want to adopt cute healthy BABIES! There are many kids in the system. Some with special needs.

If I read there are no kids in the system left to adopt, then I will join your camp.....

can you support that by fact? how do you know that people want to adopt "cute healthy BABIES"? i can tell you of several cases in which couples in america adopted babies that were handicapped, had mental incapabilites, or needed to go through a much needed surgery. These people spent alot of their money to help these children

you are wrong in that thinking

and there are always people wanting to adopt. no matter how many babies are born, you will always find someone

So we will adopt AND kill disabled babies. HEIL HITLER!

And we have a Godwin!

Heavy cafine injesting can cause miscarriages in some women. So if a woman micarries should she be held for murder?

The Constitution does not apply until you are born.

and yet, The Consitution says ALL CITIZENS....

Well I am talking about the United States Consitution.
Well, (You really should have a comma after the word well when use in the way that you used it) I am Canadian. Whenever the oppertunity arrises I shall take about Canada. It is in my blood, my Canadian blood.

Heavy cafine injesting can cause miscarriages in some women. So if a woman micarries should she be held for murder?

The Constitution does not apply until you are born.

it is almost impossible to know if a miscarriage is intentional or not. it is wrong, but it is almost impossible to find out if it was done intentionally

And we have a Godwin!

What is a Godwin?

and yet, The Consitution says ALL CITIZENS....
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that unborn fetuses are not citizens.

What is a Godwin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law, Which, means profreedom wins on a technicallity. w00t!

you know what pisses me off? if my parents chose to abort me (thank God they didn't!), my government would not have stepped in to save me. they would have let it happen. i love life, and im glad that my parents chose it for me.

can you support that by fact? how do you know that people want to adopt "cute healthy BABIES"? i can tell you of several cases in which couples in america adopted babies that were handicapped, had mental incapabilites, or needed to go through a much needed surgery. These people spent alot of their money to help these children

you are wrong in that thinking

and there are always people wanting to adopt. no matter how many babies are born, you will always find someone

I didn't say they weren't being adopted. Some are but many are not. I have my info from a friend who works in the business.

Some kids never leave the system untill they are 18. That is a fact.

Babies are the prime interest, then come older kids to a point, then come the special needs kids.....

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that unborn fetuses are not citizens.

Once again, I am referring to the United States.

is anyone African American here?

and yet, The Consitution says ALL CITIZENS....

Citizens have social security numbers and birth papers.

Fetus' do not.....

Once again, I am referring to the United States.
Once again. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10351553&postcount=21)

And we have a Godwin!

Well you have to admit we are heading down a slipperly slope. I mean if a woman is allowed to kill a baby just because the baby was disabled, then what will stop her, or other parents to genetically manipulate their babies so that they're "perfect"? Wow...designer babies. I guess we stopped caring about just loving the child, and caring for the child, on the fact that it's your child. Now you're child has to be "perfect" or oops, it get's aborted and they try again. Ahh, this would make Hitler proud.

"Who Was Margaret Sanger?

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an adulteress, racist and bigot, a supporter of Hitler's Nazi party, and a believer in eugenics - the purification of a particular race of people by selective breeding. Her magazines and journals were filled with writings and articles by well-known eugenicists and members of Hitler's Third Reich.

On October 19, 1939, Sanger outlined a plan for stopping the growth of the Black community. She predicted that "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members."[8] Her planning, which included being careful to make it appear that hand-picked Blacks are in control, is followed with success even today. Faye Wattleton's position as President of PPFA was testimony to that fact.


The Birth Control Review, founded by Sanger in 1917, was totally committed to the eugenics philosophy. The official editorial policy of The Review endorsed I.Q. testing, which classified Blacks, southern Europeans, and other immigrants as mentally inferior to native-born White Americans and called them a nuisance and a menace to society. In the 1920s she tried to use the results from I.Q. tests, which classified the U.S. soldier as a near moron, to back up her own findings."


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7dd3740515.htm

cliffs: she was a racist bitch. good riddance

So, for all of you people claiming that the Constitution says something (at the beginning in some cases) about life, liberty, and happiness, you are wrong. That is in the Declaration of Independence, which, while an important document in the US, is not a legal document. The first sentence of the Constitution is the Preamble, which states:

"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nothing about life, liberty is mentioned, and nothing about happiness.

And just in case you were wondering, I have a poster with the Constitution on it hanging above my desk.

Well you have to admit we are heading down a slipperly slope. I mean if a woman is allowed to kill a baby just because the baby was disabled, then what will stop her, or other parents to genetically manipulate their babies so that they're "perfect"? Wow...designer babies. I guess we stopped caring about just loving the child, and caring for the child, on the fact that it's your child. Now you're child has to be "perfect" or oops, it get's aborted and they try again. Ahh, this would make Hitler proud.
Or, instead of aborting the babies, you could modify the one you have and save so much time and lubrication.

Or, instead of aborting the babies, you could modify the one you have and save so much time and lubrication.

You are missing the point, thanks to technology, we are now doing what Hilter always dreamed of, creating "perfect" people. You know, if their heads start exploding, I'm just going to laugh until I die.

"Who Was Margaret Sanger?

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an adulteress, racist and bigot, a supporter of Hitler's Nazi party, and a believer in eugenics - the purification of a particular race of people by selective breeding. Her magazines and journals were filled with writings and articles by well-known eugenicists and members of Hitler's Third Reich.

On October 19, 1939, Sanger outlined a plan for stopping the growth of the Black community. She predicted that "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members."[8] Her planning, which included being careful to make it appear that hand-picked Blacks are in control, is followed with success even today. Faye Wattleton's position as President of PPFA was testimony to that fact.


The Birth Control Review, founded by Sanger in 1917, was totally committed to the eugenics philosophy. The official editorial policy of The Review endorsed I.Q. testing, which classified Blacks, southern Europeans, and other immigrants as mentally inferior to native-born White Americans and called them a nuisance and a menace to society. In the 1920s she tried to use the results from I.Q. tests, which classified the U.S. soldier as a near moron, to back up her own findings."


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7dd3740515.htm

cliffs: she was a racist bitch. good riddance
What does Margaret Sanger have to do with this arguement?

What does Margaret Sanger have to do with this arguement?

She founded Planned Parenthood.

What does Margaret Sanger have to do with this arguement?

she founded planned parenthood of america and her thinking is the basis for most of the arguments that are pro-abortion

ever hear the argument,

"o he'll never amount to anything, he comes from a poor family in the ghetto. its better to get rid of him than for him to grow up in those living conditions and become a thug"

that is a direct attack on minorities

EDIT: and just to let you know, according to her belief, i should have been aborted

i am from eastern europe even though im a white catholic

You are missing the point, thanks to technology, we are now doing what Hilter always dreamed of, creating "perfect" people. You know, if their heads start exploding, I'm just going to laugh until I die.
So basically, everything Hilter was in favor of is doubleplusunorthodoxy?

she founded planned parenthood of america and her thinking is the basis for most of the arguments that are pro-abortion

ever hear the argument,

"o he'll never amount to anything, he comes from a poor family in the ghetto. its better to get rid of him than for him to grow up in those living conditions and become a thug"

that is a direct attack minorities
Only if the poor are mostly made up of minorities,which sadly is the case in America.

Only if the poor are mostly made up of minorities,which sadly is the case in America.

during her time, this consisted mostly of black people and of italians. her plan was to get rid of these "lesser people"

So basically, everything Hilter was in favor of is doubleplusunorthodoxy?

Umm, please use real words.

during her time, this consisted mostly of black people and of italians. her plan was to get rid of these "lesser people"
I think I shall add her to my "Dead to Me" list. Now where did I put it...

Sanger truly believed these groups were a "dead weight of human waste" and "a menace to the race." (again, this mostly consisted of blacks and italians)

margaret sanger wants me dead

Umm, please use real words.
If it is good enough for Orwell, it is good enough for me.

margaret sanger wants me dead

Eh, the Nazi's basically want everyone who didn't fit into the ridiously high standards of the Aryan Race dead.

If it is good enough for Orwell, it is good enough for me.

So, you had no real counter-argument against my designer baby argument, so you pulled phrases out of fictional novels. nice.

Eh, the Nazi's basically want everyone who didn't fit into the ridiously high standards of the Aryan Race dead.
Hell, the members of the Aryan Race do not, technically, meat the standards required to be a part of the Aryan Race.

>> Redundantified reply about the Constitution, echoing The Squadron's post

More Importantly: You're a History major. You should know this.


as for the topic at hand:

Abortion's not a problem; it's a symptom. You want less abortions to happen? Provide safe, effective birth control.

Hell, the members of the Aryan Race do not, technically, meat the standards required to be a part of the Aryan Race.

Yea well, thanks to genetic engineering, that can now be possible.

So, you had no real counter-argument against my designer baby argument, so you pulled phrases out of fictional novels. nice.
I was more being annoyed by all the Hitler bashing. Yes he was evil man that all of us can recongize, but it is becoming as annoying as Chuck Norris facts.

You seem to be a bit confused. Perhaps you'd like to refer instead to the Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)? (You'll have to read to the second sentence, though.)



Now... Abortion's not a problem; it's a symptom. You want less abortions to happen? Provide safe, effective birth control.

1.birth control is abortion

2. how about the part of the constitution that doesnt allow murder?

Yea well, thanks to genetic engineering, that can now be possible.
Maybe. I do not think it is at the stage where the genes from "unpure" races can be removed.

Only if the poor are mostly made up of minorities,which sadly is the case in America.

No it isn't, but that is what moonbat special interests would have you believe.

No it isn't, but that is what moonbat special interests would have you believe.

it is true. when the irish were coming into america, they were the minority. they lived in the slums. and by the way, the color of your skin is not the only thing that makes you in the minority

"Who Was Margaret Sanger? *snip*


For some reason an article published by the American Life League begs the question of bias and intent.

Some such as time have argued it was a tactic since eugenicists of her time were against birth control as they felt people would use it more. Go figure.

http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/sanger4.html

In Sweden we don't have any pro-life people. But we have a lot of socialists, i guess every country has their problems.

margaret sanger wants me dead

Wow that's a good trick since she died in 1966.

You hear voices?

it is true. when the irish were coming into america, they were the minority. they lived in the slums. and by the way, the color of your skin is not the only thing that makes you in the minority

You left out the Poles and the Italians.....

1.birth control is abortion


Ohhhhhhhkaaayyyyy!

Ever masterbate?


2. how about the part of the constitution that doesnt allow murder?

*sigh*

it is true. when the irish were coming into america, they were the minority. they lived in the slums. and by the way, the color of your skin is not the only thing that makes you in the minority

The only way you can make that true is to customize your definition of minority. Otherwise it is bunk. It's just like the special interests yelling that most of the people in prison in this country are black. That is also a load of crap until you start manipulating your definition of what constitutes "black". In either case, it doesn't hold water until you taylor your facts to fit the conclusion you wish to draw.

Ever masterbate?

i plead the fifth :cool:

Maybe. I do not think it is at the stage where the genes from "unpure" races can be removed.


Removed? No. Possible modified? Some aspects(ie skin color if the sequence was ever discoverd).

We are a loooooooooooooonnnnnnnggggggg way to do serious modification of the genome.

We only mapped it; we don't even remotely understand the sequences.

In the matter of CF, we have 25 known sequences that are confirmed. There are another 1000 that might designate a carrior......

The answer is simple: a foetus is no way a human being. How could you call something which has no brain, no heart, no blood a human being ? It's mass of cells, that's all.

Sure, it could become a human being... but every month a woman "lose" what could become a human being, and for us men, we lose millions of potential future human beings on a regular basis...

I'm not saying abortion should be used as a primary mean of contraception, but you can't say it's murder or anything like that. A brain-less mass of cells is not a human being. So stop calling murderers women who chose this solution because it's the less worse.

1.birth control is abortion

Ah. you must be Catholic. (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/mol/m-04-i-2.htm)

"Pro-Freedom" used as a synonym for "Pro-Choice" is the most stupid thing I've heard since people wanted to call French Fries "Liberty Fries", shameless two-faced propaganda...

Back to the issue, I don't believe in abortion unless the life of the mother is put in jeopardy (none of that "damage to her mental health" crap), I remember back in Jr. High school they made us watch the movie so as to become tolerant and even accepting of abortions.

I don't remember the movie very well, probably because I knew it was a load of bull and slept through it, but I do know Norma stated that she was raped and after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of her she came clean and confessed that she was not raped. Last year she petitioned to have the outcome overturned due to evidence not shown in the first case, but of course now that the Baby Ki... er... "pro-choicers" have their foot in the door they are not going to let go that easy.

Just goes to show you how a lie can end up in millions of innocents dead at the hands of unethical butchers. On the bright side Norma later repented for bringing such a heinous idea into court, she converted into Catholicism and is now an advocate for the Pro-Life movement.

If Norma saw the light maybe there is hope for women who see the unborn as inconveniences to their promiscuous lifestyles.

On the bright side Norma later repented for bringing such a heinous idea into court, she converted into Catholicism and is now an advocate for the Pro-Life movement.

If Norma saw the light maybe there is hope for women who see the unborn as inconveniences to their promiscuous lifestyles.

so did roe, who was the person who was pro-abortion at the roe v wade case of 73

she later changed her mind and repented. in fact she was quoted as saying, "these playgrounds are empty. i am the cause of this emptiness" (something to taht effect, i lost the site

Back to the issue, I don't believe in abortion unless the life of the mother is put in jeopardy (none of that "damage to her mental health" crap), I remember back in Jr. High school they made us watch the movie so as to become tolerant and even accepting of abortions.

I don't remember the movie very well, probably because I knew it was a load of bull and slept through it,


:rolleyes: If you slept through it then you told a lie about the intent of the film.


but I do know Norma stated that she was raped and after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of her she came clean and confessed that she was not raped. Last year she petitioned to have the outcome overturned due to evidence not shown in the first case, but of course now that the Baby Ki... er... "pro-choicers" have their foot in the door they are not going to let go that easy.


Hmmmmm What was that you said?

shameless two-faced propaganda...


Just goes to show you how a lie can end up in millions of innocents dead at the hands of unethical butchers. On the bright side Norma later repented for bringing such a heinous idea into court, she converted into Catholicism and is now an advocate for the Pro-Life movement.

So? and Catholicism is not exactly the example of morality to be using these days.


If Norma saw the light maybe there is hope for women who see the unborn as inconveniences to their promiscuous lifestyles.

Ahhhh so you have never looked into why they happened. Just regurgitating that religous spew.....

I remember back in Jr. High school they made us watch the movie so as to become tolerant and even accepting of abortions.

"the movie"?

A title/imdb link might be helpful, so that we know of what you speak. (i.e. prove you're not just pulling LSD out of your navel.)

so did roe, who was the person who was pro-abortion at the roe v wade case of 73

she later changed her mind and repented. in fact she was quoted as saying, "these playgrounds are empty. i am the cause of this emptiness" (something to taht effect, i lost the site

Uhhh Norma McCorvey is Roe.....

Ahhh Norma McCorvey is Roe.....

*so did norma mccorvey

"the movie"?

A title/imdb link might be helpful, so that we know of what you speak. (i.e. prove you're not just pulling LSD out of your navel.)

:p don't you remember those health films? IMDB won't list those "work of arts." ;)

:p don't you remember those health films? IMDB won't list those "work of arts." ;)

Actually its :http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098212/

BTW I later saw it, along with "The last temptation of Christ" and "Plan 9 from outer Space" I was in a "Are these movies really crap?" kind of phase... They were... :(

Actually its :http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098212/

BTW I later saw it, along with "The last temptation of Christ" and "Plan 9 from outer Space" I was in a "Are these movies really crap?" kind of phase... They were... :(

They made you watch that in a health class?????????

I wouldn't even do that and I am pro-choice/death/babyeater.

Your school is dead now? Right? ;)

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/192005a.asp

even the person who strongly defended abortion turned away from it after realizing its evils

you all seem like reasonable people, so i think we can agree that this is relative, in the way that it depends a lot on what a human being is, whether a sperm cell, or egg is considered human, (in which case even masturbation is murder) or if those two parts have to be joined for there to be a human being. this goes further in the question off whether or not a soul exists, or if the human being is simply the collection of memories that our brain has. If we have a soul, when does it appear? when the sperm and egg is joined? when we leave the womb? or how about when we turn 18, or 21, or whatever the people think.
another scenario would be if a human being is the collection of memories that we hold, thereby meaning that we aren't really human until we have a brain (the memories have to be kept somewhere, and for this theorie, lets just say the brain) which would mean that after some time in the womb we would be human. this unbelievable then turns to the question of proestetics (replacement arms and legs and whatnot), in the way that if we say we have a soul, that contains our very sense of "self", then how much of our "original container" can we lose before losing our soul, which raises the question on whether or not the soul would follow.

this basicly boils down to: do we have a soul? if yes then when do we get it? if no, what defines us?

ofcourse, you could also throw EVERY thing i just wrote into the dump
:headbang: and say:"the planet is over populated, and abortin gives us more time until we have to either evacuate, or...throw a bomb somwhere to make room" :gundge:

now, dont get me wrong, my personal opinion is that abortion should be possible, until some point of the pregnance (a couple of weeks perhaps?)
based on the fact that i think we're defined to some point by what we remember, meaning that we need to have a way to store this memory, aka the brain, i do however also realise a problem we have, and, although i dont want to seem heartless, if the amount of people that are born, continues to be bigger then the amount of people that die, then we're gonna have to go nuclear war against some people at some point, with the biggest question being "who?", africa, because they dont have as "bright" a future as the rest of us? asia, because "they started it, they are the ones humping all day long"?, but if we dont want to say that just because some nations arent as "well developed" as others, do we have the right to shoot them to ensure our survival? because, americans dont want them to be shot either.

ps. personaly i dont think the american, OR canadian consitution has any say in this, since this is a debate over something that interferes with ALL life on the planet, no national documents should be involved. at least in my own humble opinion.

pps. sorry about the long rant, but i have WAY too much time to think

....

believe it or not, the earth is actually underpopulated. overpopulation isnt a prblem. i guess the only problem might be the fact that in some countries many people are concentrated to a small area (such as in china). however, if spread across the globe, all the people in the world would cover no more than a half of the land (this doesnt include water). contrary to popular belief, we are a long way from overpopulation and a world in which we would run out of food or space

you all seem like reasonable people, so i think we can agree that this is relative, in the way that it depends a lot on what a human being is, whether a sperm cell, or egg is consi...

Had to snip the quote to keep the page from getting way to long. Anyways, you're right.

I pretty much agree with you exactly.

believe it or not, the earth is actually underpopulated. overpopulation isnt a prblem. i guess the only problem might be the fact that in some countries many people are concentrated to a small area (such as in china). however, if spread across the globe, all the people in the world would cover no more than a half of the land (this doesnt include water). contrary to popular belief, we are a long way from overpopulation and a world in which we would run out of food or space

Do you not read entire posts?! That was one small example that didn't have much to do with the post as a whole. Seriously.

Had to snip the quote to keep the page from getting way to long. Anyways, you're right.

I pretty much agree with you exactly.

:cool: just messing with you

Do you not read entire posts?! That was one small example that didn't have much to do with the post as a whole. Seriously.

i did read the whole post. i just felt like explaining that part

i did read the whole post. i just felt like explaining that part

But why explain one part that characterizes the sheer ignorance of some people...that has nothing to do with the rest of the post?

I don't want children. I despise them. I do want sex. I like it. I'm careful, but accidents can happen. Too bad about the so-called "baby". I can't know its opinion on being killed, since it doesn't have one, so therefore I don't care.

Adoption? My problems run something like this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10298987&postcount=39) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10298991&postcount=40), as discussed on one of the myriad of abortion threads here.

That is all.

believe it or not, the earth is actually underpopulated. overpopulation isnt a prblem. i guess the only problem might be the fact that in some countries many people are concentrated to a small area (such as in china). however, if spread across the globe, all the people in the world would cover no more than a half of the land (this doesnt include water). contrary to popular belief, we are a long way from overpopulation and a world in which we would run out of food or space


What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Hmmm, let's all just sit down and divide the world up equally, giving each person the same about of land and resources with which to survive.

It appears that you have no concept of economics, history, geo-politics and .....erm...reality.

They made you watch that in a health class?????????

I wouldn't even do that and I am pro-choice/death/babyeater.

Your school is dead now? Right? ;)

I saw RVW in a social studies class, the other two I rented... excuse me while I try to beat the memories of those movies from my head :headbang:

Everyone is obviously both pro-choice and pro-life.

Why do you mask it? You're either for or against abortion...not for or against life and choice.

Sheesh.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

Hmmm, let's all just sit down and divide the world up equally, giving each person the same about of land and resources with which to survive.

It appears that you have no concept of economics, history, geo-politics and .....erm...reality.

actually, i dont mean to sound modest or anything, but i feel that i have a decent concept of "real" life.

i have experienced many different people in my life that have come and gone. they were considerable different in their economic status and in their beliefs.i have lived in two different environments: one in which people are poor and the unemployment rate is 30 percent, and one in which being poor is mainly of the person's choosing

as for history, i loooove history. if you get me going, i wont stop talking about the history of the US as well as the history of europe, mainly albania. i also know a fair decent amount of latin american history as well as african and asian history

as for politics... i love politics (kinda goes hand in hand with history). i love to debate with people about things and love to hear their views. i like the fact that people have different views though. however, i dont think that there should be views on abortion or on the death penalty. they dont deserve to have their own views, and should be made illegal

however, i dont think that there should be views on abortion or on the death penalty. they dont deserve to have their own views, and should be made illegal

See? That's where your logic just falls apart.

"People shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on something because I find it morally wrong."

Well, screw you and your morals, pal. What about someone else's moral code? Why haven't we all adopted theirs?

You assume that you are right based on personal opinions and, for whatever reason, believe that yours are the only ones that matter. How would you react if the government told you that any opinions against abortion and the death penalty were illegal, and that you should just get over it, eh?

*Bmol stumbles half-drunk into the forum wearing a lab coat, holding several books ranging from Theology to Darwinism under one arm and holding a bottle unidentified liquor on the other hand*

Eureka! Here's what we do, as soon as women are able to bear children they are taken to a yet to be chosen goverment office and given the following choices "Have children and forfeit your right to have an abortion" Or "Get your tubes tied up so you never have children"

Problem solved! *takes a swig of liquor and waits for the crowd to go wild with cheers*

actually, i dont mean to sound modest or anything, but i feel that i have a decent concept of "real" life.


Not according to the 'point' you made about over-population. That could only have come from a position of extreme ignorance.



i have experienced many different people in my life that have come and gone. they were considerable different in their economic status and in their beliefs.i have lived in two different environments: one in which people are poor and the unemployment rate is 30 percent, and one in which being poor is mainly of the person's choosing

as for history, i loooove history. if you get me going, i wont stop talking about the history of the US as well as the history of europe, mainly albania. i also know a fair decent amount of latin american history as well as african and asian history

as for politics... i love politics (kinda goes hand in hand with history). i love to debate with people about things and love to hear their views. i like the fact that people have different views though. however, i dont think that there should be views on abortion or on the death penalty. they dont deserve to have their own views, and should be made illegal


Are you a bit simple or something? I'm not sure why you're telling me these things other than perhaps to illustrate that you don't really understand what I was talking about?

See? That's where your logic just falls apart.

"People shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on something because I find it morally wrong."

Well, screw you and your morals, pal. What about someone else's moral code? Why haven't we all adopted theirs?

You assume that you are right based on personal opinions and, for whatever reason, believe that yours are the only ones that matter. How would you react if the government told you that any opinions against abortion and the death penalty were illegal, and that you should just get over it, eh?

hmm. what about murdering an adult. imagine i was for murdering an innocent adult

"You assume that you are right based on personal opinions and, for whatever reason, believe that yours are the only ones that matter. How would you react if the government told you that any opinions against murder were illegal, and that you should just get over it, eh?:

hmm. what about murdering an adult. imagine i was for murdering an innocent adult

"You assume that you are right based on personal opinions and, for whatever reason, believe that yours are the only ones that matter. How would you react if the government told you that any opinions against murder were illegal, and that you should just get over it, eh?:

Dude, you could be all for murdering an innocent adult. And you know what? That's your right. It's your right to think however you want on the issue.

The government isn't going to tell you that you can't go around yelling "Murder should be legal!".

You're proposing that we shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on an issue.


You got it wrong this time, try again.

hmm. what about murdering an adult. imagine i was for murdering an innocent adultClearly an unfair comparison, but I simply can't be arsed to even begin explaining to you. I'm sure someone else will, but in the meantime, here are some links to some of the most popular abortion threads in General, which will already have done so:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=452486

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362511

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=435119

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390554

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372216

Besides which, you are allowed to be "for" murdering an innocent adult. You're just not allowed to do it.

as for politics... i love politics (kinda goes hand in hand with history). i love to debate with people about things and love to hear their views. i like the fact that people have different views though. however, i dont think that there should be views on abortion or on the death penalty. they dont deserve to have their own views, and should be made illegal

saying that you like people have different views on abortion and the death penalty, but saying they dont deserver it a line later is somewhat hypocritical, and then saying it should be illegal, is ignoring the fact that people view stuff differently. I, like you, love to debate, but this can only go on if people accept the fact that people think differently, until the point where the refute logic itself, in which case it is normally called insanity. if you somehow think i call you insane, then you are absolutly right, because i think everybody is insane, some just in a logic kinda way, you, in the way that you dont seem to accept the fact that other pople have their own opions, and they should shove it. if you want to know why i think everybody is insane, its becuase nobody thinks alike.

hmm. what about murdering an adult. imagine i was for murdering an innocent adult

"Innocence" has nothing to do in the matter. An adult, like a child, is a human being. He has a brain, he can think, he can feel. It's a sentient being.

A foetus is no more than a mass of cells. It can't think nor feel (no brain, no nerves). It's no more a sentient being than a bacteria or a plant.

You just can't compare the two.

Dude, you could be all for murdering an innocent adult. And you know what? That's your right.

The government isn't going to tell you that you can't go around yelling "Murder should be legal!".

You're proposing that we shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on an issue.


You got it wrong this time, try again.

you can have the opinion of being for abortion, but i wouldnt like the govt to let that happen

and fine, then murder should be legal

o and just to let you know something, i would be defending YOUR life had anyone (thank God they didnt!!) ever considered aborting you. we need to stand up for these humans that cant defend themselves

you can have the opinion of being for abortion, but i wouldnt like the govt to let that happen

and fine, then murder should be legal

o and just to let you know something, i would be defending YOUR life had anyone (thank God they didnt!!) ever considered aborting you. we need to stand up for these humans that cant defend themselves

Oh these poor, defenseless children! Won't somebody think of the children that haven't even been born?!?

Screw them. Why do we care so much about the kid BEFORE it's born, and then refuse to give a damn after birth.

"Hey, look, there are homeless people begging for change."
"Screw them. They had their chance...now let's get to the anti-abortion rally to give unborn babies a chance."

If we focused more on making the world a better place, this wouldn't be an issue. But no, the religious types are worried more about abortion and the hereafter...screw today and tomorrow.

Oh these poor, defenseless children! Won't somebody think of the children that haven't even been born?!?

Screw them. Why do we care so much about the kid BEFORE it's born, and then refuse to give a damn after birth.

"Hey, look, there are homeless people begging for change."
"Screw them. They had their chance...now let's get to the anti-abortion rally to give unborn babies a chance."

If we focused more on making the world a better place, this wouldn't be an issue. But no, the religious types are worried more about abortion and the hereafter...screw today and tomorrow.

there is some point to what Who says, you (Shqips) do seem to focus WAY to much on giving them a chance on life, and then simply going batshit crazy and say that there is enough room for them, as if that's all they need to survive

Oh these poor, defenseless children! Won't somebody think of the children that haven't even been born?!?

Screw them. Why do we care so much about the kid BEFORE it's born, and then refuse to give a damn after birth.

"Hey, look, there are homeless people begging for change."
"Screw them. They had their chance...now let's get to the anti-abortion rally to give unborn babies a chance."

If we focused more on making the world a better place, this wouldn't be an issue. But no, the religious types are worried more about abortion and the hereafter...screw today and tomorrow.

who said anything about me not wanting to help the poor of the world? im simply saying that we shouldnt go off killing any babies. your argument seems to blame births on the poverty of the world :confused:

this is not the case. poverty is a result of greedy rich people who would rather buy huuuge mansions(cough paris hilton cough) than pay 100 dollars to help feed a kid a month in a poverty stricken place, such as haiti

pro-life is a word that you hear mentioned mostly with anti-abortion. however, this doesnt only include abortion. if youre prolife but for the death penalty, you are pro-death. we all sin. why is the value of the life of a deathrow inmate any less than ours?

and thereis nothing that angers me more than abortion. nowadays, people care more about the life of an animal than that of an innocent human whos not fully developed. a pre-teen isnt fully developed. should we start killing them too? let it be for God's sake, give the child a chance to live. if anything put it up for adoption.

i feel that animals are very important and shouldnt be killed for fun. however, i would much rather see a million animals die than one baby. this says alot since i love animals

scenario: a girl gets raped and cant take care of a baby as a result of financial reasons. in this case, it is not the baby's fault. why does he have to be punished for the crimes of his father? do we punish the children of osama? no. by killing the baby, you actually add to the emotional hurt that comes with a rape

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.

what has this world come to?

40 million fellow humans have been massacred since January 22, 1973. this culture of death needs to stop

and, by the way, planned parent hood was started by a racist (Margaret Sanger) whose initial mission was to kill off the black race. why condone this evil corporation which originated with racist and evil intentions?
/rant



Ok, you have put the baby up for adoption, now what? Hey, it has to eat and have a home, and consume electricity, and oxygen, and in an essence produces waste while consuming resources. Guess what! The Earth cannot support its current population as is! We would have to produce 3 times the current amount of resources (space, food, electricity, oxygen, etc...) while making 1/3 less waste than we do now (waste would include: CO2, land area used, greenhouse gasses, biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste, etc..) in order to create a stable ecosystem on the Earth with all humans living just above the poverty level, and thats only with the Earth staying at it's current population level.
So by not 'killing' this mass of anamorphic multiplying cells we have doomed 1-3 childen who are not well of to a slow and horrible death by starvation and diease. WAY TO GO! :)

who said anything about me not wanting to help the poor of the world? im simply saying that we shouldnt go off killing any babies. your argument seems to blame births on the poverty of the world :confused:

this is not the case. poverty is a result of greedy rich people who would rather buy huuuge mansions(cough paris hilton cough) than pay 100 dollars to help feed a kid a month in a poverty stricken place, such as haiti

Actually, poverty is much more complex than that. Take economics again.

And no, I wasn't blaming births on poverty. I really don't get where in the hell you got that.


Let me explain it for you with smaller words:

Step 1: Forget abortion.
Step 2: Make the world better as a whole.
Step 3: With luck, abortion won't be needed.
Step 4: Yay.

who said anything about me not wanting to help the poor of the world? im simply saying that we shouldnt go off killing any babies. your argument seems to blame births on the poverty of the world :confused:

this is not the case. poverty is a result of greedy rich people who would rather buy huuuge mansions(cough paris hilton cough) than pay 100 dollars to help feed a kid a month in a poverty stricken place, such as haiti

Its not about money, its about resources, we literally don't have enough! So we have 3 things we can do.
1. Prevent humans from reporducing
2. Find more resources (colonise other planets, kind of prevented by current technology/time restraints)
3. Start some huge war and kills us a lot of non-christians.

3. Start some huge war and kills us a lot of non-christians.

Because that solves everything.

"Hey, let's kill those who don't agree with us!"
"Yeah!!!"

pro-lifers: 1) stop trying to impose your will on people who have different viewpoints and beliefs from yours. Stop bullying.

2) Get over yourselves. Realize that if an issue is controversial that a lot of skull sweat has gone into both sides; if they've come to a stalemate, they've thought of everything you have, and THE EXPERTS are stumped....so there is at least A LITTLE possibility that you are neither right nor somehow better than those you disaggree with: they are people, just like you, and you'd be surprised at how similar they really are to you.

Pro-choicers (clearly the minority in this thread): 1) Don't degenerate into name-calling. It won't help things, and doesn't add anything to the argument. The conservatives, right-wingers, and fundamentalists are PROBABLY not evil people. They've done nothing to deserve you making generalizations like that at them or of them. Everything is much more complex than that.

2) Do some research. Develope a coherent, articulate viewpoint. State your arguments logically. Otherwise you aren't helping anyone.

MY THAAAAANG:
1) Abortions will take place whether or not they are legal. The effect of legality is to allow it to occur safely and therapeutically (look, read "The Cider House Rules," by John Irving if you REALLY want a complete explanation of this). If abortion is totally illegal, those who, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, will get an abortion in any case will have to go to a back-alley abortionist, and the most likely outcome is that both mother and child are lost needlessly.

2) Just because the founder of Planned Parenthood was a bigot doesn't mean that the whole organization is bigoted. We are not our grandparents, much less the founders of our line. The organization provides a positive service - which doesn't just consist of birth control and such. They also provide STD testing, counseling, and information (to list a few services). There is an outside chance that Jesus of Nazareth was actually just a figurehead for a mushroom cult of Judaism (I am NOT endorsing this!!! read on...). Even if this were true, I don't think anyone could say that Christianity - as both a philosophy and as a religious institution (e.g. the Catholic Church, which played a vital, indeed singular, part in preserving order, learning, and culture in the Middle Ages of Europe) - has not been a positive force in history. This is essentially a corollary to Godwin's law; a citation of the consistent presence of logical fallacy (a la reductio ad Hitlerum; simply because she believed something bad doesn't mean everything she did was bad) on the part of pro-life contributors to this thread.

3) 'Legal' is not the same as 'unregulated.'

4) In the case of genetic manipulation, I believe that you are greatly underestimating the distaste the general population would have for genetic engineering: I believe that the vast majority of parents would feel a genetically modified child to be less "theirs baby" than a natural conception. I also believe that you underestimate the cost of this kind of procedure.

5) It is possible to be both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of life, but I do not believe that I have the right to force that belief upon others. The freedom, yes. Murderers are free to murder, but do not have the right, so that if they excersize that freedom, they are removed from society according to our laws. I have the sheer mental and physical ability to force my views on others, but do not feel that I have the right - it would simply be wrong and immoral.

Conclusions:
Abortion should be legal through the first trimester, but STRONGLY discouraged (indirectly, or simply at home - good adults start as good children, and good chilldren start with good parents), with support programs constructed around alternative options should be set up.

Parental notification should not be required. It is the job of the law to prevent people from interfering with the rights and freedoms of other people. It should not attempt to force people into positive action (in the sense of having to do things, rather than simply the sense of not being able to do things) any more than is necessary to assure its own survival.

POST-POST:
Learn your history, logic, and spelling, people. Learn to be people. Stop being idiots. No argument that is not logical deserves acknowledgement as an argument: you may believe it to be true, but if a discussion is to survive and make any sense, it must be rooted in the common denominators of reason and logic. Its contributors must strive for a purity, correctness, and precision of language, also, so that they will not be misunderstood.

I mean, damn, grow up. Get outside your own blinkered skulls for a few moments and consider the other guy, and how stupid you look to him. Stop being selfish.

And, above all,
GET A LIFE!!!

Sorry for the immense post, and thank you for your time.

Self awareness denotes life for me some time between conseption and dilivery a child becomes self aware and or there is a quikening to use the term of Roe V Wade. I stand by Roe V Wade on this one. Terminate without limitation pregnancies in the first trimester. Greatly limit those in the third.

*snippage*

Excellent post.

Self awareness denotes life for me some time between conseption and dilivery a child becomes self aware and or there is a quikening to use the term of Roe V Wade. I stand by Roe V Wade on this one. Terminate without limitation pregnancies in the first trimester. Greatly limit those in the third.

Actually the human brain is unable to consive itself as a seperate entity until its about 1.5 years old. They see themelves as extentions of their mother's will.

But I agree with you on the Trimester rules.

There is an outside chance that Jesus of Nazareth was actually just a figurehead for a mushroom cult of Judaism (I am NOT endorsing this!!! read on...). Even if this were true, I don't think anyone could say that Christianity - as both a philosophy and as a religious institution (e.g. the Catholic Church, which played a vital, indeed singular, part in preserving order, learning, and culture in the Middle Ages of Europe) - has not been a positive force in history. This is essentially a corollary to Godwin's law; a citation of the consistent presence of logical fallacy (a la reductio ad Hitlerum; simply because she believed something bad doesn't mean everything she did was bad) on the part of pro-life contributors to this thread.

A few points on this.

1. Considering everything, it's actually quite likely that Jesus was just a figurehead, etc.
2. By claiming that no one could really say that Christianity was a negative force on history, you invoke Godwin's law ("No one can say it was bad, therefor it must be good"). Same basic principle.

And with that, I'm headed to bed.

[QUOTE=Stone Bridges] My church has a memorial for the killed babies, and every month I put a rose on that memorial and I say a small prayers for the lives that were never given a chance. /QUOTE]
When I was 16 (way long time ago!) I had an abortion, it was probably the most difficult decision I have ever made ,and afterwards I became very depressed. Most women i know who have terminated pregnancies feel very depressed. It's comforting to know there are memorials like this.
HOWEVER,
I am not pro-life. Who am I to judge anyone? Five years later I became a mother, and i realised that at 16 I personally was too young to be a mother and had done the right thing. The choices made by women/girls in this regard are never easy and there are serious and long lasting consequences attached to each option. Women have been terminating pregnancies since the dawn of recorded history, through herbal concoctions, gin and a hot bath etc and through dangerous underground medical procedures. If the law were changed to reflect the pro-life view,women/girls would still have abortions and we would see a return to the bad old days of back alley practitioners.

Excellent post.

Thank you; I try. I've been reading these fora lately, and it really bothers me that the vast majority of posters don't appear to actually think before they type.

Anyhoo...I'd just like to add at this point that while peaceful protest is certainly a good thing, respect and good manners are also extremely important, and terrorist acts against abortion clinics, teen pregnancy centers, and Planned Parenthood buildings are still terrorist acts, in no way less vile than the 9/11 attacks (ooh! Godwin-esque!), the actions of the IRA, or the televised beheadings in Iraq.

Also, I feel that murder is not a particularly apt analogy to draw. Euthenasia seems more appropriate to part of me; while still another wants to bring up the element of intent: abortion could be viewed as a relative of self-defense.

But all of this is irrelevant as regards the pro-choice argument: we don't support abortion by any means. We simply support the fact that it isn't our place to bully someone into our belief system, and with an issue this complicated, we have to consider the possibility that our side may be wrong, that our choices in someone else's life might actually make the world a worse place.

I like to consider the fact that it's silly to try to understand what God wants us to do: Who am I to know the mind of God?

pro-lifers: 1) stop trying to impose your will on people who have different viewpoints and beliefs from yours. Stop bullying.

2) Get over yourselves. ...

Pro-choicers (clearly the minority in this thread): 1) Don't degenerate into name-calling. ...

2) Do some research. Develope a coherent, articulate viewpoint. State your arguments logically. Otherwise you aren't helping anyone.

MY THAAAAANG:
1) Abortions will take place whether or not they are legal. ...

2) Just because the founder of Planned Parenthood was a bigot doesn't mean that the whole organization is bigoted...

3) 'Legal' is not the same as 'unregulated.'

4) In the case of genetic manipulation, I believe that you are greatly underestimati...

5) It is possible to be both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. ..

Conclusions:
Abortion should be legal through the first trimester...

Parental notification should not be required...

POST-POST:
Learn your history, logic, and spelling, people....

I mean, damn, grow up. ...

And, above all,
GET A LIFE!!!

Sorry for the immense post, and thank you for your time.

1. isnt that what youre doing to me? youre trying to impose your views on me

2. hmm. about slavery. im sure that people felt the same way as you in this point

your thaaaaaang

1. if theyre illegal, less will happen and people will get punished for their crimes!

2. all they want is money man

3. if it is legal, it is technically unregulated. 40 million babies have died. you call that regulated :confused:

4. you BELIEVE. why do you believe this way?

5. o man, not at all. pro for the choice to choose death. i am pro life for the choice to choose life. BIG difference

Conclusions:

why is it ok before the first trimester? how do you know when a baby is made a human?

Post Post
I am a person, i have views of my own and i am not letting myself be changed by you. i am not an idiot. i go to bu, which is the 20th best school in the united states of america.

i dont believe its true, i know it.

selfish???? i care about others. i care about the life of an unborn baby

i have a life thank you very much, as a result of my mother making the right choice

margaret sanger wants me dead
i'm half italian, does she want me half dead? :D

A few points on this.

2. By claiming that no one could really say that Christianity was a negative force on history, you invoke Godwin's law ("No one can say it was bad, therefor it must be good"). Same basic principle.



I am not claiming that it IS good, nor that everything about it is good, but without the advent of Christianity, society would have completely destroyed in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Catholic Church helped to foster some stability and culture during the Dark Ages. That was, at least as far as our modern culture is concerned, a good thing. The world would be totally different today otherwise, incomprehensibly so. Therefore, whether or not Jesus was was a shroom-head (which most Christians, I believe, would find morally objectionable), his legacy, Christianity, has had at least some positive effect on history (unless you feel that modern civilization is not a positive thing, but that is an argument that renders this entire thread useless, and therefore doesn't belong here). The founder of Planned Parenthood may have been a bigot, but the organization can still achieve something positive - maybe even something of vast historical importance (stranger things have happened).

All of which is beside the fact that Christianity has proven an excellent way of preserving some generally sound morality throughout history. Even the mildest forms of it, which consist essentially of "just trying to be good," promote positive morality, which I think we will all agree is a Good Thing (extremist interpretations aside).

if theyre illegal, less will happenNo. Abortion is illegal in the Republic of Ireland, yet roughly as many women from there have abortions (largely by travelling to places where abortion is legal) as they do in Holland, where abortion laws are very liberal. (Ketting, E. and Prague, P. (1986) The Marginal Relevance of Legislation Relating to Abortion in Lovenduski, J. and Outshoon, J. (eds) The New Politics of Abortion. London: Sage).

The Birkett Committee found that roughly as many abortions took place in the UK in 1939 (and preceding 12-month periods), when abortion was only legal in the case of severe danger to the mother's life, as have been done on an annual basis since its general legalisation. (O'Donovan, K. (1985) Sexual Divisions in Law. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson).

Illegality of abortion in Brazil (as it was in 1992, don't know about today) didn't prevent it from being a country where one tenth of abortions took place at the time (Guardian, 11 August, 1992).

1. isnt that what youre doing to me? youre trying to impose your views on me

Wrong. (S)he is advocating the freedom of choice that people currently have. Taking that away would be an imposition.


2. hmm. about slavery. im sure that people felt the same way as you in this point

What? What does slavery have to do with this?


your thaaaaaang

1. if theyre illegal, less will happen and people will get punished for their crimes!

Wrong. As has been pointed out, abortions will still occur. The difference is that the practice will be black market, making it more dangerous and unregulated. Everyone loses.


2. all they want is money man


Strawman


3. if it is legal, it is technically unregulated. 40 million babies have died. you call that regulated :confused:

It is regulated because it is legal. You can't get an abortion after a certain point in the pregnance. Also, all abortions are documented and performed by trained medical personnel. The fact that it is regulated is the reason you even have that "40 million" number.


4. you BELIEVE. why do you believe this way?


Nice way to avoid answering the issue.


5. o man, not at all. pro for the choice to choose death. i am pro life for the choice to choose life. BIG difference

Appeal to emotion. Semantics won't change the facts.


Conclusions:

why is it ok before the first trimester? how do you know when a baby is made a human?

When the fetus has a developed neural system, it can perhaps be called a human. Simple, no?


Post Post
I am a person, i have views of my own and i am not letting myself be changed by you. i am not an idiot. i go to bu, which is the 20th best school in the united states of america.

Funny, you can't tell by your incoherent sentences, lack of logic, and bad typing...


i dont believe its true, i know it.


Never changing your point of view no matter how many times you are proven wrong is not admirable.


selfish???? i care about others. i care about the life of an unborn baby


Yet oddly you don't seem to care about born babies. Who will take care of them, eh? There are already lots of kids without parents or homes, and you want more?


i have a life thank you very much, as a result of my mother making the right choice

Another appeal to emotion. Had your mother had an abortion, you wouldn't have cared, because you would not have existed. The same goes for me and everyone else.

1. isnt that what youre doing to me? youre trying to impose your views on me

2. hmm. about slavery. im sure that people felt the same way as you in this point

your thaaaaaang

1. if theyre illegal, less will happen and people will get punished for their crimes!

2. all they want is money man

3. if it is legal, it is technically unregulated. 40 million babies have died. you call that regulated :confused:

4. you BELIEVE. why do you believe this way?

5. o man, not at all. pro for the choice to choose death. i am pro life for the choice to choose life. BIG difference

Conclusions:

why is it ok before the first trimester? how do you know when a baby is made a human?

Post Post
I am a person, i have views of my own and i am not letting myself be changed by you. i am not an idiot. i go to bu, which is the 20th best school in the united states of america.

i dont believe its true, i know it.

selfish???? i care about others. i care about the life of an unborn baby

i have a life thank you very much, as a result of my mother making the right choice

I love bullet-posts....

1) I'm not imposing my views upon you. I am attempting to introduce some integrity into this debate. I suppose you could say that I am trying to impose upon you my 'view' that a debate should be reasoned and rational, but that is really more of a necessity for any discussion than a view. Communication is impossible without that common denominator. If, on the other hand, you don't want a discussion, but only incestuous amplification of your own beliefs, you should say so and let us all go on to more productive and enlightening occupations.

2)I have NO IDEA what you're trying to say. I didn't say anything about slavery whatsoever. I suppose you may be implying that people would have had to admit to themselves that there was some possibility that slavery was actually the right way of things...which is true. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, just don't automatically assume that because I don't agree with you everything I will say is valueless and stupid. question your own righteousness. Constantly re-examine your viewpoints. If you are wrong, admit it. It's no shame to admit that you're imperfect, that you weren't always right. If you can produce a strong enough argument to sway me, I pledge to you that I will admit my defeat. However, on this particular issue, that is unlikely. Feel free to try, by all means, simply be aware that so far you're batting .000.

----
1) Why shouldn't less happen under a tightly regulated system? Also, it is an extremely controversial moral judgement to say that abortion is a crime. Currently, it is not. Threfore, there is no crime to punish them for, whereas, in a world in which abortion is illegal, they would be punished for breaking the law, but the strong moral question remains. Essentially, the way you've phrased this is giving me problems. You are saying that abortion deserves punishment, even though legally it currently does not. Yes, in your ideal world, they would be punished for breaking the law, but that is subtly different than beign punished for getting an abortion. The law cannot punish a moral crime, only a legal one.

2) Doesn't matter to my argument, just as long as they have a positive effect. You can WANT a solid gold toilet from the profits from your cancer vaccine, but as long as the vaccine works, it's irrelevant to my argument.

3) You are completely wrong. Illegal things cannot be overseen by government agencies, so there is no guarantee of their quality or safety or integrity. However, if something is legal, the government can control it. This is regulation. Your value judgement is that those babies have died. The reality may be that those mothers are delivered of their worries and left free to raise children at a later time when they can provide for them better. Genetically, there may be no difference in those future children from the aborted ones. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same children. The cellular choices which dtermine which aspects of which parent are passed to the child have not necessarily been made yet. Otherwise, even NOT masturbating is murder (those sperm are only going to be reabsorbed by your body, effectively killed).

4) Based on my understanding of science (no formal credentials; I'm just a highly educated nerd) and my understanding of people (gained from personal experience).

5) I do not choose death. I am not telling anyone what to do. That's the whole point. I'm letting others choose for themselves. I do not want to control someone. Frankly, as a male I don't think I have the right to tell any woman what to do about a pregnancy unless I'm personally involved (that's different; then it has something to do with my life). We aren't bearing the children, we have no idea about a huge part of the entire fact of pregnancy. I support life in general, but I also support the right of others to choose what to do with theirs, within a legal context. If it were against the law, I would not advise someone to get an abortion anyway. I do not support breakign the law. I would, however, fight for it to be legalized.

----
Third trimester is a good cutoff point, developmentally. Essentially, it's generally accepted, seems good enough to me, and I don't want to leave it any later. I specified for the sake of context within the wider political debate.
----

I am not trying to change you. I am trying to remind you, among others, to be civil.

If you want to convince me that you are smart, don't tell me that you go to BU. That doesn't mean anything, for a whole host of reasons. BU could mean any number of places; I shall choose to believe that you mean Boston University. The overall quality of the school is not a reflection of every student; you might be the stupidest person at the school, for all I know. You certainly don't write like an intelligent, articulate, educated person. Don't brag to me about your school. Show me that you a brain.

If you think you "know it," you know less than you think. You have no real idea that other people exist. There are many people who "know" the exact opposite "truth" to the one you "know." They're probably just as wrong. I probably am, too. That's why I always keep an open mind. Otherwise there's no point in even pretending to debate.

You would still be alive if your mother had decided to get an abortion five years before you were born, assuming she was able to get a safe one and not get arrested as a result. One way or another, I'm glad your mother chose not to abort you; I'm glad mine kept me. That doesn't mean that you have the right to tell people they're murders for believing differently than you do.

i obviously cant change your views although i tried, but you cant change mine either (not in a million years).

you are correct in your assumption that bu stands for boston university. according to you, i do not write well. however, i do not pay attention to the grammar of every single post. instead, i write whatever comes to my mind. i may not be very smart, especially since i got low grades my first semester and continue to do badly, but i am still adamant of my pro-life views.

this took about 2 minutes to write, whereas my other posts just take about 15 seconds. now do you see why i do not pay attention to grammar?

there happy? :p
and yes, i give up. by doing this, i am not saying that you all are right and i am wrong, but i am obviously outnumbered and need to get back to my work

i obviously cant change your views although i tried, but you cant change mine either (not in a million years)....

*In Yoda voice*
That is why you fail.

Please, don't give up! I am not trying to discouage debate or devalue your opinion! I'm simply trynig to stop you from using logical fallacies and have a more constructive discussion. I apologize for criticising your grammar or insulting your intelligence. This was not my intent, although I admit that I did perpetrate the crime (hence the apology). However, if you cannot produce counter-arguments, I think it rather bad manners to act as though we've slighted you. I'm not really even asking for you to admit that you're wrong. It would be perfectly acceptible for you to say you need to go gather more ammo. Your move seems somewhat poor sportsmanship, though. The point (and fun) of debate is finding the flaws in opponents' arguments and refuting them. Keep trying to refute mine, by all means! Even if it means that in the end we simply agree to disagree, there is much more depth to this issue than we have explored!

no, its not that i give up debating. its just that i have already said everything that i had wanted to say and really need to get back to my work

i obviously cant change your views although i tried, but you cant change mine either (not in a million years).No one is asking you to change your views. All the other 'side' is asking you to do is to extend the same courtesy.

i go to bu, which is the 20th best school in the united states of america.you are correct in your assumption that bu stands for boston university.Emphasis mine. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

Evidently still a good university though, and no one is accusing you of being stupid. You could articulate yourself better, but that's a very different thing from being stupid.

according to you, i do not write well. however, i do not pay attention to the grammar of every single post. instead, i write whatever comes to my mind...this took about 2 minutes to write, whereas my other posts just take about 15 seconds. now do you see why i do not pay attention to grammar?No problem with writing what you feel, but learn how to type. Seriously: I am not being critical, but if you learn how to type properly by taking classes in Word Processing or whatever, you can type quickly and include requisite grammar and punctuation, which make a person sound much more articulate.

Emphasis mine. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

Evidently still a good university though, and no one is accusing you of being stupid. You could articulate yourself better, but that's a very different thing from being stupid.

"Rankings

The Times Higher Education Supplement recently ranked Boston University the 21st best university in the United States, and the 54th best university in the world, in its list of the top 200 international universities. [3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_University

We seem to have gotten our "facts" from different sources. at least it's somewhere up there

More importantly, It is a well-enough known name that we don't need the ranking to know it's a good school.

More importantly, It is a well-enough known name that we don't need the ranking to know it's a good school.

please stop typing out of pity. i did not intend for you to feel bad for me.

:cool:

"Rankings

The Times Higher Education Supplement recently ranked Boston University the 21st best university in the United States, and the 54th best university in the world, in its list of the top 200 international universities. [3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_University

We seem to have gotten our "facts" from different sources. at least it's somewhere up thereFair enough, and apologies for any unintended offence. As I said, it's clearly still a good institution regardless of its exact ranking. Just pointing out what I saw to be a factual error, but as with much things of this nature, source x can tell you one thing and source y another.

no no, (came the reply through a broad grin) it's just that if you leave we all have to come up with another excuse to keep messing around here! Only joking, but mostly I did genuinely want to apologize.

have a goodmorning ladies and gents. im off to class

I'm all for contraceptions and abortions, but like everything else we at least need to educate our youth on all the potential choices in the matter. The better informed they are hopefully the more likely they will make good choices based on what they know.

I'm all for contraceptions and abortions, but like everything else we at least need to educate our youth on all the potential choices in the matter. The better informed they are hopefully the more likely they will make good choices based on what they know.

I half agree with you. Education is key, but abortions and contraceptives are wrong and are what people should be eduacted about, so they understand why both are bad ideas in the end.

A few weeks embryo isn't a human being for me and science, so abortion isn't murder. As the definition of human being keep socially like that, you've nothing to do. That's all I want to say

I half agree with you. Education is key, but abortions and contraceptives are wrong and are what people should be eduacted about, so they understand why both are bad ideas in the end.I can understand why you may think abortions are wrong, but what is wrong with contraceptives? I know the contraceptive pill has some potential side effects and conflicts with certain health problems and medications, but this doesn't apply to most people.

I half agree with you. Education is key, but abortions and contraceptives are wrong and are what people should be eduacted about, so they understand why both are bad ideas in the end.

Not everyone wants to have a child. Myself included so contraceptives allow me to enjoy pleasure while reducing the risk of an unwanted consequence. I fail to see how that is a bad idea.

I half agree with you. Education is key, but abortions and contraceptives are wrong and are what people should be eduacted about, so they understand why both are bad ideas in the end.

By saying that, you are imposing your value judgement that they ARE bad ideas. I feel that society is better off for not having teenagers raising families in huge numbers. I fee that the best kind of society is one in which children are wanted. I also think that the STD problem is bad enough WITH contraceptives like condoms (and don't try to tell me that only promiscuous people are at risk, or that abstinence will make all the STDs go away. It's more complicated than that and you know it).

hehe. now someone's going to call me on making unsubstantiated statements... TOO BAD! I'm going to bed!

I half agree with you. Education is key, but abortions and contraceptives are wrong and are what people should be eduacted about, so they understand why both are bad ideas in the end.

What on earth is supposed to be wrong with contraceptives? Do you want to class women in the two traditional categories again, nuns and breeding machines???

Not everyone wants to have a child. Myself included so contraceptives allow me to enjoy pleasure while reducing the risk of an unwanted consequence. I fail to see how that is a bad idea.Agreed on all counts. If people like us who don't want children are irresponsible enough not to use contraception and get pregnant as a result, then one natural consequence is abortion, which is surely worse.

A few weeks embryo isn't a human being for me and science, so abortion isn't murder. As the definition of human being keep socially like that, you've nothing to do. That's all I want to say

Really? What kind of DNA does science say that a few-week old embryo has?

I really don't see how you can think that science supports your claim.

I can understand why you may think abortions are wrong, but what is wrong with contraceptives? I know the contraceptive pill has some potential side effects and conflicts with certain health problems and medications, but this doesn't apply to most people.

My reasons for thinking contraceptives, should I list them, would either be respected when I list them or just plain ignored, so debating them wouldn't add anything to the conversation, so I'd rather not discuss it, especially since I think abortion is the greater issue.

Not everyone wants to have a child. Myself included so contraceptives allow me to enjoy pleasure while reducing the risk of an unwanted consequence. I fail to see how that is a bad idea.

You didn't make the mistake of saying that it eliminated the risk (which is a depressingly common mistake).

Anyways, I think contraceptives are wrong for spiritual, rather than practical reasons, so while I will never recommend them, I will not forbid anyone else to use them (although if my partner informs me that she is on contraceptives, she will be lonely for the duration).

Cabra West, please try not to attack people before you have full knowledge of what their stance is on a particular subject.

You didn't make the mistake of saying that it eliminated the risk (which is a depressingly common mistake).

Ah the joys of learning eh.

Anyways, I think contraceptives are wrong for spiritual, rather than practical reasons, so while I will never recommend them, I will not forbid anyone else to use them (although if my partner informs me that she is on contraceptives, she will be lonely for the duration).

That's understandable, and as I said the best thing we can do is educate. The more people that make informed choices the better.

Really? What kind of DNA does science say that a few-week old embryo has?

I really don't see how you can think that science supports your claim.


And what kind of DNA does your kindey have? DNA doesn't determine a person. It only defines biomatter.


My reasons for thinking contraceptives, should I list them, would either be respected when I list them or just plain ignored, so debating them wouldn't add anything to the conversation, so I'd rather not discuss it, especially since I think abortion is the greater issue.


Oh, brilliant. A "it's wrong cause I say so, I don't need to give reasons" argument"


You didn't make the mistake of saying that it eliminated the risk (which is a depressingly common mistake).

Anyways, I think contraceptives are wrong for spiritual, rather than practical reasons, so while I will never recommend them, I will not forbid anyone else to use them (although if my partner informs me that she is on contraceptives, she will be lonely for the duration).

It limits the risks severely.
Not recommending medical help to a sick person makes you a very bad adviser indeed...

Cabra West, please try not to attack people before you have full knowledge of what their stance is on a particular subject.

I didn't attack, I asked a question. As indicated by the question mark at the end of both sentences...

My reasons for thinking contraceptives, should I list them, would either be respected when I list them or just plain ignored, so debating them wouldn't add anything to the conversation, so I'd rather not discuss it, especially since I think abortion is the greater issue.



This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And what kind of DNA does your kindey have? DNA doesn't determine a person. It only defines biomatter.

My kidney has my DNA, which means my kidney is a part of me. Together with all the other things that have my DNA, it makes up me.

Please note that my kidneys are also referred to as human kidneys, just as the embryo is referred to as a human embryo. They are both human, and in the case of the embryo, it is the total (albeit growing) collection of cells of a distinct human individual, whereas it is not the total collection of cells of a distinct human individual in the case of the kidney, becasue it isn't the total collection.

Oh, brilliant. A "it's wrong cause I say so, I don't need to give reasons" argument"

It was more intended to mean, I don't want to give reasons because to do so would cause unnecessary and unproductive quarrelling, and I don't need to give reasons because I am not forcing anyone to do anything except myself.

I didn't attack, I asked a question. As indicated by the question mark at the end of both sentences...

Question marks don't make language less corse, abrasive, or offensive, my friend.

Anyways, I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to go.

Well you have to admit we are heading down a slipperly slope. I mean if a woman is allowed to kill a baby just because the baby was disabled, then what will stop her, or other parents to genetically manipulate their babies so that they're "perfect"? Wow...designer babies. I guess we stopped caring about just loving the child, and caring for the child, on the fact that it's your child. Now you're child has to be "perfect" or oops, it get's aborted and they try again. Ahh, this would make Hitler proud.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
You even named your fallacy in your post ... nice

It was more intended to mean, I don't want to give reasons because to do so would cause unnecessary and unproductive quarrelling, and I don't need to give reasons because I am not forcing anyone to do anything except myself.


Yes you are; you were arguing that we should teach children and teenagers that contraception is wrong. That is an action which has consequences for everyone.



Anyways, I'd love to stay and chat, but I've got to go.

You know, you can just sign out. No need to make it obvious that someone else has got the better of you.

It was more intended to mean, I don't want to give reasons because to do so would cause unnecessary and unproductive quarrelling, and I don't need to give reasons because I am not forcing anyone to do anything except myself.Fair enough (although you did say we should educate people that contraceptives are wrong, I accept that is different from 'forcing' them not to use them).

If I'm reading you correctly - please correct me if not - you then support the legality of contraception and people's right to choose to use it, though you would be against yourself and/or a partner doing so. Does that apply to abortion as well, then, a situation on which you are willing to discuss your views?

Agreed on all counts. If people like us who don't want children are irresponsible enough not to use contraception and get pregnant as a result, then one natural consequence is abortion, which is surely worse.

I don't view abortion as bad. My views on the whole thing are as follows: It's not my choice in the matter, if you choose to have or not to have an abortion that's entirely up to you. I just hope that an informed choice in the matter is made. Rash decisions often end up with feelings of regret and such which is why education is so important. A the more you know thing really.

I don't view abortion as bad. My views on the whole thing are as follows: It's not my choice in the matter, if you choose to have or not to have an abortion that's entirely up to you. I just hope that an informed choice in the matter is made. Rash decisions often end up with feelings of regret and such which is why education is so important. A the more you know thing really.Oh, I don't view it as bad at all myself. I pretty much agree with all you've said here. My point was meant to suggest that it's better not to get pregnant in the first place should you not want to have a kid. However, I certainly have no problem with abortions. I would definitely have one myself if my contraception were to fail, having thought about all the pros and cons of all the possible outcomes.

I think it's silly that people get so up in arms over human fetuses. I mean, it's not like they're uncommon. Truly, they're the farthest thing from. Babies aren't uncommon either, and no matter how many abortions are occurring world wide, there's millions of more babies being born at the same time. Still a net gain in babies.

Seriously, the only thing that makes a fetus or baby special is the attachment it forms with people, and in that case it's only special to the people who want it. If a mother wants her child, then that baby is special to her. If a mother doesn't want her child, then the baby is not special. If she gives the baby up for adoption someone might decide the kid is special. If not, they're little more than a drain of society's resources and I have to feel sorry for the unwanted kid. In my opinion it would have been better to have aborted the kid while she/he was still a fetus and lacking concious thought. I think it's irresponsible to dump your unwanted children on other people.

For myself, if I ever got pregnant I would have an abortion. I can't stand most children for long periods of time, babies crying makes me want to bash my head in and young children just outright disgust me sometimes. I would also make a horrible mother, I'm lucky to be able to take care of myself, let alone something wailing baby that needs almost constant attention.

It's not like I'll ever get pregnant by any fault on my part either. I don't want sex, and the only person I'd consider my significant other is a girl. Given that, the only way I could become pregnant is through divine intervention or rape. For the first one, the divine being can go screw itself and find someone that actually follows its religion to bear the kid. With the other one, I can't believe that someone would have it so that not only would I have to go through a rape, but also force me into the maelstrom of screwy hormones and health issues that is pregnancy, all for the sake of creating something that I never wanted in the first place. Way to make a bad problem worse. Sure an abortion isn't all shits and giggles, far from it, but for someone who really truly doesn't want a baby, I'd say it would be less traumatic than being forced through an unwanted pregnancy.

A little background in my thinking on this subject.

I grew up in a country where abortion was and still is illegal.I am adopted.I have found out recently that my birth mother was placed in a Magdaline Laundry against her will for 'sinning' by having gotten pregnant out of wed lock.While in that institution she was given anti-d seurm form which she contracted HEP-C.

Given that I am adopted I am now greatful that abortion wasn't legal as I might not be here but I doubt that I really would have cared if I had been aborted at the time as I was not self aware.

I know that this post may seem contradictory but it is how I view the subject.The choice to have an abortion is a serious personal decision which at the end of the day is a womans choice and not anyone elses.The things I find difficult to handle are people who think that women who have abortions do so lightly as if they some how enjoy them.
Just a tought

What on earth is supposed to be wrong with contraceptives? Do you want to class women in the two traditional categories again, nuns and breeding machines???

That depends. Are we talking about you? :p

That depends. Are we talking about you? :p

I made the acquaintance of both, if that's what you mean. And I intend to be neither :p

My kidney has my DNA, which means my kidney is a part of me. Together with all the other things that have my DNA, it makes up me.

Please note that my kidneys are also referred to as human kidneys, just as the embryo is referred to as a human embryo. They are both human, and in the case of the embryo, it is the total (albeit growing) collection of cells of a distinct human individual, whereas it is not the total collection of cells of a distinct human individual in the case of the kidney, becasue it isn't the total collection.


So if I get an organ replacement; does that make me two humans? What about that guy who had a baboon heart replacement back in the 70s? Did that make him a baboon?

Human in this matter is simply a classification. Have you seen other species embryos? They are hard to distinguish.

So if I get an organ replacement; does that make me two humans? What about that guy who had a baboon heart replacement back in the 70s? Did that make him a baboon?

Human in this matter is simply a classification. Have you seen other species embryos? They are hard to distinguish.

I think what he was trying to say is, it's your DNA that determines your humanity. He forgot to mention though that that's not quite enough to make you a person yet.

i would much rather see a million animals die than one baby.

Shqipes is nothing if not dramatic. I would much rather see animals ruling the Earth than have more humans pushing their "morals" (see above quote) on everyone around them. I say *piss off* and get some "real" morals that "mean" something, if you're going to go traipsing around pointing fingers at people and their "immorality." *yech* Morality is either on or off, man. You can't put one life above another. Sick.

The Canadian Constitution does not kick in until you are born.

that, my friend, is a common flaw

It looks like Posi is right...

Section 223 of the Criminal code of Canada entitled 'When child becomes a human being" states:
(1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state from the body of its mother whether or not
(a) it has breathed
(b) it has an independent circulation
(c) the navel string is severed.

This means that it has to have done one of these 3 acts independant of the mother.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

So, in order for this to kick in and for an unborn baby to have any rights, the previously quote must first be applied.

I am pro life, with only the mothers health coming into effect. As for rape, Im not certain if abortion should be wrong in this case, but it would make it easier legally if the mother being raped doesnt matter (should abortion be illegalised).

I am pro life, with only the mothers health coming into effect. As for rape, Im not certain if abortion should be wrong but would make it easier legally if the mother being raped doesnt matter (should abortion be illegalised).

The mother being raped doesn't matter?
Wow... I've seen a fair bit of contempt and even spite towards women from the pro-life side in these abortion-threads, but you sure take the cake.

The mother being raped doesn't matter?
Wow... I've seen a fair bit of contempt and even spite towards women from the pro-life side in these abortion-threads, but you sure take the cake.

He meant that it shouldn't be considered in determining whether or not abortion is legal. Are you so hateful of the pro-life movement that you have to read hate and animosity into everything?

He meant that it shouldn't be considered in determining whether or not abortion is legal. Are you so hateful of the pro-life movement that you have to read hate and animosity into everything?

Eh, the sentence was a bit confusing.

He meant that it shouldn't be considered in determining whether or not abortion is legal. Are you so hateful of the pro-life movement that you have to read hate and animosity into everything?

I'd call it "careful"... I posted in quite a few of these threads before and heard a lot that was similar. To be honest, I still fail to make sense of the complete sentence, so I had to rely on interpretation. Sorry if I got it wrong, but would you care to elaborate?

Are you so hateful of the pro-life movement that you have to read hate and animosity into everything?

Try going to one of the pro-life demonstrations at a clinic, they aren't exactly expressing brotherly love there.

Well im against abortion and everything but.......look at this scenario....
A mother is pregnant but theres something wrong with the baby and its going to die like the second its born or something and if the mother gives birth, do to medical complications she will die too. Then what?

Dont put to much thought into it because it might not even be possible.

The mother being raped doesn't matter?
Wow... I've seen a fair bit of contempt and even spite towards women from the pro-life side in these abortion-threads, but you sure take the cake.

woah woah what do you think I am some sort of devil worshiper? Ye gods man I am not evil like that. Sorry if it was slightly confusing.

woah woah what do you think I am some sort of devil worshiper? Ye gods man I am not evil like that. Sorry if it was slightly confusing.

*lol
No, most people who stated similar things so far tended to make sure everybody knew they were Christians ;)
Might have been an honest misunderstanding... but then, what exactly were you trying to say there?

I am too ill and tired to explain, just forget it lol.

I am too ill and tired to explain, just forget it lol.

Get well soon, then. :fluffle:

thank you. *cough cough* (no seriously, I was coughing).

I'm suprised Roe V. Wade haven't been declared unconsitutional. I mean for crying out loud, in the first sentance of the consitution it says that We have the right to Life, Liberty and Happiness. I mean if we kill an unborn child, then aren't we denying him the right to life?

One, you're talking about the Declaration of Independence.

Two, embryos are not children, nor are do they qualify as persons, thus no protection under the US Constitution. According the biological rules for life, they don't even qualify as life. Most abortions are performed on embryos that do not yet have a brain and most are not even capable of reflexive (uncontrolled) movement.

Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with abortions. In addition to being againts my moral code (no, I'm not likely to change and don't really want to), in nearly every case I've head of through various organizations I've been affiliated with, the women that have had them regret it, sometimes suffering severe depression/etc. They didn't have to go through that. They didn't have to suffer like that. They were convinced they needed an abortion because of whatever circumstances (and I'm not judging them), but in the end, they made their life unlivable. They're not even able to stand themselves. And that is something worth trying to prevent in itself.

margaret sanger wants to kill melol :D

I'm glad my parents aborted me.

People are far too quick to draw the battle lines on this issue.

The propaganda spouted by both sides is bullshit I mean "pro-life" who the fuck isn't "pro-choice" likewise.

The reality is all of us are confronted with choices we have to make throughout our lives that are not easy. What we should be looking at helping people to look at their circumstances and to make the right choices. After all what chance does a chold born to junkie parents have. But then what chance does any child that isn't wanted.

Until you are confronted with the reality of the situation you really have no right to comment one way or the other.

I was always adamant that I would never have children "I can't look after myself, how could I be responsible for a child" Confronted with the situation I came to the conclusion that morally I couldn't deprive this baby of their chance in the world. I am now the proud father of a 17 month old girl.

I have friends who when confronted with the same choice made the opposite decision. Are they evil? No.

We should be concentrating on a world where people can find themselves with their backs to the wall, facing the most important decision they will ever make without arseholes who believe ideology is more important than humanity fucking them up. That goes for both sides of the debate.

Take the blinkers off and try to look at the world from another point of view for once.

and, by the way, planned parent hood was started by a racist (Margaret Sanger) whose initial mission was to kill off the black race. why condone this evil corporation which originated with racist and evil intentions?

The US was founded by racists who practiced slavery and genocide. The majority of countries in the EU were formed while Imperialism was still the law of the land and took control in bloody coups. I love how desperate such an argument is. How about talking about what they're doing now and whether they have value now? Or is that too hard so you just take cheap shots across the bow?

Fair enough (although you did say we should educate people that contraceptives are wrong, I accept that is different from 'forcing' them not to use them).

If I'm reading you correctly - please correct me if not - you then support the legality of contraception and people's right to choose to use it, though you would be against yourself and/or a partner doing so. Does that apply to abortion as well, then, a situation on which you are willing to discuss your views?

Yes, you are right about contraceptives... but the same does not apply to abortion. The difference is, I see contraceptives as contrary to beliefs of mine which I can't expect other people to follow unless they follow the same god as I do, and since many don't, I can't expect everyone to give up contraceptives.

Abortion is a different story. I believe there is adequate evidence to make a case against abortion whether you believe in any sort of god or not, so I am willing to try to make my beliefs law.

One, you're talking about the Declaration of Independence.

Two, embryos are not children, nor are do they qualify as persons, thus no protection under the US Constitution. According the biological rules for life, they don't even qualify as life. Most abortions are performed on embryos that do not yet have a brain and most are not even capable of reflexive (uncontrolled) movement.


Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People for a very interesting take on that (frankly spurious) argument

Yes, you are right about contraceptives... but the same does not apply to abortion. The difference is, I see contraceptives as contrary to beliefs of mine which I can't expect other people to follow unless they follow the same god as I do, and since many don't, I can't expect everyone to give up contraceptives.

Abortion is a different story. I believe there is adequate evidence to make a case against abortion whether you believe in any sort of god or not, so I am willing to try to make my beliefs law.

Good. Provide the evidence. Let's start simple. There are biological definitions for what counts as a life and what does not. You should be able to make an easy argument for how an embryo qualifies as a seperate, living being, seeing as your views are objective and not founded on faith.

Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People for a very interesting take on that (frankly spurious) argument
Is he a doctor, biologist, geneticist, or just some politician?

Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People for a very interesting take on that (frankly spurious) argument

I'm too lazy, why not back up your claims yourself?

Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People for a very interesting take on that (frankly spurious) argument

In other words, you can't make the argument yourself. Frankly, I know the biological qualifications for life and embryos do not fit the qualifications.

I don't hold humans to special definitions of life (as suggested by the book you tell me to read). I hold them to same definitions that all creatures must meet to be considered a life. The only one advocating a special definition of human life is you.

Good. Provide the evidence. Let's start simple. There are biological definitions for what counts as a life and what does not. You should be able to make an easy argument for how an embryo qualifies as a seperate, living being, seeing as your views are objective and not founded on faith.

This certainly needs to be discussed and agreed upon, because many of these arguments will never be resolved unless we agree on when life begins.

I believe it begins at conception, most of you think it starts at some undefined point in pregnancy, typically referred to as "late" in the pregnancy.

I believe that life begins at conception because, at conception, the zygote will have all the genetic material it will have for the rest of its life. Closely analyzing the DNA of the fertilized cell, you can tell what color the hair will be, what color the eyes will be, what color the skin will be, whether the child will be at a greater risk of any genetic diseases, the list goes on and on.

Nothing is added after conception except for neutrients. Are neutrients life? Are the chemicals that the growing child takes in through the umbilical cord life? No. They are neutrients, chemicals. Therefore, since life isn't added somewhere in between conception and birth, and it is obvious that life is present after birth (except in a few sad cases), then life must begin at conception.

Here is a more scientific rationalization:

Characteristics of life (http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm)

1. Organized structures that are composed of heterogenous chemicals - in units of "cells"

Unborn humans are composed of cells.

2. Metabolism: chemical and energy transformations

Chemical reactions occur in the bodies of unborn children.

3. Maintain internal conditions separated from an outside environment: homeostasis

Unborn humans are able to regulate the concentrations of chemicals in the various parts of their growing bodies.

4. Growth: conversion of materials from the environment into components of organism

The most drastic period of growth in any human occurs pre-birth.

5. Reaction to select stimuli, physiologically and/or behaviorally

Unborn humans have been found to recognize the sound of their mother's voice, as well as other stimuli.

6. Reproduction: making copies of individuals via the mechanism of genetic transfer: sections of DNA molecules that contain instructions for organization & metabolism

It is true, the ability to reproduce is merely developing in unborn humans, but to say that an unborn human is not living because it cannot reproduce is to say that any pre-pubesceant humans are not living as well.

7. Evolution: change in characteristics of individuals, resulting from mutation & natural selection - these result in adaptations

The developing human has different DNA than his/her parents (which is also why it is a seperate being from his/her mother).

I'm too lazy, why not back up your claims yourself?

Ok, I'm sorry here goes.

Philip K Dick by the way was a science fiction writer (blade runner, total recall)

The premise to pre-people goes like this

People are not people until they are rational, cognitive, free thinking independent adults. Ergo until you reach adolescence you are not a person. Ergo until you reach adolescence you are subject to termination.

Is that ok or would like me try again with words that have fewer syllables?

Abortion is murder. But why stop there? You're missing the bigger picture. When you use a condom, you are precluding the possibility of getting pregnant, and thus are precluding the possibility of creating life. In both cases, you are not giving a non-living entity a chance to become living (sperm + ovum and embryo). Indeed, by the same logic, abstinence is also murder. If you abstain, you are inherently denying life a chance. In fact, you should have sex as much as you can to give life the maximum possible chance.

Embryos do not qualify as life and you cannot kill a non-living thing. Abortion is not morally nor legally wrong, and should be completely legal.

Abortion is murder. But why stop there? You're missing the bigger picture. When you use a condom, you are precluding the possibility of getting pregnant, and thus are precluding the possibility of creating life. In both cases, you are not giving a non-living entity a chance to become living (sperm + ovum and embryo). Indeed, by the same logic, abstinence is also murder. If you abstain, you are inherently denying life a chance. In fact, you should have sex as much as you can to give life the maximum possible chance.

Embryos do not qualify as life and you cannot kill a non-living thing. Abortion is not morally nor legally wrong, and should be completely legal.

Embryos are living humans, sperm and unfertilized eggs are not. That is the distinction you seem to be missing.

This certainly needs to be discussed and agreed upon, because many of these arguments will never be resolved unless we agree on when life begins.

I believe it begins at conception, most of you think it starts at some undefined point in pregnancy, typically referred to as "late" in the pregnancy.

I believe that life begins at conception because, at conception, the zygote will have all the genetic material it will have for the rest of its life. Closely analyzing the DNA of the fertilized cell, you can tell what color the hair will be, what color the eyes will be, what color the skin will be, whether the child will be at a greater risk of any genetic diseases, the list goes on and on.

Yet, you make arguments regarding a fetus and not regarding the zygote. If life begins at the zygote show how it meets all of the necessary qualifications for life at this time.

Nothing is added after conception except for neutrients. Are neutrients life? Are the chemicals that the growing child takes in through the umbilical cord life? No. They are neutrients, chemicals. Therefore, since life isn't added somewhere in between conception and birth, and it is obvious that life is present after birth (except in a few sad cases), then life must begin at conception.

Here is a more scientific rationalization:

Characteristics of life (http://www.resa.net/nasa/biology_systematics.htm)

1. Organized structures that are composed of heterogenous chemicals - in units of "cells"

Unborn humans are composed of cells.

So are hearts. It must meet all of the qualifications, which doesn't occur well into the fetal stage.

2. Metabolism: chemical and energy transformations

Chemical reactions occur in the bodies of unborn children.

Again, same with heart.

3. Maintain internal conditions separated from an outside environment: homeostasis

Unborn humans are able to regulate the concentrations of chemicals in the various parts of their growing bodies.

False. Not all unborn humans can do this. They can only do so at a certain stage in development. In order to be considered a living seperate being in biology you must actually be able presently do this. The end of this process marks the end of life. This is again something not present in a zygote. A zygote fits this rule much less than the human heart does.

4. Growth: conversion of materials from the environment into components of organism

The most drastic period of growth in any human occurs pre-birth.

The human heart does this for a great period of time after the birth. So far the heart is more human than a zygote.

5. Reaction to select stimuli, physiologically and/or behaviorally

Unborn humans have been found to recognize the sound of their mother's voice, as well as other stimuli.

Not embryos and not at the time of the vast majority of abortions. At the time most abortion have already occurred the first synapses are only beginning to form. You have just argued yourself out of the ability for the zygote to be considered a life. Congrats. Incidentally, this is the same rule that trips up the human heart being a seperate human life.

6. Reproduction: making copies of individuals via the mechanism of genetic transfer: sections of DNA molecules that contain instructions for organization & metabolism

It is true, the ability to reproduce is merely developing in unborn humans, but to say that an unborn human is not living because it cannot reproduce is to say that any pre-pubesceant humans are not living as well

I couldn't agree more. Reproduction is the one time when an argument from potential is acceptable. However, let's admit that this rule is fairly spurious anyway since we know of creatures that are clearly lifes and cannot ever reproduce.

7. Evolution: change in characteristics of individuals, resulting from mutation & natural selection - these result in adaptations

The developing human has different DNA than his/her parents (which is also why it is a seperate being from his/her mother).

The last part of that statement is false. It is not that simple. Have you heard of chimeras? Parts of humans can and often are of a unique DNA from the majority of the rest of the body. Even not counting chimeras, sperm and eggs can have completely unique DNA. Sperm qualify for every other definition except for the same one that disqualifies a zygote.

Embryos are living humans, sperm and unfertilized eggs are not. That is the distinction you seem to be missing.

Why not?

Ok, I'm sorry here goes.

Philip K Dick by the way was a science fiction writer (blade runner, total recall)

The premise to pre-people goes like this

People are not people until they are rational, cognitive, free thinking independent adults. Ergo until you reach adolescence you are not a person. Ergo until you reach adolescence you are subject to termination.

Is that ok or would like me try again with words that have fewer syllables?

One, Dick had a mental disorder so not the best source of an argument. Two, Dick was arguing that we should have objective definitions of what is human not special ones. Thus, in his view, a biological definition of life would be the most appropriate one. An embryo does not qualify. Is that ok or would you like me to try again with words that have fewer syllables?

By the way, his/her point was that you should trying forming your own arguments rather than simply pointing to a book and saying, "what he said."

Embryos are living humans, sperm and unfertilized eggs are not. That is the distinction you seem to be missing.

Embryos are not living organsims. Nor are sperm and unfertilized eggs.

Embryos are living humans, sperm and unfertilized eggs are not. That is the distinction you seem to be missing.

Oh, I'm saving this one. There is no way you will ever show a seperate definition for life that qualifies a zygote by not a sperm or egg without specifying the number of chromosomes.

One, Dick had a mental disorder so not the best source of an argument. Two, Dick was arguing that we should have objective definitions of what is human not special ones. Thus, in his view, a biological definition of life would be the most appropriate one. An embryo does not qualify. Is that ok or would you like me to try again with words that have fewer syllables?

By the way, his/her point was that you should trying forming your own arguments rather than simply pointing to a book and saying, "what he said."

I'm sorry (again) seem to be apologising a lot here.

My original post was merely trying to encourage him/her to look beyond their horizons and try looking at other perceptions, not to say "what he said"

Question: Does having a mental disorder preclude you from having a valid perspective on a real world issue?

I'm sorry (again) seem to be apologising a lot here.

My original post was merely trying to encourage him/her to look beyond their horizons and try looking at other perceptions, not to say "what he said"

Question: Does having a mental disorder preclude you from having a valid perspective on a real world issue?

Eh, It's not like I'm opposing to getting a book, I've run out of things to read. I just don't want to have to go out to the library and read a presumably sizeable text to continue a debate.

And to the question, maybe not, but I won't be asking my legally blind friend to tell me what a sign says.

I would like to reiterate at this point - I am neither "pro-choice" nor "pro-life" both terms are bullshit. Both camps try to use semantics, pseudo-science and outright lies to back up their claims.

"There are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosphy"

I'm sorry I know some of you don't like qoutations, but if someone has already said it first and better then whats the problem.

That was Shakespeare by the way

I think it's silly that people get so up in arms over human fetuses. I mean, it's not like they're uncommon. Truly, they're the farthest thing from. Babies aren't uncommon either, and no matter how many abortions are occurring world wide, there's millions of more babies being born at the same time. Still a net gain in babies.

You treat the issue as if our goal is to ensure that the world needs to meet a fetus quota or something, as if we protect fetuses because there aren't enough of them, like an endangered species or something...

even if there were only one pregnant woman in the entire world, I would still fight for that child's right to live (actually, now that I think about it, many would join me in that scenario, because if that woman were the only pregnant woman in the world, that fetus would probably symbolize hope for the continuation of the human race...)

Seriously, the only thing that makes a fetus or baby special is the attachment it forms with people, and in that case it's only special to the people who want it. If a mother wants her child, then that baby is special to her. If a mother doesn't want her child, then the baby is not special. If she gives the baby up for adoption someone might decide the kid is special. If not, they're little more than a drain of society's resources and I have to feel sorry for the unwanted kid. In my opinion it would have been better to have aborted the kid while she/he was still a fetus and lacking concious thought. I think it's irresponsible to dump your unwanted children on other people.

So, you are in favor of killing anyone that no one considers "special"? Is that what makes it wrong to kill someone, because it would make others who are alive feel bad? Are you sure it isn't because people have the right to not be killed?

So if I get an organ replacement; does that make me two humans? What about that guy who had a baboon heart replacement back in the 70s? Did that make him a baboon?

No, it means that, if you get an organ replacement, you have the organ of a human other than yourself in your body, a part of that someone else.

The person in the 70s who had a baboon hear replacement had the heart of a baboon in his body, but of course that didn't make him a baboon. It made him a human with the heart of a baboon. However, if he were to have all his organs replaced with those of a baboon, then yes, he would probably be considered a baboon (although such a proceedure would be almost impossible, especailly in the 70s).

Human in this matter is simply a classification. Have you seen other species embryos? They are hard to distinguish.

So, because it doesn't look specifically like a human, then it isn't human and it is ok to kill it? What if someone is of the (insane) opinion that "true humans" have white skin, and therefore anyone without white skin isn't human? This follows under your appearances-make-the-human-a-human style argument, but I think most people here would strongly disagree.

I think what he was trying to say is, it's your DNA that determines your humanity. He forgot to mention though that that's not quite enough to make you a person yet.

I forgot nothing, you know that well. What does make it a person then? Birth? Your own discretion?

Well im against abortion and everything but.......look at this scenario....
A mother is pregnant but theres something wrong with the baby and its going to die like the second its born or something and if the mother gives birth, do to medical complications she will die too. Then what?

Dont put to much thought into it because it might not even be possible.

You are correct, it isn't possible. Nothing in medicine is gauranteed, so you can't say that "its going to die", because that is speaking certainly about an uncertain situation. The same goes for "she will die too". The only certainty is that if an abortion is performed successfully (a term which, in this case, is somewhat oxymoronic), the child will die.

I'm sorry (again) seem to be apologising a lot here.

My original post was merely trying to encourage him/her to look beyond their horizons and try looking at other perceptions, not to say "what he said"

Question: Does having a mental disorder preclude you from having a valid perspective on a real world issue?

No, but it means I have to take your arguments with a grain of salt. His mental disorder made it difficult for him to wrap his mind around reality.

You are correct, it isn't possible. Nothing in medicine is gauranteed, so you can't say that "its going to die", because that is speaking certainly about an uncertain situation. The same goes for "she will die too". The only certainty is that if an abortion is performed successfully (a term which, in this case, is somewhat oxymoronic), the child will die.

In most cases, it does not qualify for life and thus cannot die. No more so then a tonselectomy isn't 'successful' because the tonsels die. Also, the child part is rather pedantic, since you're qualifying something that does not qualify as a seperate, living being as a child.

I would like to reiterate at this point - I am neither "pro-choice" nor "pro-life" both terms are bullshit. Both camps try to use semantics, pseudo-science and outright lies to back up their claims.

"There are more thing in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosphy"

I'm sorry I know some of you don't like qoutations, but if someone has already said it first and better then whats the problem.

That was Shakespeare by the way

Using a quotation within the context of an argument is good form. "You're wrong and to understand why I think so you must read this book" is bad form. See the difference? Good.

Oh, I'm saving this one. There is no way you will ever show a seperate definition for life that qualifies a zygote by not a sperm or egg without specifying the number of chromosomes.

Did I say unfertilized eggs and sperm were not living?

No, I said they weren't living humans. In order for this statement to be correct, only one of the modifiers ("living" and "humans") needs to not describe unfertilized eggs and sperm. The modifier that is not met, in this case, is the "human" modifier.

The sperm is the sperm of a human and the egg is the egg of a human, but they are not human themselves. Eggs and sperm are "incomplete" in a sense, because they are haploid, not diploid... they have only one allele per trait, whereas humans have two alleles per trait, a dominant and a recessive allele.

One, Dick had a mental disorder so not the best source of an argument. Two, Dick was arguing that we should have objective definitions of what is human not special ones.


Dick's mental condition did not prevent him from setting up some of the most remarkable premises in all of science fiction (far more relevant is his drug use, particularly his amphetamines during the "Man in the High Castle" period and his general drug use during the time of "A Scanner Darkly"). His reasoning capabilities were, more or less, reliable enough within his literature until he started seeing his pink light.

Now, I have not read that particular book (or story, whichever it may be), but from your description it sounds very much as though PKD was positing a distopia in which children have no rights until adolescence. This would seem to me to tie in with student's rights issues rather interestingly, but that's another matter...It sounds like Dick was arguing against abortion (which if I recall correctly, he was violently against).

Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with abortions. In addition to being againts my moral code (no, I'm not likely to change and don't really want to), in nearly every case I've head of through various organizations I've been affiliated with, the women that have had them regret it, sometimes suffering severe depression/etc. They didn't have to go through that. They didn't have to suffer like that. They were convinced they needed an abortion because of whatever circumstances (and I'm not judging them), but in the end, they made their life unlivable. They're not even able to stand themselves. And that is something worth trying to prevent in itself.

lol :D

There is a phenomenon known as postpartum depression. This can be caused by both child birth and (I believe) abortion. I've heard a case of a well-adjusted woman who had a baby and ended up killing it due (at least in part) to postpartum depression. As a result, depression resulting from an abortion could just as likely have occured if the woman had carried the child to term.

Also, where you have heard of the women regretting it, I've heard of women who's main feelings were relief. It all depends on the person. Therefore I would recommend impartial counselling for women who aren't sure of themselves before an abortion.

Did I say unfertilized eggs and sperm were not living?

Not living cells. Life. Heart are not a life. They are organs that are part of a life. The difference is not small. You will find no definition of life that qualifies a zygote, but not a sperm. And sperm is undoubtedly of the human variety.

No, I said they weren't living humans. In order for this statement to be correct, only one of the modifiers ("living" and "humans") needs to not describe unfertilized eggs and sperm. The modifier that is not met, in this case, is the human modifier.

The sperm is the sperm of a human and the egg is the egg of a human, but they are not human themselves. Eggs and sperm are "incomplete" in a sense, because they are haploid, not diploid... they have only one allele per trait, whereas humans have two alleles per trait, a dominant and a recessive allele.

To be a living human, you must be a seperate living being first. Neither a sperm nor a zygote qualify.

A sperm is most definitely human. It's called human sperm. Human eggs. Your arguments are seriously getting worse by the minute. They are living. They are human. They are not a life. None of them. And for an entity to die it must be alive, have the qualities of a life. Neither a sperm, nor a zygote have them.

Okay, so one of your rules is that it must have two alleles per trait, yes? Careful how you answer, friend.

Dick's mental condition did not prevent him from setting up some of the most remarkable premises in all of science fiction (far more relevant is his drug use, particularly his amphetamines during the "Man in the High Castle" period and his general drug use during the time of "A Scanner Darkly"). His reasoning capabilities were, more or less, reliable enough within his literature until he started seeing his pink light.

Actually, his mental deficiences more than likely contributed to his work. He had trouble telling the difference between reality and fiction. This didn't make him illogical, just not the best source for information on the REAL world.

Now, I have not read that particular book (or story, whichever it may be), but from your description it sounds very much as though PKD was positing a distopia in which children have no rights until adolescence. This would seem to me to tie in with student's rights issues rather interestingly, but that's another matter...It sounds like Dick was arguing against abortion (which if I recall correctly, he was violently against).
His argument actually supports an objective definition of life that was not created specially for humans. An argument most people here agree with. There is already that definition for life and according to biologists zygots and embryos DO NOT qualify.

Yet, you make arguments regarding a fetus and not regarding the zygote. If life begins at the zygote show how it meets all of the necessary qualifications for life at this time.

Good point. I'll start slowly. You agree that bacteria and other single-celled organisms are living, correct?

So are hearts[...] Again, same with heart [etc.]

Great argument. Congratulations, you have just proven that human hearts are alive. The problem is, no one was debating that fact. Please stick to the topic at hand.

False. Not all unborn humans can do this. They can only do so at a certain stage in development. In order to be considered a living seperate being in biology you must actually be able presently do this. The end of this process marks the end of life. This is again something not present in a zygote. A zygote fits this rule much less than the human heart does.

If your statement were correct, than a zygote would not be able to regulate the developing process it undergoes, which it does (after all, if it didn't regulate the process, it would be random, and the chances of a human developing in the case of randomness-as-rule would be similar to the chances you accidentally creating a human while trying to make soup).

Not embryos and not at the time of the vast majority of abortions. At the time most abortion have already occurred the first synapses are only beginning to form. You have just argued yourself out of the ability for the zygote to be considered a life. Congrats.

So, fetuses do not respond to the stimulus of nutrients coming in through the umbilical cord? The nutrients are not taken in and distributed throughout the body as needed? Interesting.

The last part of that statement is false. It is not that simple. Have you heard of chimeras? Parts of humans can and often are of a unique DNA from the majority of the rest of the body. Even not counting chimeras, sperm and eggs can have completely unique DNA.

But in the case of embryos, distinct DNA is clearly the rule, as opposed to the exception, is it not?

Using a quotation within the context of an argument is good form. "You're wrong and to understand why I think so you must read this book" is bad form. See the difference? Good.

Oh come on... please

"You're wrong and to understand why I think so you must read this book"

You are putting words in my mouth at no point did I say youare wrong, at no pint did you say you must read this book. What you must do is take the blinkers off, look at the world in a different way. Look at the world ask yourself "is this it" "is this really what it is" "or is their another way" "is there something else".

Pro-choice vs pro life - Its bullshit, its ideology - think about it, just think.

Try to get away from

Knee...





...jerk

Actually, that was pretty acurate.


Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People for a very interesting take on that (frankly spurious) argument


Your argument is spurious (You're wrong) Read Philip K Dick's Pre-People (Read this book)

You treat the issue as if our goal is to ensure that the world needs to meet a fetus quota or something, as if we protect fetuses because there aren't enough of them, like an endangered species or something...

even if there were only one pregnant woman in the entire world, I would still fight for that child's right to live (actually, now that I think about it, many would join me in that scenario, because if that woman were the only pregnant woman in the world, that fetus would probably symbolize hope for the continuation of the human race...)

It's my trying to understand why people care so much about one more blob of developing cells. What does it matter to you whether or not a fetus you'll probably never here of or know exists develops to birth or not? With babies so abundant, what does it matter if an unwanted one doesn't happen? I honestly don't get it.

So, you are in favor of killing anyone that no one considers "special"? Is that what makes it wrong to kill someone, because it would make others who are alive feel bad? Are you sure it isn't because people have the right to not be killed?


I never said I was in favour of killing people. I said that instead of having a person live a painful life without love, because their mother was forced to bring them into existence against her will, it might have been better for them not to have been a person at all.

Also, yes. The effect it has on other people is what makes killing people wrong or bad. It just so happens that it's also against the law, probably due to the fact that people don't like it when their bonds are severed.

And sperm is undoubtedly of the human variety.

[...] A sperm is most definitely human. It's called human sperm. Human eggs. Your arguments are seriously getting worse by the minute. They are living. They are human. They are not a life. None of them. And for an entity to die it must be alive, have the qualities of a life. Neither a sperm, nor a zygote have them.

Of course human sperm is of the human variety, just like human insulin. But that doesn't mean it is human, in and of itself. Unless you believe that human insulin is human, even though it has no DNA whatsoever?

To be a living human, you must be a seperate living being first. Neither a sperm nor a zygote qualify.

But I already pointed out that zygotes are distince from their parents.

And then you pointed out that in rare cases, DNA is not consistant throughout an individual, to which I responded that that is the exception, not the rule... so the debate goes on.

Okay, so one of your rules is that it must have two alleles per trait, yes? Careful how you answer, friend.

I strive to be careful about how I answer in any situation.

One of my rules for what? Life? Humanity?

If you meant humanity, it comes down to the exception vs the rule argument.

If you meant life, then you haven't been listening well ;)

Good point. I'll start slowly. You agree that bacteria and other single-celled organisms are living, correct?

Yes. They also meet a definition that an embryo does not. An embryo does not act as an entity in the way any organism with a similar number of cells does. Unless you are arguing that an embryo is a bunch of single-celled organisms, you're argument is specious.

Perhaps, your instructors should have started more slowly. Don't insult me, son. My arguments are more founded than yours and if you can't continue your argument without suggesting that I'm incapable of understanding, it merely suggests that you recognize you're overmatched. And if it's true that you recognize that, good on you. It usually takes people much longer to realize that in these threads.

Great argument. Congratulations, you have just proven that human hearts are alive. The problem is, no one was debating that fact. Please stick to the topic at hand.

They are not a life, however, You are going to have to show how a zygote meets a definition that another organ does not.

If your statement were correct, than a zygote would not be able to regulate the developing process it undergoes, which it does (after all, if it didn't regulate the process, it would be random, and the chances of a human developing in the case of randomness-as-rule would be similar to the chances you accidentally creating a human while trying to make soup).

It does not regulate it. It requires input from the mother which is why the development can be so affected by chemical changes in the mother.

So, fetuses do not respond to the stimulus of nutrients coming in through the umbilical cord? The nutrients are not taken in and distributed throughout the body as needed? Interesting.

Taking in nutrients does not meet that individual requirement and you know it. That falls under the chemical reaction requirement. Quick, friend, where does the embryo get direction from in order to conduct this distribution? Too slow. It's the mother. Ding, ding, ding. The process your are marking is controlled by the mother.

Many of the parts of the embryo act independently of one another under the central chemical control of the mother's body. The heart for example acts completely independently of the embryo under the chemical direction given by the mother. It is more a part of the mother's body than the embryo's. The mother's body has the ability to stop and start this heart and to set its heartrate.

But in the case of embryos, distinct DNA is clearly the rule, as opposed to the exception, is it not?

It still does not make it a distinct life no matter how much you wish for it to do so. If by some miracle a child had the exact same DNA as the mother, it would still become a seperate life at a point during gestation (at the point when the entity begins to react to stimuli as an entity).

It's my trying to understand why people care so much about one more blob of developing cells. What does it matter to you whether or not a fetus you'll probably never here of or know exists develops to birth or not? With babies so abundant, what does it matter if an unwanted one doesn't happen? I honestly don't get it.

I am against killing "unwanted" fetuses for the same reason I am against killing "unwanted" developed people, I think that there is something inheritly wrong about killing people.

And if you really need to hear from someone that wants the "unwanted" fetuses, I want them. I want them to continue living. There, now you know they are wanted.

Also, yes. The effect it has on other people is what makes killing people wrong or bad. It just so happens that it's also against the law, probably due to the fact that people don't like it when their bonds are severed.

Then our ideologies are so far apart that we will probably not be able to come to any conclusion...

Of course human sperm is of the human variety, just like human insulin. But that doesn't mean it is human, in and of itself. Unless you believe that human insulin is human, even though it has no DNA whatsoever?

Ah, so we're getting somewhere. Human DNA is not enough either as you know or a heart that was extracted from a human and is not living on it's own would be a human. It's not. It's part of a human. Unique DNA doesn't do it either, because otherwise chimeras are two or more people.

But I already pointed out that zygotes are distince from their parents.

Often, so are other parts of the body. It is very common for their to be genetic uniqueness within the body.

And then you pointed out that in rare cases, DNA is not consistant throughout an individual, to which I responded that that is the exception, not the rule... so the debate goes on.

Not very rare. And regardless, they are still qualified as a single-life. Genetic uniqueness does not a life make, though you clearly wish for this to be the trump card that makes a zygote a human life.

I strive to be careful about how I answer in any situation.

Strive harder.

One of my rules for what? Life? Humanity?

If you meant humanity, it comes down to the exception vs the rule argument.

If you meant life, then you haven't been listening well ;)

Wow, someone doesn't understand the fact that life is a part of humanity. You can not be a member of humanity without first being a life. If it's a life and it's human, it's humanity. So, can you show that it's a life is the only question to answer. And so far you haven't.

I have yet to meet a person that argues your point that can simply leave humanity out of it. An objective definition of life does not require it to be human. No one here is arguing that it is not human. But in order for you to avoid answering question you raise up this silly point whenever you can to try and not admit that you not only cannot prove that a zygote meets the qualifications for life but you it cannot be proven, since it doesn't.

I am against killing "unwanted" fetuses for the same reason I am against killing "unwanted" developed people, I think that there is something inheritly wrong about killing people.

And if you really need to hear from someone that wants the "unwanted" fetuses, I want them. I want them to continue living. There, now you know they are wanted.

And as soon as you can gestate them in lieu of the mother, then you'll have an argument. Until then, you're gonna have to do better. Also, when there are no children available for adoption you can make the argument that all children are wanted. Right now, particularly if you have dark skin, people are quite happy allowing children to grow up unwanted.

Oh come on... please

"You're wrong and to understand why I think so you must read this book"

You are putting words in my mouth at no point did I say youare wrong, at no pint did you say you must read this book. What you must do is take the blinkers off, look at the world in a different way. Look at the world ask yourself "is this it" "is this really what it is" "or is their another way" "is there something else".

Pro-choice vs pro life - Its bullshit, its ideology - think about it, just think.

Try to get away from

Knee...





...jerk
Look up the word spurious. I find that you have to resort to namecalling a little sad. It's also a violation of site rules. And, yes, we're all impressed by how cleverly you masked your insult behind those oh so difficult to see through ellipses.

I am against killing "unwanted" fetuses for the same reason I am against killing "unwanted" developed people, I think that there is something inheritly wrong about killing people.

And if you really need to hear from someone that wants the "unwanted" fetuses, I want them. I want them to continue living. There, now you know they are wanted.

Then our ideologies are so far apart that we will probably not be able to come to any conclusion...

But a fetus isn't a person, wanted or unwanted. As well, you don't really want any of those fetuses. You don't even know of the existence of the majority of them, and unless you're willing to find all those unwanted fetuses and try and convince the mother not to abort, and then raise them yourself, you don't really want them.

If you don't really want them, then to want them to be alive is horribly selfish. You're willing to bring unhappiness and hardship to other people just so you can feel good about yourself.

Yes. They also meet a definition that an embryo does not. An embryo does not act as an entity in the way any organism with a similar number of cells does. Unless you are arguing that an embryo is a bunch of single-celled organisms, you're argument is specious.

Slow down, you jumped ahead. I'm taking this slowly so you can't miss my point, so please answer yes or no, and feel free to ask questions, but don't jump ahead.

A fertilized egg meets the requirments for life in the same fashion that single-celled organisms meet the requirements, doesn't it?

Perhaps, your instructors should have started more slowly. Don't insult me, son. My arguments are more founded than yours and if you can't continue your argument without suggesting that I'm incapable of understanding, it merely suggests that you recognize you're overmatched. And if it's true that you recognize that, good on you. It usually takes people much longer to realize that in these threads.

Fascinating. You frame the statement "don't insult me" with insults on both sides.

As I side note, I welcome insults, even ungrounded ones, if it really makes you feel better to type them. But I will point out the nature of their ungroundedness if I find it necessary.

Anyways, since it seems that I will need to have studied beyond a high school education before I can effectively present my case to you, I will now leave and do so. Perhaps I will see you again then, perhaps I see you daily already. But, I won't see you on these forums again, I've got some studying to do.

And laugh at me all you want as I leave, but remember, you yourself would have disproved of such mockery.

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.
Simple solution? You be the judge. The following is from a pro-lifer (http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/Family-Life-Issues/God-is-a-God-of-Adoption.html)telling it like it is:

Allow me to venture out on a limb. I believe one of the primary reasons abortion runs rampant in America today is because Christians are not willing to adopt the "unwanted" children trapped in orphanages. You see, for thirty years the pro-abortion crowd has been chanting, "Every child a wanted child." They claim if a child isn't wanted, it's better to abort than to doom a child to a life of poverty and neglect.

To bolster their position, the other side points to the number of children sitting unclaimed in orphanages in every state. In turn, a young woman in the midst of a crisis pregnancy is led to believe the lie that the humane solution is to terminate her pregnancy.

We in the pro-life community respond by speaking of adoption as the alternative to abortion. But here's where I must inch further out on that limb. Far too many of us are engaged in lip service. Why do I say that? There are more than 134,000 children in America sitting in foster care who are immediately available and waiting for a good home. However, each year only a few thousand church-going families open the doors to their homes to those who have no one to call their own.

There's something wrong with this picture.

Last year their were 1,293,000 abortions in the US (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html). Imagine how many children would end up in foster homes or State run facilities if there were no abortions. Think about the cumulative affect over the years. Imagine if you will, millions upon millions of unwanted children.

It is obvious that your simple? solution just wouldn't work. There has to be a much better solution.

I am not advocating or condoning abortion. I am simply stating that your solution is unworkable.

Slow down, you jumped ahead. I'm taking this slowly so you can't miss my point, so please answer yes or no, and feel free to ask questions, but don't jump ahead.

A fertilized egg meets the requirments for life in the same fashion that single-celled organisms meet the requirements, doesn't it?


No.

Slow down, you jumped ahead. I'm taking this slowly so you can't miss my point, so please answer yes or no, and feel free to ask questions, but don't jump ahead.

A fertilized egg meets the requirments for life in the same fashion that single-celled organisms meet the requirements, doesn't it?

Nope. It has to be taken as an entity that is part of the developmental cycle (thus the argument for reproduction).

Fascinating. You frame the statement "don't insult me" with insults on both sides.

You think that was an accident?

As I side note, I welcome insults, even ungrounded ones, if it really makes you feel better to type them. But I will point out the nature of their ungroundedness if I find it necessary.

And you're free to insult me. However, just note that it makes you look even sillier when I pull apart your arguments.

Anyways, since it seems that I will need to have studied beyond a high school education before I can effectively present my case to you, I will now leave and do so. Perhaps I will see you again then, perhaps I see you daily already. But, I won't see you on these forums again, I've got some studying to do.

Keep in mind that almost no one that makes the case of a zygote meeting the qualifications for life is doing so as a biologist. Most have degrees in some other discipline. The arguments that would qualify a zygote would destroy the ability to classify life at all. The only really good argument of the biological regard is that viruses are no doubt a life and cannot be classified either. However, since other complex animals, that argument is rather weak on its face.

And laugh at me all you want as I leave, but remember, you yourself would have disproved of such mockery.

I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying that you set the tone of the argument. If you set it in a way that involves mockery the level at which I reply is going to reflect, and you won't likely enjoy the conversation long.

I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying that you set the tone of the argument. If you set it in a way that involves mockery the level at which I reply is going to reflect, and you won't likely enjoy the conversation long.

Excellent point, I will keep that in mind.

Best regards,
Gregg

2. how about the part of the constitution that doesnt allow murder?
1. Murder is not outlawed in the Constitution.
2. Murder is, by definition, illegal. Abortion is legal. Ergo, abortion cannot possibly be murder to anyone with even the tiniest grasp of any language in existence.

Excellent point, I will keep that in mind.

Best regards,
Gregg

You know I was just thinking (actually, I was just playing the guitar, I'm just beginning to learn), and I want to make it clear that I don't dismiss you opinion. Our discussion centers around what opinions should be permitted to become law and the argument we're having is because we agree on one thing. Law should have some objective basis if it is to limit rights. For the same reason, you wouldn't make your view on birth control law, I think you should make your view on abortion law.

I'll offer up my opinions on the matter, none of which I seek to make law:

Personally, I would discourage anyone I cared about from getting one. I think they are harmful to the person getting one and, spiritually, I think the infusion of the soul is when it becomes morally wrong.

However, I feel the objective position is not only regarding the biological point where it becomes a life, but more objectively, we have already outlined the passage from life to non-life legally. Brain death is the measure of the end of life, the end of being considered a living person, and 'brain-life' should be the measure of the beginning of life, the beginning of being considered a living person. Many pro-choice people would protest such a distinction, but the distinction is objective. The point when brain activity can be measured, in my opinion, is when life begins. Thus, an embryo wouldn't fit the bill, but second-trimester abortions would right out, except in the circumstances where they are currently allowed in the third-trimester.

You know I was just thinking (actually, I was just playing the guitar, I'm just beginning to learn), and I want to make it clear that I don't dismiss you opinion. Our discussion centers around what opinions should be permitted to become law and the argument we're having is because we agree on one thing. Law should have some objective basis if it is to limit rights. For the same reason, you wouldn't make your view on birth control law, I think you should make your view on abortion law.

I'll offer up my opinions on the matter, none of which I seek to make law:

Personally, I would discourage anyone I cared about from getting one. I think they are harmful to the person getting one and, spiritually, I think the infusion of the soul is when it becomes morally wrong.

However, I feel the objective position is not only regarding the biological point where it becomes a life, but more objectively, we have already outlined the passage from life to non-life legally. Brain death is the measure of the end of life, the end of being considered a living person, and 'brain-life' should be the measure of the beginning of life, the beginning of being considered a living person. Many pro-choice people would protest such a distinction, but the distinction is objective. The point when brain activity can be measured, in my opinion, is when life begins. Thus, an embryo wouldn't fit the bill, but second-trimester abortions would right out, except in the circumstances where they are currently allowed in the third-trimester.

Wow, now that I've had a cool-down session, I can see that you are saying, really, the same kinds of things I have said before.

I need to re-define my opinion, though. You made it clear that it is nowhere near as obvious as I had thought it was that abortion is murder, but I am still in favor of outlawing it, because even though my opposition is based on subjective opinion, I still think it is based on objective truth, if that makes any sense.

Here is a short essay I wrote once to explain why I am in favor of outlawing abortion but not contraceptives:

There are two categories of actions, Harmful actions and Harmless actions:

Harmful actions - any action that directly causes harm in any way.
Harmless actions - any action that does not directly cause harm.

Within these categories, there are two subcategories, Personal actions and Interpersonal actions.

Personal actions - actions that only directly effect people who are willing to be affected.
Interpersonal actions - actions that have a direct impact on people who are not willing to be affected.

Now, for my stance on these things:

It may surprize many of you to know that I am a Libertarian. As a libertarian, I believe that individual rights should be protected above all else. Therefore, it is my view that no one has a right to force people to follow any code pertaining to Harmful/Harmless Personal Actions, or Harmless Interpersonal Actions. Libertarians oppose Harmful Interpersonal Actions because, since they are causing harm for others, they are effecting the Personal Actions of the people effected. A person who has two broken hands cannot excercise the Personal Action of masturbation (well, not as easily...)

As a Catholic, I am opposed to all Harmful Actions. Therefore, I am opposed both Harmful Personal Actions and Harmful Interpersonal Actions.

Scenarios

Harmful Personal Actions

Examples: Masturbation, suicide, the use of non-abortificant birth control, practicing masochism, having homosexual intercourse, blasphemy, arrogance, commiting one of the 7 deadly sins, ect...*

My two major philosophies are in agreement against Harmful Interpersonal Actions. But what about Harmful Personal Actions? They are still in agreement, but the agreement is less obvious. When it comes to Harmful Personal Actions, I am opposed to them as a Catholic, but as a Libertarian, I beleive that I have no right to force anyone to agree with my stance on any Harmful Personal Action. Take condoms, for example. As a Catholic, I cannot support or recommend them, because the Church clearly states that their use is a Harmful Personal Action. However, as a Libertarian, I cannot force anyone to not use condoms.

This is why you never see me agreeing with or accepting the use of condoms as a population control method, but you will never see me forbidding anyone from using them**

Harmful Interpersonal Actions

Examples: Murder, rape, theft, assault, smoking, ect..

Both my Libertarian and my Catholic philosphies are in agreement, Harmful Interpersonal Actions are bad.

Harmless Personal Actions

Examples: Playing solitare, drinking a glass of water, thinking about fluffy little bunnies, speaking in a British accent when you aren't really British***, ect..

Harmless Actions are truly harmless. Therefore, I see no grounds for opposing them.

Harmless Interpersonal Actions

Examples: It is surprisingly difficult to think of interpersonal actions that are always harmless. This category is typically reached on a case-by-case basis.

*These are all my views of what is Harmful or not Harmful (as well as what is Personal and Interpersonal)

**There is a slight clarification to be made here. I uphold the Catholic Church's right to forbid the use of condoms, because people do not have to be Catholic. Therefore, the Church's stance on codoms is a Personal Action. So, not only does my Catholic nature (of course) support the Church's right to forbid the use of condoms, but my Libertarian nature supports that right as well.

***This could be seen as lying. In that case, it could be considered harmful

I need to re-define my opinion, though. You made it clear that it is nowhere near as obvious as I had thought it was that abortion is murder, but I am still in favor of outlawing it, because even though my opposition is based on subjective opinion, I still think it is based on objective truth, if that makes any sense.

Doesn't matter. It may or may not be objective truth, but you cannot prove that it is. Thus, forcing it upon other people is not acceptable.

Your belief that a zygote is a human person is a philosophical one, not an objective one - you admit that. Does any person who has a philosophical viewpoint that they think is objective truth get to force it on other people?

For instance, I think that insulting someone causes direct harm to them. It injures their soul and their self-esteem. I hereby want to make it illegal to insult someone. Is that ok?

Doesn't matter. It may or may not be objective truth, but you cannot prove that it is. Thus, forcing it upon other people is not acceptable.

You cannot prove that murder is objectively wrong

Your belief that a zygote is a human person is a philosophical one, not an objective one - you admit that. Does any person who has a philosophical viewpoint that they think is objective truth get to force it on other people?[/QUOTE]

Well, killing that same zygote is forcing the viewpoint on the zygote, isn't it (yes, this is a logical impasse)

For instance, I think that insulting someone causes direct harm to them. It injures their soul and their self-esteem. I hereby want to make it illegal to insult someone. Is that ok?

I don't see why not, sure. Actually, with anti-flaming rules, it is basically illegal on these forums anyways.

You cannot prove that murder is objectively wrong

I can prove that murder harms another human being, and thus falls within the realm of governmental duties - to protect its citizens.

Abortion, on the other hand, cannot be objectively shown to harm another human being. And, by our most objective measures, an embryo is not a human being. *shrug*

Well, killing that same zygote is forcing the viewpoint on the zygote, isn't it (yes, this is a logical impasse)

No, it isn't. You can't force a view on something that does not have the ability to have a view. It's a bit like asking if me kicking a rock is forcing my view on a rock.

Meanwhile, let me ask you this, as a libertarian, do you think that human beings have rights to their own bodies? If so, how do you justify forcing another human being to allow their body to be used by another, even if you do label an embryo as a human being.

I don't see why not, sure. Actually, with anti-flaming rules, it is basically illegal on these forums anyways.

These forums are not a legal entity. By coming onto them, I agree to abide by the rules the owners have set up. That is a different discussion from what I can do legally or from what the purpose of a government is.

pro-life is a word that you hear mentioned mostly with anti-abortion. however, this doesnt only include abortion. if youre prolife but for the death penalty, you are pro-death. we all sin. why is the value of the life of a deathrow inmate any less than ours?

and thereis nothing that angers me more than abortion. nowadays, people care more about the life of an animal than that of an innocent human whos not fully developed. a pre-teen isnt fully developed. should we start killing them too? let it be for God's sake, give the child a chance to live. if anything put it up for adoption.

i feel that animals are very important and shouldnt be killed for fun. however, i would much rather see a million animals die than one baby. this says alot since i love animals

scenario: a girl gets raped and cant take care of a baby as a result of financial reasons. in this case, it is not the baby's fault. why does he have to be punished for the crimes of his father? do we punish the children of osama? no. by killing the baby, you actually add to the emotional hurt that comes with a rape

solution: put the baby up for adoption. there are so many people wanting to adopt.

what has this world come to?

40 million fellow humans have been massacred since January 22, 1973. this culture of death needs to stop

and, by the way, planned parent hood was started by a racist (Margaret Sanger) whose initial mission was to kill off the black race. why condone this evil corporation which originated with racist and evil intentions?
/rant

If you are so pro-life, why aren't you out picketing cemeteries?

Look up the word spurious. I find that you have to resort to namecalling a little sad. It's also a violation of site rules. And, yes, we're all impressed by how cleverly you masked your insult behind those oh so difficult to see through ellipses.

No insult was intended the ellipses were merely a device to try to give the image of a knee jerk reaction.

I am British we tend not to use jerk as insult (we have far more colourful terms) however, intended or not you were offended and for that I am genuinely sorry. I certainly do not think you are a jerk as such I withdraw the remark and apologise unreservedly.

No insult was intended the ellipses were merely a device to try to give the image of a knee jerk reaction.

I am British we tend not to use jerk as insult (we have far more colourful terms) however, intended or not you were offended and for that I am genuinely sorry. I certainly do not think you are a jerk as such I withdraw the remark and apologise unreservedly.

Oh, I'm not actually offended. You can call me a jerk all day long and at worst I'll laugh. I was just pointing out that it wasn't going to help you case if you ever run afoul of the mods. In America, Jerk is a REALLY tame insult.

By the way, kneejerk means fast and without thought (or something similar). The ellipses kind of simulate the opposite of a kneejerk reaction, so you should really work on your excuses. Given the nature of your arguments, I refuse to believe you don't understand the word.

What do you say to a 11/12 year old girl who has been raped by a family member? Does she have to go full term? Will you tell her it's ok cause the baby will go into an 'adoption' system, she lives in a country that is barely able to support it citizens, the vast majority of which live below the poverty line.

If countries make pro-life legislation it doesn't stop abortions it makes the whole process back-street and much more barbaric for the foetus and the mother.

the whole point is that they aren't a person at this point.

I'm a biologist and I go from the biological perspective but I can give it from the biblical perspective.

the first pope/bishop of rome (depending on your point of view) the apostle (I forget his name mates with jesus though) described the foetus as being more akin to a vegetable then an animal or man.

Well, my opinion on this topic is thus:

For most of the time in the womb, the baby is just a blob. Little more than an organ with no real mental facilities at all. Worrying about killing it is worrying about killing your kidney, the only problem is the effect is has on a fully developed human (in this case, psycological). I hope we can agree with that, if not please explain why. The other objection seems to be on the basis that it could become a human, therefore in effect you are killing a human if you do not allow it to become so. However by this arguement it you should spend every hour of every day procreating because it is a moment where the 'potential' of a baby is born, as it were. Also you could never use contraception, as you are stopping a potential human from being born. Does this make sence to you?

Fundementally my arguement is based upon the fact that for the most part in a womb a fetus cannot cognate, and is simply a growing object. At this moment, you cannot say it is 'alive'.

the whole point is that they aren't a person at this point.

I'm a biologist and I go from the biological perspective but I can give it from the biblical perspective.

the first pope/bishop of rome (depending on your point of view) the apostle (I forget his name mates with jesus though) described the foetus as being more akin to a vegetable then an animal or man.

I believe you are refering to Simon-Peter.

It's also interesting to note that in the Old Testament abortion is only a finable offence, it is not considered to be murder.

I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I would never force my morals on another person. The fact that I believe something doesn't mean that I think everyone else has to as well.