NationStates Jolt Archive

You can't pray directly to God; you make prayers to ask Jesus to talk to God on your behalf. The Holy Spirit is there somewhere, making it possible, like a divine telephone.

At least, that's my understanding of the Catholic belief.
That is also correct.

You can't pray directly to God; you make prayers to ask Jesus to talk to God on your behalf. The Holy Spirit is there somewhere, making it possible, like a divine telephone.

At least, that's my understanding of the Catholic belief.

Yeah, but Catholics believe a lot of things, like that Jesus was made of crackers.

... Speaking of which, hey NSJesus? If wine is used for your blood, were you like, tanked 24/7?

You can't pray directly to God; you make prayers to ask Jesus to talk to God on your behalf. The Holy Spirit is there somewhere, making it possible, like a divine telephone.

At least, that's my understanding of the Catholic belief.
Thats alot of middle men, can't god just get a phone or a website or something?

Yeah, but Catholics believe a lot of things, like that Jesus was made of crackers.

... Speaking of which, hey NSJesus? If wine is used for your blood, were you like, tanked 24/7?
Religious symbology =/ literal beliefs.

I agree. Some think they can disprove the existence of the Triune God by saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, not 1. They forget it is 1/3 x 3 = 1.
You guys obviously don't understand our true nature. But don't sweat it. No human can fully comprehend the mystery anyway. You're probably better off just explaining all mysteries that way.

Thats alot of middle men, can't god just get a phone or a website or something?
Maybe God prefers to screen his prayers.

Religious symbology =/ literal beliefs.
Actually, isn't that a literal one, because of transubstantiation? Or at least, the bread (once the priest blesses it) is literally Jesus, not Jesus is literally bread.

Maybe God prefers to screen his prayers.
but if hes all knowing can't he just know which ones not to listen to already?

Ah thanks for clearing that up. One last question, if all three are equal why do all the christians I've met only aske Jesus for forgiveness?

Because Jesus was the human incarnation of the Father. Because Jesus preached forgiveness. Because Jesus died on the cross so sins would be forgiven. And perhaps most obviously, Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father and determines who enters heaven (thereby determining whose sins would be forgiven). Seems pretty natural to ask Jesus for forgiveness. Having said this, no one said you could only ask it of him - you can always do the same to the Father.

Does that mean we can call the Christian god "the holy gynocologist" now?

Nope. Well, I suppose you could but that's just one of His facets. ^_^

But seriously, no, He's supposed to be almighty, right? Why wouldn't that include work that we can do, hmm? And it's not always a gynocologist. In fact, typically it isn't.

Well guys, I have to go grant eternal rest unto some people, including myself. -yawn- Be back in another 2000 years or so. Peace be with you and all that.

Actually, isn't that a literal one, because of transubstantiation? Or at least, the bread (once the priest blesses it) is literally Jesus, not Jesus is literally bread.
Again, the notion is symbolic. Yes, some say part of His essence is in the bread, but this is still just symbology. If we assume He is Omnipresent, He is in the air we breathe.

As far as I am concerned...
If you dont want to get pregnaunt.
Then dont have sex.
People are choosing to have sex.
Sex is for reproduction.
People abuse that way to much.
Its like doing the crime without paying the time..

but if hes all knowing can't he just know which ones not to listen to already?
Right, so he has Jesus field those ones.

Actually, isn't that a literal one, because of transubstantiation? Or at least, the bread (once the priest blesses it) is literally Jesus, not Jesus is literally bread.

For Catholics, yes. Don't ask me to explain that one...I haven't a clue.

Well guys, I have to go grant eternal rest unto some people, including myself. -yawn- Be back in another 2000 years or so. Peace be with you and all that.
Hey! What about my Rapture?!? I want my money back!

For Catholics, yes. Don't ask me to explain that one...I haven't a clue.
And Orthodox Christians. Not sure about others though.

As far as I am concerned...
If you dont want to get pregnaunt.
Then dont have sex.
People are choosing to have sex.
Sex is for reproduction.
People abuse that way to much.
Its like doing the crime without paying the time..
Silly. This thread got hijacked like ten pages ago.

Hey! What about my Rapture?!? I want my money back!

Didn't you read the fine print? No returns or refunds without a receipt!

Silly. This thread got hijacked like ten pages ago.
yup me and NSJesus did it. :p

Didn't you read the fine print? No returns or refunds without a receipt!
Dammit!! That's the last time I listen to a *!&@!! televangelist!!!!

Silly. This thread got hijacked like ten pages ago.


yea... after I looked at it I was like .. what the..
Nevermind... have fun talking about jesus.

As far as I am concerned...
If you dont want to get pregnaunt.
Then dont have sex.
People are choosing to have sex.
Sex is for reproduction.
People abuse that way to much.
Its like doing the crime without paying the time..

You're forgetting rape. That's not exactly voluntary (understatement of the year - by definition, rape isn't voluntary).

For the sake of understanding your viewpoint, have you hit/past sexual puberty yet, or no?

Since I've been attacked for using ambiguous language in replying to a similar topic before, I'll try to be as concise as possible.

The unborn child is not a person. It is a human - it has human DNA, human arms, human legs, and a human brain. It is not a person because personhood requires personality. A child cannot have a personality until it has experienced the world.

I therefore have no moral qualms over aborting an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy. Its value should not be judged by its "potential" - we are unable to predict the future, and in general if a woman wishes to abort her child she will have good reasons to.

Conversely, the mother - fully grown, with personality ergo personhood - deserves more rights than anything that is non-person.



:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Bullshit.
If you had kids, you would know that they develop personality in the womb. You can tell what kind of baby you will have before it comes out. Some are distinctly shy and become upset at loud noises. Others are playful and like to kick when you press on the woman's stomach. Others enjoy music and do sommersaults when certain music is played. Why don't you make sure you know what you are talking about before you decide whether a creature, animal, or person lives or dies, you morally despicable pond scum

yup me and NSJesus did it. :p

Hey, fuck you! I helped, damn it!

Hey, fuck you! I helped, damn it!
Think of the children! :eek:

(they might want in on it too ;) )

you morally despicable pond scum
Wow, insults. Wonderful debating tactic. Oh, oh! Call him a "fucking pink commie twat" for good measure! It'll help get your point across better.

So even if fetuses (fetii?) have personality, so do cows, and dogs, and pigs. So it must be morally wrong to kill them too?

Thus, if one is against abortion, and eats meat... They must be a hipocrite. Disprove THAT one.

Think of the children! :eek:

(they might want in on it too ;) )[/COLOR]

Sorry, I forgot there were Catholics in the thread.

(Okay, THAT joke was low, and I appologize for it... kinda...)

Hey, fuck you! I helped, damn it!
Yeah, me too.

Sorry, I forgot there were Catholics in the thread.

(Okay, THAT joke was low, and I appologize for it... kinda...)
One gets bored of being serious all the time. All work and no play...you get it.

Yes it should be illegal except for rape victims and if the mother's life is in serious danger. Even then I wouldn't be able to do it. I cannot murder my own flesh and blood and wouldn't want to. People who do are just sick and I'm sorry but if your not mature enough for a child your not mature enough to do what you were doing to get yourself pregnant in the first place. Its disgusting and very sad.

One gets bored of being serious all the time. All work and no play...you get it.
Hence the "kinda" part. ^_^

That's what seperates people like you and I from "people" like Red Tory States.

Hence the "kinda" part. ^_^

That's what seperates people like you and I from "people" like Red Tory States.
What separates us even further is the ability to use logic.

Yes it should be illegal except for rape victims and if the mother's life is in serious danger. Even then I wouldn't be able to do it. I cannot murder my own flesh and blood and wouldn't want to. People who do are just sick and I'm sorry but if your not mature enough for a child your not mature enough to do what you were doing to get yourself pregnant in the first place. Its disgusting and very sad.

Hey, it's a mercy killing. I wouldn't want a kid to be born into this world. I mean, I don't like living with conservatives or christians, so why should I subject a new life to that?

Yes it should be illegal except for rape victims and if the mother's life is in serious danger. Even then I wouldn't be able to do it. I cannot murder my own flesh and blood and wouldn't want to. People who do are just sick and I'm sorry but if your not mature enough for a child your not mature enough to do what you were doing to get yourself pregnant in the first place. Its disgusting and very sad.
With what justification does the government assume it has the right to legislate morality and impede one's personal freedom?

Wow, insults. Wonderful debating tactic. Oh, oh! Call him a "fucking pink commie twat" for good measure! It'll help get your point across better.

So even if fetuses (fetii?) have personality, so do cows, and dogs, and pigs. So it must be morally wrong to kill them too?

Thus, if one is against abortion, and eats meat... They must be a hipocrite. Disprove THAT one.

That's a good argument. You run into a problem if (she?) is a vegetarian, tho.

Would like to point out that Nationalist Genius is inaccurate about being able to figure out what sort of baby will come out. Would also like to point out that Nationalist Genius doesn't know whether or not The Mindset has had children or not. Would finally like to point out that Nationalist Genius has not followed forum rules in my opinion, and requests that Nationalist Genius does so in the future, rather than forcing me to report.

Wow, insults. Wonderful debating tactic. Oh, oh! Call him a "fucking pink commie twat" for good measure! It'll help get your point across better.

So even if fetuses (fetii?) have personality, so do cows, and dogs, and pigs. So it must be morally wrong to kill them too?

Thus, if one is against abortion, and eats meat... They must be a hipocrite. Disprove THAT one.
I don't want to get into the whole meat eating thing because that is way off topic, but he said that babies have no personality until some time has passed after they are born. That is just ill-informed, and to suggest killing a newborn is evil. But for the record, I believe that killing cows, dogs, and pigs is wrong unless doing so sustains another life. The fact that most women who have abortions are married, as someone said in an earlier post, blows my mind. There is no reason not to care for the baby except it would be inconvenient. So is going to work. But most of you are socialists and don't think that life should have any consequences...

I don't want to get into the whole meat eating thing because that is way off topic, but he said that babies have no personality until some time has passed after they are born. That is just ill-informed, and to suggest killing a newborn is evil. But for the record, I believe that killing cows, dogs, and pigs is wrong unless doing so sustains another life. The fact that most women who have abortions are married, as someone said in an earlier post, blows my mind. There is no reason not to care for the baby except it would be inconvenient. So is going to work. But most of you are socialists and don't think that life should have any consequences...
No, it is pertinent as it is an analogy being used to advance an argument. Either disprove its validity, or find a counter-argument, or hold your silence.

As for the socialist bit, I am a libertarian capitalist. How's that for a shocker?

Hey, it's a mercy killing. I wouldn't want a kid to be born into this world. I mean, I don't like living with conservatives or christians, so why should I subject a new life to that?

Who are you to decide for the child? Perhaps the child would want to live with conservatives or Christians.

With what justification does the government assume it has the right to legislate morality and impede one's personal freedom?

First, what do you think governments are in the business of? Murder? Rape? Theft? These are illegal for a reason - they are immoral.

Second, what personal freedom? How is the right to kill an unborn baby a personal or fundamental freedom? It's little more than smoke and mirrors with the Constitution. For that matter, if you want to talk about personal freedom, let's talk about the personal freedom of life. A human being has a rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Abortion completely extinguishes these rights.

Who are you to decide for the child? Perhaps the child would want to live with conservatives or Christians.

Probably not since a childs first impressions are from the parents. If conservatives and or Christians are not liked, strong chance the child won't like them either.

Probably not since a childs first impressions are from the parents. If conservatives and or Christians are not liked, strong chance the child won't like them either.

So because of a stronger chance, we should just assume the child wouldn't have wanted to live in the first place?

First, what do you think governments are in the business of? Murder? Rape? Theft? These are illegal for a reason - they are immoral.
Prove that the foetus has personhood before six months of birth, and I'll accept that claim. The only reason the Government legitimately bans them is that they are a violation of a personal freedom.

Second, what personal freedom? How is the right to kill an unborn baby a personal or fundamental freedom? It's little more than smoke and mirrors with the Constitution.
It is if it is not murder. It is a woman's control over her own body.

I don't want to get into the whole meat eating thing because that is way off topic, but he said that babies have no personality until some time has passed after they are born. That is just ill-informed, and to suggest killing a newborn is evil. But for the record, I believe that killing cows, dogs, and pigs is wrong unless doing so sustains another life. The fact that most women who have abortions are married, as someone said in an earlier post, blows my mind. There is no reason not to care for the baby except it would be inconvenient. So is going to work. But most of you are socialists and don't think that life should have any consequences...

I'm going to believe that you did not see my post above before you posted this. Please, follow forum rules.

In response to the post, by psychological definition, new-borns do not have personality. They have a temperment. Personality is created by the interaction of the environment with the temperment. Therefore, some time has to pass before the baby has a personality.

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
Bullshit.
If you had kids, you would know that they develop personality in the womb. You can tell what kind of baby you will have before it comes out. Some are distinctly shy and become upset at loud noises. Others are playful and like to kick when you press on the woman's stomach. Others enjoy music and do sommersaults when certain music is played. Why don't you make sure you know what you are talking about before you decide whether a creature, animal, or person lives or dies, you morally despicable pond scum

Actually no.

The neural system only kicks in at well can't remember the weeks but don't worry somebody will answer this.

Perception of action is not always correct. Look at Terry Schivo. They said she responded to things like ballons. Yet the autopsy reported her fully blind.

That's a good argument. You run into a problem if (she?) is a vegetarian, tho.

Would like to point out that Nationalist Genius is inaccurate about being able to figure out what sort of baby will come out. Would also like to point out that Nationalist Genius doesn't know whether or not The Mindset has had children or not. Would finally like to point out that Nationalist Genius has not followed forum rules in my opinion, and requests that Nationalist Genius does so in the future, rather than forcing me to report.

Nationalist Genius DOES know that The Mindset doesn't have any children, or at least not ones he's involved with, or he would know better. If I were to say "Black people are all cannibals" it would be a safe bet to say that I didn't have many black friends. Oxymoon, you are disputing the fact that babies have personalities before being born? Some may not be as detectable as others, but in addition to my own progeny, I am very close to all of my 23 nieces and nephews and I have to again say: You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Who are you to decide for the child? Perhaps the child would want to live with conservatives or Christians.

A less serious answer would be "if that were the case, than post-birth abortion would be the answer."

But here we are, back at the "who are you to decide" thing.

Let's look at it this way, it's being stated that fetuses are comparable to "lower" animals in thier later stages of development.

If a rabid uber-vegitarian were to call you a sinner, a degenerate, a morally-corrupt waste, and attempt to tell you that you can no longer kill animals for food, or eat meat, who would they be to decide.

Answer that, and then your arguements will be heard.

So because of a stronger chance, we should just assume the child wouldn't have wanted to live in the first place?

A baby doesn't understand metaphysical concepts. Death is unknown to them.

A baby doesn't understand metaphysical concepts. Death is unknown to them.
Death is release. If you were truly cynical, like me, you could say that they are being offered a gift.

Prove that the foetus has personhood before six months of birth, and I'll accept that claim. The only reason the Government legitimately bans them is that they are a violation of a personal freedom.

DNA. Movement within the womb.

Can you prove that a fetus does not have personhood? In a civilization that values life, should we not be giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that saves rather than destroys life?


It is if it is not murder. It is a woman's control over her own body.

You missed my point. Murder is prohibited because it's immoral. You stated that the government has no business regulating morals.

And yes, it is murder.

Actually no.

The neural system only kicks in at well can't remember the weeks but don't worry somebody will answer this.

Perception of action is not always correct. Look at Terry Schivo. They said she responded to things like ballons. Yet the autopsy reported her fully blind.
At 20 weeks a fetus can feel pain. Some people think that praying makes their lives easier, citing conveniences that are naturally occuring and chalking them up to prayer. But again, if you had been close to a pregnant woman, you would know that this is not the case.

DNA. Movement within the womb.

Can you prove that a fetus does not have personhood? In a civilization that values life, should we not be giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that saves rather than destroys life?
Yet studies would indicate it does not have personhood, and that it is not a conscious human being. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, it is not murder.

Movement is not enough.
You missed my point. Murder is prohibited because it's immoral. You stated that the government has no business regulating morals.

And yes, it is murder.
Then I disagree with the government's reason for prohibiting it. The government has no role, as I said, in telling us which morals to ascribe to. It has a role in ensuring our personal freedoms are not violated though. That is all. And even then, it is only with our consent that it assumes the right to exert this power.

A baby doesn't understand metaphysical concepts. Death is unknown to them.

A one day old baby doesn't understand death or metaphysical concepts, yet we don't allow the killing of one day old infants. Hell, when a one or two year old can't see something, they don't think it even exists. I suppose then the inability to comprehend preservation should classify them as 'expendable.'

First, what do you think governments are in the business of? Murder? Rape? Theft? These are illegal for a reason - they are immoral.

Second, what personal freedom? How is the right to kill an unborn baby a personal or fundamental freedom? It's little more than smoke and mirrors with the Constitution. For that matter, if you want to talk about personal freedom, let's talk about the personal freedom of life. A human being has a rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Abortion completely extinguishes these rights.

See my post about my decision (page 18, I think. Somewhere about there). That will explain about government's position, and that it doesn't have to do with immorality.
Second, you have to prove that it's a baby first. Until it's born, it's a fetus, whether you like it or not. This is why people have to debate the question about whether or not it's a human being. Finally, "life, liberty, and property" is the proper wording for that quote. It was only written that way in the Constitution because slavery was already a controversial topic. However, the Constitution shouldn't be used because this is an international topic. Therefore, philosophies have to be used instead, which leads back to the original and proper quote by Locke, and that's what I've fixed above.

You missed my point. Murder is prohibited because it's immoral. You stated that the government has no business regulating morals.

And yes, it is murder.

Murder isn't banned on moralistic reasons, it's banned on socioeconomic ones. If all murder were banned, we wouldn't have wars between governments.

Yes, it's murder, but so is eating beef. Thus, we can safely conclude that not only is murder good, but its also juicy and delicious when prepared right.

No, I don't support abortion...


I support a woman's right to choose abortion if she so desires...

No, I don't support abortion...


I support a woman's right to choose abortion if she so desires...
Precisely.

With what justification does the government assume it has the right to legislate morality and impede one's personal freedom? I won't get into abortion before 14 weeks, but what right does a woman who has CHOSEN (not rape) to take actions that would create a fetus, inside her or not, to kill that fetus against its will. Have you ever seen a fetus try to escape a vacuum? They do. If you support choice, then a woman should either be able to kill her child up to age 18 when it is no longer her property, or you should support the choice of the fetus.

Yet studies would indicate it does not have personhood, and that it is not a conscious human being. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, it is not murder.

Indicate...or prove? We're destroying a life here, don't you think we should have more than a hunch? Besides this, you're splitting an extremely fine hair. A human fetus is in the process of developing a conscious mind. Barring extreme circumstances, it will have such a mind.


Then I disagree with the government's reason for prohibiting it. The government has no role, as I said, in telling us which morals to ascribe to. It has a role in ensuring our personal freedoms are not violated though. That is all. And even then, it is only with our consent that it assumes the right to exert this power.

So you think all laws should only be inplace to prevent one party from infringing on the rights of another party? Well, it would certainly have the advantage of removing 90% of our nation's and states' statutes and regulations.

Despite this, there's still the problem of infringing on the child's personal rights. You're placing the nine-month personal comfort of one person over another person's right to live. Need to get your priorities straight.

I won't get into abortion before 14 weeks, but what right does a woman who has CHOSEN (not rape) to take actions that would create a fetus, inside her or not, to kill that fetus against its will. Have you ever seen a fetus try to escape a vacuum? They do. If you support choice, then a woman should either be able to kill her child up to age 18 when it is no longer her property, or you should support the choice of the fetus.
I am defending abortions on the presumption that the foetus is devoid of personhood and consciousness, not from the point that they gain it and onwards. Even so, until the child is born, I see very little merit in arguing that abortion counts as a "could-be" person being murdered.

I won't get into abortion before 14 weeks, but what right does a woman who has CHOSEN (not rape) to take actions that would create a fetus, inside her or not, to kill that fetus against its will. Have you ever seen a fetus try to escape a vacuum? They do. If you support choice, then a woman should either be able to kill her child up to age 18 when it is no longer her property, or you should support the choice of the fetus.

If they do, it's because the abortion specialist didn't do thier damn job right. This is why I miss the wire coathanger days. You stab, then suck. Combining them is just lazy.

What makes it different is that the kid is still inside. It's not murder, it's an eviction!

Nationalist Genius DOES know that The Mindset doesn't have any children, or at least not ones he's involved with, or he would know better. If I were to say "Black people are all cannibals" it would be a safe bet to say that I didn't have many black friends. Oxymoon, you are disputing the fact that babies have personalities before being born? Some may not be as detectable as others, but in addition to my own progeny, I am very close to all of my 23 nieces and nephews and I have to again say: You have NO idea what you are talking about.

Being close to 23 nieces and nephews does not prove what you claimed in any way, shape, or form. And I am disputing that a human has a personality before being born, as it cannot, according to psychological definition. It can have a temperment. In fact, it definitely has a temperment. But it can't have a personality. (Note that these terms are very similar and often mixed up in common usage. If you don't know the psychological definition, please don't argue it until you do.)

Furthermore, I'm living proof that one cannot figure out personality prior to birth based upon actions within the womb. So I'd say that I really do know what I'm talking about.

DNA. Movement within the womb.


DNA is found with miscarriages. There is always movement in the womb. Cells split. :p

Even then that is not a valid definition. My mom works in delivery. Has over 40000 births in her career. She once told me the story about a baby born without a brain. It moved. It died right after birth.

Can you prove that a fetus does not have personhood? In a civilization that values life, should we not be giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that saves rather than destroys life?

Personhood is a rather poor measuring device. Why? Too much room for interpretation.

Viability is the best part that is why many people queston 3 trimester abortions.


You missed my point. Murder is prohibited because it's immoral. You stated that the government has no business regulating morals.

And yes, it is murder.

Few women take the abortion route without anguish. Even when it happens it bugs many of them forever.

Don't forget "Judge not....."

If it's wrong, then let God do his job and punish the people that had abortions.

Here is a scenerio to consider. A baby has a terminal disease, it will not make it past 2 weeks and all of it will be with machines and heavily medicated.

Why does this child have to be born? The Hospitols don't mind. Very expensive procedures are now in play.

I am defending abortions on the presumption that the foetus is devoid of personhood and consciousness, not from the point that they gain it and onwards. Even so, until the child is born, I see very little merit in arguing that abortion counts as a "could-be" person being murdered.

Why? As a nation do we not value life? Should not life be considered a higher priority than convenience or even economic standing? You can couch abortion as 'a personal freedom' all you want, but it is still causing the death of another human being.

If they do, it's because the abortion specialist didn't do thier damn job right. This is why I miss the wire coathanger days. You stab, then suck. Combining them is just lazy.

What makes it different is that the kid is still inside. It's not murder, it's an eviction!
I remember growing up, when my father would evict a tenant from one of his apartments. I distinctly remember him stabbing them to death. Especially the ones that damaged his buildings and were inconvenient for him. He invited them in, so they are his property, right?

Indicate...or prove? We're destroying a life here, don't you think we should have more than a hunch? Besides this, you're splitting an extremely fine hair. A human fetus is in the process of developing a conscious mind. Barring extreme circumstances, it will have such a mind.
So what? We destroy lives all the time without remorse. And, the word "will" is key. It doesn't have a mind. That is what is important.

So you think all laws should only be inplace to prevent one party from infringing on the rights of another party? Well, it would certainly have the advantage of removing 90% of our nation's and states' statutes and regulations.
Indeed it would.

Despite this, there's still the problem of infringing on the child's personal rights. You're placing the nine-month personal comfort of one person over another person's right to live. Need to get your priorities straight.
And you need to get some perspective. It's not a matter of nine months. It is a matter of however long it takes to raise that child, and a matter of how much of a burden it will be on welfare services if it is put up to adoption and not found a home. If the foetus has no personhood before 6 months, then who the hell cares? It has no rights to begin with, being a non-person.

A one day old baby doesn't understand death or metaphysical concepts, yet we don't allow the killing of one day old infants. Hell, when a one or two year old can't see something, they don't think it even exists. I suppose then the inability to comprehend preservation should classify them as 'expendable.'

That is called Slippery Slope.

The point is you can't justify your stance with metaphysical concepts such as death when the newborn has no understanding.

Why? As a nation do we not value life?

No.

That is called Slippery Slope.

The point is you can't justify your stance with metaphysical concepts such as death when the newborn has no understanding.
If I don't know that you are stealing from me, is it still okay?

Why? As a nation do we not value life? Should not life be considered a higher priority than convenience or even economic standing? You can couch abortion as 'a personal freedom' all you want, but it is still causing the death of another human being.
I think you are under the impression that I belong to your nation- no, I am not an American. And furthermore, no, the government has no right in telling us which priorities we should set up in our lives. All it must do is ensure our freedom. And that human being is a "could be", not an actual human. So drop the emotional appeals.

If I don't know that you are stealing from me, is it still okay?

You understand theft.

So what? We destroy lives all the time without remorse. And, the word "will" is key. It doesn't have a mind. That is what is important.


Indeed it would.


And you need to get some perspective. It's not a matter of nine months. It is a matter of however long it takes to raise that child, and a matter of how much of a burden it will be on welfare services if it is put up to adoption and not found a home. If the foetus has no personhood before 6 months, then who the hell cares? It has no rights to begin with, being a non-person.

How many 100% healthy babies that are born in first world countries are not adopted? Ones that are put up for adoption within the first month of life, I mean, not seven year old kids. How many? Do you know? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest to make a point?

I remember growing up, when my father would evict a tenant from one of his apartments. I distinctly remember him stabbing them to death. Especially the ones that damaged his buildings and were inconvenient for him. He invited them in, so they are his property, right?

Flaw #1. You're taking some of the things I'm saying entirely too seriously. The moment I made that crack about the coathangers, warning flags should have gone up that it wasn't a serious part of the discussion.

Flaw #2. The law has already made the distinction between pre-born and post-born. For instance, the pre-born don't count in the census (last time I checked) and can't be tried for manslaughter if their birth causes thier mother's death.

Why? As a nation do we not value life? Should not life be considered a higher priority than convenience or even economic standing? You can couch abortion as 'a personal freedom' all you want, but it is still causing the death of another human being.

What value should we place on life?

Shall we start charging women with crimes for miscarriages? After all they must have done something wrong.

How many 100% healthy babies that are born in first world countries are not adopted? Ones that are put up for adoption within the first month of life, I mean, not seven year old kids. How many? Do you know? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest to make a point?
I am not sure how many are adopted, and nor do I care. If you are willing to offer some statistics, do so (as well as for children who are not 100% healthy). Either way, it is not a matter of 9 months of discomfort and it's over.

And by the way, the intellectual dishonesty bit? Not helping your argument one bit.

You understand theft.
A fetus understands pain. Does a two year old understand theft? Say his Dad died and left him a million dollars. If his Step-Dad imbezzels his trust fund, is that okay? The kid didn't enve have a concept of theft, OR money, for that matter. What does he care? That's okay, right?

How many 100% healthy babies that are born in first world countries are not adopted? Ones that are put up for adoption within the first month of life, I mean, not seven year old kids. How many? Do you know? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest to make a point?

Adoption?????? *sigh* when I hear the system has no more children then I will join your camp.

At least you clarified 100% healthy.

Adoption?????? *sigh* when I hear the system has no more children then I will join your camp.

At least you clarified 100% healthy.
Many seem to be under the delusion that adoption is an ideal solution.

In any case, I am done debating for today. S'amuse bien.

Flaw #1. You're taking some of the things I'm saying entirely too seriously. The moment I made that crack about the coathangers, warning flags should have gone up that it wasn't a serious part of the discussion.

Flaw #2. The law has already made the distinction between pre-born and post-born. For instance, the pre-born don't count in the census (last time I checked) and can't be tried for manslaughter if their birth causes thier mother's death.
I assumed it was... Stephen Colbert-like. Half joking, but with an underlying point. I am certainly glad that some lawyers who I have never met decided for everybody right and wrong. Because they do not exist independently of secular law. Drinking at 18 is wrong in the US but right in the UK. Right and wrong are simply what others tell me they are! Thank you for opening my eyes!

A fetus understands pain. Does a two year old understand theft? Say his Dad died and left him a million dollars. If his Step-Dad imbezzels his trust fund, is that okay? The kid didn't enve have a concept of theft, OR money, for that matter. What does he care? That's okay, right?

A fetus responds to pain. It doesn't understand pain.

Again you understand theft.

DNA is found with miscarriages. There is always movement in the womb. Cells split. :p

Even then that is not a valid definition. My mom works in delivery. Has over 40000 births in her career. She once told me the story about a baby born without a brain. It moved. It died right after birth.

I fail to see your point. Those infants/fetuses died from natural causes. Regardless of whether the child is a miscarriage or was born without a brain, he/she was still human. If not, then where do we draw the line? Are sufferers of Downes Syndrome not human? Epilepsy?


Personhood is a rather poor measuring device. Why? Too much room for interpretation.

Agreed.

Viability is the best part that is why many people queston 3 trimester abortions.

Except viability doesn't make sense - at least not from my view of wanting to preserve life. If the fetus is non-viable as a whole, then it will die of natural causes on its own.



Few women take the abortion route without anguish. Even when it happens it bugs many of them forever.

While they have my sympathy, I have to say, "So what?" How do their personal trepidations or emotional impacts have a bearing on whether abortion should take place?

Don't forget "Judge not....."

Don't forget, thou shall not commit murder. One is a teaching, the other is an express commandment.

If it's wrong, then let God do his job and punish the people that had abortions.

He will. That said, the fact that someone will be punished in the afterlife has never nor should it mean that the conduct should not be condemned in the here and now. Shall we not punish theives? They'll get there due at their deaths, but we certainly wouldn't drop our current laws prohibiting it.

Here is a scenerio to consider. A baby has a terminal disease, it will not make it past 2 weeks and all of it will be with machines and heavily medicated.

Why does this child have to be born? The Hospitols don't mind. Very expensive procedures are now in play.

First, you're creating an extreme example. While it is good for the debate to look at the fringes and borders of the discussion, as a practical matter the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience - not rape, threatened life, or potential fatal illnesses (Although, now that you mention it, how about we look at the 80% abortion rate for fetuses with Downes Syndrome. Sounds like genocide to me).

Second, I still contend that we have no right to make such a decision. How do we know whether the child would want to die or not - let alone ever be born. We don't allow assisted suicide, or any form of it for that matter, why should we then use the same logic to cause a death before physical birth?

*Side note. Just want to say that I appreciate the overall civility of this discussion so far. Abortion has a certain way of getting the blood flowing in some/most people.

Adoption?????? *sigh* when I hear the system has no more children then I will join your camp.

At least you clarified 100% healthy.
Try to adopt a healthy white baby in the US. (Please don't turn this into a race issue, it's not) Every person I know who has adopted recently has either gone to eastern Europe or adopted a black kid (in a state that has less that 5% black population. The system, at least in my neck of the woods, IS out of babies.

Ah well I am late on this. But my choice is not listed anyway. Choice in the first 3 months (not six), not because I am pro-abortion, actually I am not. But that is my choice and I can't make that choice for anyone else nor should the government. Three months though is my limit. If you can't make up your mind in three months, too bad your option becomes putting the child up for adoption. jmo

Many seem to be under the delusion that adoption is an ideal solution.

In any case, I am done debating for today. S'amuse bien.

Me too!

Good night/whatever!

A fetus responds to pain. It doesn't understand pain.

Again you understand theft.

A one year old doesn't understand theft, nor does a person suffering from any number of psychological or physical disorders. Understanding is irrelevant.

I assumed it was... Stephen Colbert-like. Half joking, but with an underlying point. I am certainly glad that some lawyers who I have never met decided for everybody right and wrong. Because they do not exist independently of secular law. Drinking at 18 is wrong in the US but right in the UK. Right and wrong are simply what others tell me they are! Thank you for opening my eyes!

You're welcome. ^_^

(And before you say it, I understand sarcasm just fine. I just had my response eaten, or aborted, if you will, by my browser and I don't want to type it up again.)

And with that, I, too, am off to bed. This pro-murder liberal commie unholy moralless pig needs his sleep to further plan to collapse of global morallity. Hail Satan.

Don't forget, thou shall not commit murder. One is a teaching, the other is an express commandment.


Abortion isn't murder, so the Bible is fine with it.

Try to adopt a healthy white baby in the US. (Please don't turn this into a race issue, it's not) Every person I know who has adopted recently has either gone to eastern Europe or adopted a black kid (in a state that has less that 5% black population. The system, at least in my neck of the woods, IS out of babies.

I blame Angelina Jolie. :mad:



;)

A fetus responds to pain. It doesn't understand pain.

Again you understand theft.
Again, DOES A ONE YEAR OLD UNDERSTAND THEFT?
You won't answer, again. pWned

Try to adopt a healthy white baby in the US. (Please don't turn this into a race issue, it's not) Every person I know who has adopted recently has either gone to eastern Europe or adopted a black kid (in a state that has less that 5% black population. The system, at least in my neck of the woods, IS out of babies.

You missed the point. Adoption is not always ideal. Never mind the fact that adopotion should not only be abou healthy babies.

I tune out the Religious types when they start spouting adoption as the great moral solution to end all problems.

When people start taking crack babies, deformed, CHILDREN! Then I will believe it's the solution.

It's not.

I think that abortion is a major decision. It is the taking of a life and I believe tt in aperfect world it should be illegal unless the mothers life is at risk (and yes, i suppose in a way her life is more important than the babys as she can always have more) or was raped.

However, I am not a narrow minded kinda guy and I understand that in order to keep overpopulation controlled and not ruin young mothers lives, abortion needs to be lagal but there is a growing issue where people get pregnant just due to there own stupidity of not using enough or any protection and see abortion as a quick ticket out.

Abortion isn't murder, so the Bible is fine with it.

Ummm.....ok....I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. *rolls eyes*

In ancient times people sacrificed their children to the gods to guarentee a good crop that year. Now people sacrifice their children to the god of convenience to guarentee responsibility free life for themselves. It's not a huge difference. I knew a girl who had three abortions in one year because she wanted to be a stripper but her breasts were too small. This is in a country where abortions are "illegal" but there is nobody enforcing the law. Too often abortion is used as a contraceptive.

Now I can see a lot of valid arguments in support of abortions in certain situations but the majority of abortions performed are for teen girls who didn't have the sense to keep their legs together and aren't willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. Yes, the guys are equally responsible but as we know "it is the woman's choice" if they want to destroy a clump of the guy's genetic material.

Medically there is no denying that the child is a seperate life form to the mother. It is not "her body". The fetus produces chemicals to trick the mothers white blood cells because without them, the white blood cells would attack the baby as a forign object. Clearly it is not "part of the mother" at any stage of it's development.

If people who had abortions were givin the child in a pickle jar would there be so many people having abortions?

Also i think its wrongh to abort over and over until u get a perfect baby

I assumed it was... Stephen Colbert-like. Half joking, but with an underlying point. I am certainly glad that some lawyers who I have never met decided for everybody right and wrong. Because they do not exist independently of secular law. Drinking at 18 is wrong in the US but right in the UK. Right and wrong are simply what others tell me they are! Thank you for opening my eyes!

Neo-Mekanta has a good point with Flaw#2, though. What happens if pre-born qualifies as a human being? Certainly it does criminalize abortion, but consider the other consequences. Logically, it does have to follow that if an infant's mother dies during birth to said infant, it will be manslaughter. As will a miscarriage. That's a slippery slope, so we can't call it a human being yet, not in the law. That forces the government's hand - those that are human beings cannot be denied their rights. This means that abortion has to be allowed.

Abortion isn't murder, so the Bible is fine with it. And if the Bible were an adequate substitute for God, that would mean something. I know there are a few, but how many christians believe that God beat them over the head with every single truth in the leftover scraps taht are the Bible. Did the Bible say abortion wasn't murder? (I'm not accurately depicting my personal views, but your argument is seriously flawed)

Ummm.....ok....I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. *rolls eyes*

Well, has anyone been convicted of murder for having an abortion? If not, then you can take the law's word for it.

For that matter, every case of legal abortion hasn't broken the law, so by the dictionary definition of murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice" those aren't murders either. So it's the dictionary's word in that case.

Otherwise, if we can just redefine words to mean whatever the hell we feel like, then I commit murder every time I masturbate. I hope Hell is prepared for me!

If people who had abortions were givin the child in a pickle jar would there be so many people having abortions?

Kids in a jar? Sign me up!

I think that abortion is a major decision. It is the taking of a life and I believe tt in aperfect world it should be illegal unless the mothers life is at risk (and yes, i suppose in a way her life is more important than the babys as she can always have more) or was raped.

However, I am not a narrow minded kinda guy and I understand that in order to keep overpopulation controlled and not ruin young mothers lives, abortion needs to be lagal but there is a growing issue where people get pregnant just due to there own stupidity of not using enough or any protection and see abortion as a quick ticket out.

I can understand your point of view. Telling someone that they have to have a child - and most likely care for it - is never simple. However, life must take precedent.

In the end, if you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have unprotected sex. If you're really scared about becoming pregnant, then don't have sex at all. There are plenty of ways in which a couple can 'pleasure' themselves without having to eventually kill another human being because of it.

And if the Bible were an adequate substitute for God, that would mean something. I know there are a few, but how many christians believe that God beat them over the head with every single truth in the leftover scraps taht are the Bible. Did the Bible say abortion wasn't murder? (I'm not accurately depicting my personal views, but your argument is seriously flawed)

My argument is simply that you can't say the Bible is against abortion due to the murder commandment, since you can't say that the Bible (or God) meant to include abortion within "murder."

I don't seriously advocate that the Bible is "fine" with it, I'm simply responding to a usage of the Bible as justification which I consider inadequate.

Neo-Mekanta has a good point with Flaw#2, though. What happens if pre-born qualifies as a human being? Certainly it does criminalize abortion, but consider the other consequences. Logically, it does have to follow that if an infant's mother dies during birth to said infant, it will be manslaughter. As will a miscarriage. That's a slippery slope, so we can't call it a human being yet, not in the law. That forces the government's hand - those that are human beings cannot be denied their rights. This means that abortion has to be allowed.
No. He doesn't. If you have a heart attack while driving and kill an old lady crossing the street, in what country is that manslaughter? That makes no sense at all!

Again, DOES A ONE YEAR OLD UNDERSTAND THEFT?
You won't answer, again. pWned

So what part of the fetus doesn't understand what death means don't you understand?

You can't make the claim it wants to live.

Well, has anyone been convicted of murder for having an abortion? If not, then you can take the law's word for it.

For that matter, every case of legal abortion hasn't broken the law, so by the dictionary definition of murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice" those aren't murders either. So it's the dictionary's word in that case.

Otherwise, if we can just redefine words to mean whatever the hell we feel like, then I commit murder every time I masturbate. I hope Hell is prepared for me!

That's the worst use of circular reasoning I think I have ever seen in my life. Are you dizzy after writing that?

Ooo...and extra points for the complete strawman at the end. You get a sticker!

I can understand your point of view. Telling someone that they have to have a child - and most likely care for it - is never simple. However, life must take precedent.

In the end, if you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have unprotected sex. If you're really scared about becoming pregnant, then don't have sex at all. There are plenty of ways in which a couple can 'pleasure' themselves without having to eventually kill another human being because of it.

(Yeah, I know, I said I would go to bed, but I changed my mind.)

Flaw. Contraceptive measures aren't 100% effective.

No. He doesn't. If you have a heart attack while driving and kill an old lady crossing the street, in what country is that manslaughter? That makes no sense at all!

You underestimate the American legal system. Lots of Special Olympics gold medalists in that lot...

So what part of the fetus doesn't understand what death means don't you understand?

You can't make the claim it wants to live.

And you can't make the claim that it doesn't want to live.

The reasoning you're using for allowing abortion is based on there being a difference between a fetus and a one day old infant (in terms of cognition). As there is little difference, the reasoning fails.

No. He doesn't. If you have a heart attack while driving and kill an old lady crossing the street, in what country is that manslaughter? That makes no sense at all!

That's qualified as manslaughter in the US before.

That's the worst use of circular reasoning I think I have ever seen in my life. Are you dizzy after writing that?

Good point. I guess I meant to say, "Yes, the Bible says "Thou Shallt not Murder, or Have Abortions"" and that therefore you are 100% correct in your implication that the Bible forbids abortion.


Ooo...and extra points for the complete strawman at the end. You get a sticker!

It's not a strawman, but I can see you'd rather be a condescending prick so I'll let you do so.

Well, has anyone been convicted of murder for having an abortion? If not, then you can take the law's word for it.

For that matter, every case of legal abortion hasn't broken the law, so by the dictionary definition of murder as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice" those aren't murders either. So it's the dictionary's word in that case.

Otherwise, if we can just redefine words to mean whatever the hell we feel like, then I commit murder every time I masturbate. I hope Hell is prepared for me! So because Meriam Webster says... pie has a bread crust in a pan with some sort of filling, does this make an oreo crusted desert not a pie? (Stupid example, but it's late)Just because the dictionary or the law say something, does it make it true? The government denied the existence of the stealth bomber for like 20 years. So did I not see one? Did they not exist? Just because the law considers suspect X innocent until proven guiltly, is he not innocent or guilty independently to what a judge thinks?

do you support abortion?

No, but I do support having abortion legal, up until a point.

Was the question about legal or moral support?

(Yeah, I know, I said I would go to bed, but I changed my mind.)

Flaw. Contraceptive measures aren't 100% effective.

Flaw. I didn't say they were 100%.

Double Flaw. Abstenance and alternative sexual practices are in fact 100% effective.

:p

That's qualified as manslaughter in the US before.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No it hasn't.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No it hasn't.

Yes it has.

So because Meriam Webster says... pie has a bread crust in a pan with some sort of filling, does this make an oreo crusted desert not a pie? (Stupid example, but it's late)

Well, yes. I assume we're all speaking English here. We have to have some point for definition and dictionaries seem to be great at defining things... unless we don't like what the definitions say, then I guess they're inadequate.

Just because the dictionary or the law say something, does it make it true?

Grammatically or legally, yes. What else is there, really? If not that, then what, "personal morality?" Okay, so the Bible says not to murder, and I get to define murder as anything I feel like it, and that's a good basis for an argument? I don't think so.

The government denied the existence of the stealth bomber for like 20 years. So did I not see one? Did they not exist? Just because the law considers suspect X innocent until proven guiltly, is he not innocent or guilty independently to what a judge thinks?

I didn't appeal to the governmental authority. "Murder" isn't something like, "X exists." Whether something is murder is completely subjective. So unless we have some kind of medium in which to define what it is - like, language or law - talking about it is really pointless.

If the Bible cared to give a more precise definition of murder, then we could use that and that'd be swell. I don't think it does, though.

Flaw. I didn't say they were 100%.

Double Flaw. Abstenance and alternative sexual practices are in fact 100% effective.

:p

What alternative sexual practices are we talking about here? Mutual masturbation, for example, actually has a small chance of leading to pregnacy. If a man touches his own genitalia and then the woman's, he can end up transferring sperm that way.

With the possible exception of one case in history, abstinence is 100% effective, but I'm not naive enough to think that many people will (or ever have, in the history of humankind) practice it.

Good point. I guess I meant to say, "Yes, the Bible says "Thou Shallt not Murder, or Have Abortions"" and that therefore you are 100% correct in your implication that the Bible forbids abortion.

Except if abortion is murder then it wouldn't have to say "...Murder or Have Abortions." You really aren't going anywhere with this. If murder is the killing of another human being, and a fetus is a human being (as evidenced by DNA), then killing a fetus is murder. The only question then is whether it is unlawful - which it was up until Roe.



It's not a strawman, but I can see you'd rather be a condescending prick so I'll let you do so.

Now the insults fly.

Yes, it was a strawman. You proposed an argument, the masturbation being murder one, of which I had never took a position. That's textbook strawman, my friend.

So what part of the fetus doesn't understand what death means don't you understand?

You can't make the claim it wants to live.
I really don't know what death is because I have never died. Neither does a fetus. I personally believe that a fetus knows MORE about death, although I won't get into that. A fetus tries to escape abortion even in very early stages of pregnancy. The internet is loaded with videos of it. You can't make the claim it wants to die. And you STILL got owned by your own analogy...

In ancient times people sacrificed their children to the gods to guarentee a good crop that year. Now people sacrifice their children to the god of convenience to guarentee responsibility free life for themselves. It's not a huge difference. I knew a girl who had three abortions in one year because she wanted to be a stripper but her breasts were too small. This is in a country where abortions are "illegal" but there is nobody enforcing the law. Too often abortion is used as a contraceptive.

Now I can see a lot of valid arguments in support of abortions in certain situations but the majority of abortions performed are for teen girls who didn't have the sense to keep their legs together and aren't willing to deal with the consequences of their actions. Yes, the guys are equally responsible but as we know "it is the woman's choice" if they want to destroy a clump of the guy's genetic material.

Medically there is no denying that the child is a seperate life form to the mother. It is not "her body". The fetus produces chemicals to trick the mothers white blood cells because without them, the white blood cells would attack the baby as a forign object. Clearly it is not "part of the mother" at any stage of it's development.

If people who had abortions were givin the child in a pickle jar would there be so many people having abortions?

You make a good point about sacrifice for better crops, certainly many societies did this. To call abortion rights a sacrifice for convenience though to me is a little extreme. You don't know the women having abortions, nor do I. I have no idea whether they can adequately take care of a child or not, they obviously didn't take very good care of themselves it seems. Just because you know one person who is completely irresponsible and selfish you would use that to decide your stance? In reality the way you describe this person does she need a child? No in reality she doesn't at all.

I like how you want to bring science into whether or not a child is part of a woman's body or not. I have absolutely no doubt you have not had a child. Because regardless of what science you want to take up, a child most certainly is part of a woman's body. It changes her body forever too, not just during pregnancy. Those changes are not rosy cheeks either. I have had three children and can tell you exactly what each one did to my body, and it isn't pleasant, and it is permanent. So whether you feel that a baby is not "part of the mother" or not, you are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive by any means and her body is hers therefore to me it should be her decision.

You nor I answer for anyone else in the end, there is no reason to think you should answer for someone now.

Except if abortion is murder then it wouldn't have to say "...Murder or Have Abortions." You really aren't going anywhere with this. If murder is the killing of another human being, and a fetus is a human being (as evidenced by DNA), then killing a fetus is murder.

Last time I checked, "human DNA" does not, in and of itself, make something a human being. By that definition, if I cut my hair, I have made lots of little humans. People could argue all day and night about what the definition of a human person should be - but "human DNA" will never be an adequate qualifier.

The only question then is whether it is unlawful - which it was up until Roe.

Incorrect. Actually, throughout most of history, abortions have been perfectly legal. English common law, upon which much of US law was based, held that abortions were legal up until the point of the quickening (when the mother began to feel movement). It was only after medically safe abortions became available that some states started passing laws against abortion. And when Roe came around, it was legal in some states, and illegal in others.

Grammatically or legally, yes. What else is there, really? If not that, then what, "personal morality?" Okay, so the Bible says not to murder, and I get to define murder as anything I feel like it, and that's a good basis for an argument? I don't think so.

Until Blackmun pulled a rabbit out of his hat, abortion was both grammatically and legally prohibited.

If the Bible cared to give a more precise definition of murder, then we could use that and that'd be swell. I don't think it does, though.

Because Mark and John were really thinking, hmm...will people two thousand years from now be trying to kill innocent infants and saying it's not murder? Naw....we gotta lay off the sacramental wine.

I really don't know what death is because I have never died. Neither does a fetus. I personally believe that a fetus knows MORE about death, although I won't get into that. A fetus tries to escape abortion even in very early stages of pregnancy. The internet is loaded with videos of it. You can't make the claim it wants to die. And you STILL got owned by your own analogy...

The videos rarely actually demonstrate an "attempt at escape", and are generally mislabeled as earlier stages than they actually depict. Most abortions occur before there is even a reflexive nervous system (~60%). This means that the fetus can't "try" to do anything - it can't even reflexively respond to stimulus. The vast majority occur before anything more than a reflexive nervous system is present (~80%). The rest are generally for medical reasons.

What alternative sexual practices are we talking about here? Mutual masturbation, for example, actually has a small chance of leading to pregnacy. If a man touches his own genitalia and then the woman's, he can end up transferring sperm that way.

I was refering to oral sex, use of extremities/mutual masterbation, sex toys, etc.

With the possible exception of one case in history, abstinence is 100% effective, but I'm not naive enough to think that many people will (or ever have, in the history of humankind) practice it.

Nor am I, but the fact remains that the couple took the risk. Another life shouldn't have to suffer the consequences stemming from it.

Because Mark and John were really thinking, hmm...will people two thousand years from now be trying to kill innocent infants and saying it's not murder? Naw....we gotta lay off the sacramental wine.

People were already having abortions during the time of Mark and John. This was well-known.

And if you are going to worry about proper use of words, you really should pay attention to your own. An "infant" only exists after birth.

I fail to see your point. Those infants/fetuses died from natural causes. Regardless of whether the child is a miscarriage or was born without a brain, he/she was still human. If not, then where do we draw the line? Are sufferers of Downes Syndrome not human? Epilepsy?


There isn't always a clear indicator of why there was a miscarriage. Sometimes it just happens.


Except viability doesn't make sense - at least not from my view of wanting to preserve life. If the fetus is non-viable as a whole, then it will die of natural causes on its own.

Not always. Look a premature births. Everytime one survivies after a superhuman effort, the Religious types lower the bar on viability.


While they have my sympathy, I have to say, "So what?" How do their personal trepidations or emotional impacts have a bearing on whether abortion should take place?

Well until you have had to make that choice, you really can't judge a person now can you?


Don't forget, thou shall not commit murder. One is a teaching, the other is an express commandment.

Ahh but murder is a concept that is frowned on regardless of Religion.

The Judge not lesson is always conviently forgotten.....


He will. That said, the fact that someone will be punished in the afterlife has never nor should it mean that the conduct should not be condemned in the here and now. Shall we not punish theives? They'll get there due at their deaths, but we certainly wouldn't drop our current laws prohibiting it.

I never claim to know what God will do.

Compassion is a worthwhile value.

You can help eliminate a problem when you take a moment to understand why they want to do it.


First, you're creating an extreme example. While it is good for the debate to look at the fringes and borders of the discussion, as a practical matter the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience - not rape, threatened life, or potential fatal illnesses (Although, now that you mention it, how about we look at the 80% abortion rate for fetuses with Downes Syndrome. Sounds like genocide to me).

Again. You have to live their life to understand why the choice was made. A couple opted to keep a severe downs case. One that requires 24/7 care. What did it acomplish. The family lost the home. They are divorsed and a happy kid has been left by the wayside.

The problem with downs is the fact there are varying degrees of it. The anti-choice types bring up the light downs cases and give the impression they are the same all over.

I know a nurse who had two abortions because of Downs. Why? Because 2 uncles and 2 brothers had the severe version of it. She did not want to live that way. Especially when she saw it break her family. She adopted a child so is she evil?

If society had a system to help these people raise these kids, then yes. But it doesn't. Take a walk through a severe psych ward and look at what happens to them. The live their existence with little or know contact. I still remember my field trip though one. *shudders*


Second, I still contend that we have no right to make such a decision. How do we know whether the child would want to die or not - let alone ever be born.

That is the point. The anti-choice types keep bring up "he wanted to live" It doens't understand death so saying it wanted to live is not valid. The same goes for suggesting it wanted to die.

We don't allow assisted suicide, or any form of it for that matter, why should we then use the same logic to cause a death before physical birth?

Why shouldn't we allow assisted suicide? If as Christians say we have "Free will" then we should be allowed to make the choice.


*Side note. Just want to say that I appreciate the overall civility of this discussion so far. Abortion has a certain way of getting the blood flowing in some/most people.

We are missing a few people. ;)

Except if abortion is murder then it wouldn't have to say "...Murder or Have Abortions." You really aren't going anywhere with this. If murder is the killing of another human being, and a fetus is a human being (as evidenced by DNA), then killing a fetus is murder. The only question then is whether it is unlawful - which it was up until Roe.


Now the insults fly.

Yes, it was a strawman. You proposed an argument, the masturbation being murder one, of which I had never took a position. That's textbook strawman, my friend.

Inaccurate. A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is the genetic makeup of a being in the state after an embryo. This does not mean it has to be human, since humans are not the only species that do this...
Ignoring that, however, it's still not necessarily a human being. It's the fetus of a potential human being. It's a fetus with human genetics. It's a fetus of the human variety. But that doesn't prove that it's a human being yet.
Furthermore, it wasn't illegal before Roe v. Wade as a blanket statement. It was illegal in certain US states. In many, while we're at it. But it wasn't illegal as a blanket statement.

especially in financial situations. If the mother is not able to support this child then what is the point? this child won't have proper care, it might even end up in some awful orphanage...like oliver twist and annie!

GIVE IT UP

Last time I checked, "human DNA" does not, in and of itself, make something a human being. By that definition, if I cut my hair, I have made lots of little humans. People could argue all day and night about what the definition of a human person should be - but "human DNA" will never be an adequate qualifier.

Except human hair and epidermal cells are already dead.

Incorrect. Actually, throughout most of history, abortions have been perfectly legal. English common law, upon which much of US law was based, held that abortions were legal up until the point of the quickening (when the mother began to feel movement). It was only after medically safe abortions became available that some states started passing laws against abortion. And when Roe came around, it was legal in some states, and illegal in others.

Until Roe, nearly every state prohibited abortion. This was the only point being made, not the history of abortion law in the English tradition.

Well, yes. I assume we're all speaking English here. We have to have some point for definition and dictionaries seem to be great at defining things... unless we don't like what the definitions say, then I guess they're inadequate.

Grammatically or legally, yes. What else is there, really? If not that, then what, "personal morality?" Okay, so the Bible says not to murder, and I get to define murder as anything I feel like it, and that's a good basis for an argument? I don't think so.

I didn't appeal to the governmental authority. "Murder" isn't something like, "X exists." Whether something is murder is completely subjective. So unless we have some kind of medium in which to define what it is - like, language or law - talking about it is really pointless.

If the Bible cared to give a more precise definition of murder, then we could use that and that'd be swell. I don't think it does, though.

When Ronald Regan was running for reelection against Michael Dukakis, I asked my mother what abortion was. She explained it to me in the most positive light that she could, for objectivity's sake. I knew it was wrong, even though my mother didn't tell me so. I think everyone knows right and wrong before they begin to have a dog in the fight later in life. So yes, personal morality. Whose? Well, in that light, I don't have a substantive argument. But the question wasn't was it legal... Noone disputes that. But is it right? No. Should it be legal? Probably in cases of life or death or rape. But whether it is right in those cases, I think it varies. But using court decisions as a MORAL compass is silly...

especially in financial situations. If the mother is not able to support this child then what is the point? this child won't have proper care, it might even end up in some awful orphanage...like oliver twist and annie!

GIVE IT UP

Ah, so because the child will grow up poor we should just kill him and be done with it.

Except if abortion is murder then it wouldn't have to say "...Murder or Have Abortions." You really aren't going anywhere with this. If murder is the killing of another human being, and a fetus is a human being (as evidenced by DNA), then killing a fetus is murder. The only question then is whether it is unlawful - which it was up until Roe.

If abortion is murder. If a fetus is a human being. But that's an assumption you are making, and the Bible doesn't support that assumption, ergo the Bible doesn't really support it unless you define words as supports your argument and reject definitions that don't.


Now the insults fly.

Yes, it was a strawman. You proposed an argument, the masturbation being murder one, of which I had never took a position. That's textbook strawman, my friend.

No, I simply used your logic: I decided that sperms, since they contain human DNA, are human beings and therefore, when I kill them through masturbating into a tissue destined for the toilet I am killing humans, ergo murder.

Because Mark and John were really thinking, hmm...will people two thousand years from now be trying to kill innocent infants and saying it's not murder? Naw....we gotta lay off the sacramental wine.

Heh. An infant is defined as "a very young child (birth to 1 year)," therefore fetuses don't count as infants anyway.

A human is not a person until it is born.
Our experiences mold us into people... until then, we are living matter, equilvalent to weeds.

When Ronald Regan was running for reelection against Michael Dukakis, I asked my mother what abortion was. She explained it to me in the most positive light that she could, for objectivity's sake. I knew it was wrong, even though my mother didn't tell me so. I think everyone knows right and wrong before they begin to have a dog in the fight later in life. So yes, personal morality. Whose? Well, in that light, I don't have a substantive argument. But the question wasn't was it legal... Noone disputes that. But is it right? No. Should it be legal? Probably in cases of life or death or rape. But whether it is right in those cases, I think it varies. But using court decisions as a MORAL compass is silly...

I haven't argued morality at all. Yes, whether one considers abortion right or wrong is based on personal morality. But whether it is murder or not depends on how murder is defined. I object to when people who say "abortion is murder," "meat is murder," and "property is theft" and similar equations designed to manipulate emotions instead of reason.

I really don't know what death is because I have never died. Neither does a fetus. I personally believe that a fetus knows MORE about death, although I won't get into that. A fetus tries to escape abortion even in very early stages of pregnancy. The internet is loaded with videos of it. You can't make the claim it wants to die. And you STILL got owned by your own analogy...

You understand death. You understand what will happen if I put a gun to your head and fire. You simply don't know what will happen after you die.

A fetus doesn't understand life nor does it understand death. To suggest it want's either is wrong.

Sorry dude it doesn't understand death.

Except human hair and epidermal cells are already dead.

Not at the follicle or the bottom of the epidermis. But that is really irrelevant. My feces will most likely contain cells that are still living - and contain human DNA. If my kidney were removed to give to another person, it would not be considered a person in and of itself, although it does have human DNA. I've seen mice that contained human DNA.

Obviously, "human DNA" does not, in and of itself, a human person make.

Until Roe, nearly every state prohibited abortion. This was the only point being made, not the history of abortion law in the English tradition.

The history is actually rather relevant to the discussion, however. People like to act like abortion being illegal was ever well-established in the law - as if it had a long history that was suddenly wiped out by Roe. This is completely untrue. We're only looking at a few decades in which any states banned abortion - and most didn't ban it completely. Many stuck with the "quickening" time frame and simply codified it into law. Some went for the complete ban. Some left medical reasons legal. And so on.

of course. living richly is the only way to live. But seriously, if the mother can't support the child and does not plan to care for the child it would be better the kid. There are too many unloved kids out there already.

A human is not a person until it is born.
Our experiences mold us into people... until then, we are living matter, equilvalent to weeds.
I disagree. A fetus is still a person. I think it hurts the pro-choice argument to say that it is not because it brings the argument off topic. But does it have rights that trump the mothers? Is it merciful to bring a child into the world that isn't wanted or won't be cared for outside of an orphanage?

Inaccurate. A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is the genetic makeup of a being in the state after an embryo. This does not mean it has to be human, since humans are not the only species that do this...
Ignoring that, however, it's still not necessarily a human being. It's the fetus of a potential human being. It's a fetus with human genetics. It's a fetus of the human variety. But that doesn't prove that it's a human being yet.
Furthermore, it wasn't illegal before Roe v. Wade as a blanket statement. It was illegal in certain US states. In many, while we're at it. But it wasn't illegal as a blanket statement.
If i'm having sex, am I not a human being? I'm in a woman. What if I am Hellen Keller? I can't see or hear; a fetus can. You haven't proven that it is not human. And when it comes to killing, I think that the burden of proof lies with the one wanting to do the killing.

Okay, someone with epilepsy who chose to drive, knowing that they weren't supposed to, is manslaughter. But if you get shot in the head, are unconscious, and your passenger is killed in the crash, it is not a crime, nor has it EVER been tried as such, in ANY country. Please, someone back me up. This guy seriously thinks that you have to allow abortion BECAUSE if the fetus killed the mother during birth, the state would have to try the infant.

Exactly.

Morality should never be incorporated into ANY system or basis of judgement, being it is transitory and variable to the person. A fetus is still technically part of a woman's body and, like cosmetic surgery, legally can be altered at any point... regardless of the sensitivity of anyone else.

Inaccurate. A fetus is not a human being. A fetus is the genetic makeup of a being in the state after an embryo. This does not mean it has to be human, since humans are not the only species that do this...
Ignoring that, however, it's still not necessarily a human being. It's the fetus of a potential human being. It's a fetus with human genetics. It's a fetus of the human variety. But that doesn't prove that it's a human being yet.
Furthermore, it wasn't illegal before Roe v. Wade as a blanket statement. It was illegal in certain US states. In many, while we're at it. But it wasn't illegal as a blanket statement.

A fetus is certainly human due to its having human DNA. Now, if you want to talk about whether the fetus is a living human, then that's a slightly different discussion - but the DNA still dictates that it is human.

Forgive me for not qualifying my previous statement. I corrected it in a seperate post.

That said, let's just look at the reasoning in Roe. It based the legality of abortion on the basis that a fundamental right to have an abortion existed. More specifically, it concluded that the right to have an abortion is so pervasive in the traditions of our society as to make it fundamental to the society's existance. Now I ask you, could a subject which for the last 30-40 years sparked such heated debate even remotely resemble that standard. The obvious conclusion is "No." In that case, there is no substantive due process right; therefore, no protection under the 14th Amendment - allowing states to pass laws as they see fit.

You understand death. You understand what will happen if I put a gun to your head and fire. You simply don't know what will happen after you die.

A fetus doesn't understand life nor does it understand death. To suggest it want's either is wrong.

Sorry dude it doesn't understand death.

How many times will I make this argument and you not respond because you are WRONG??????? Does a one year old know what will happen if he shoots himself? Because that NEVER happens, does it? ANSWER ME! How many times do I have to make this point before you will acknowledge it?

Exactly.

Morality should never be incorporated into ANY system or basis of judgement, being it is transitory and variable to the person. A fetus is still technically part of a woman's body and, like cosmetic surgery, legally can be altered at any point... regardless of the sensitivity of anyone else.

Cosmetic surgery?! :rolleyes:

Okay, someone with epilepsy who chose to drive, knowing that they weren't supposed to, is manslaughter. But if you get shot in the head, are unconscious, and your passenger is killed in the crash, it is not a crime, nor has it EVER been tried as such, in ANY country. Please, someone back me up. This guy seriously thinks that you have to allow abortion BECAUSE if the fetus killed the mother during birth, the state would have to try the infant.[/QUOTE]


This has nothing to do with what is smart or stupid... or moral or right. This has to do with what is LEGAL. If we are not allowed to deal with our own consequences by our own standards... if we are not allowed to act upon our OWN bodies, then what rights do we, as citizens, have?

If abortion is murder. If a fetus is a human being. But that's an assumption you are making, and the Bible doesn't support that assumption, ergo the Bible doesn't really support it unless you define words as supports your argument and reject definitions that don't.

No, I simply used your logic: I decided that sperms, since they contain human DNA, are human beings and therefore, when I kill them through masturbating into a tissue destined for the toilet I am killing humans, ergo murder.

Heh. An infant is defined as "a very young child (birth to 1 year)," therefore fetuses don't count as infants anyway.

So, why are we using the Bible, hmm? Why not Hindu texts? Buddhist? Taoist? (etc.) For the US argument, since we allow all religions, and lack thereof, to be believed, and the government cannot force any religions onto us, how can we use the Bible to decide what a Hindi gets to do? How can we use it to define murder? Following that, the Bible can't be used to argue against the legality of abortion, although it can be used for personal choice. But that implies choice.

Do I support abortion? Yes, but only in specific circumstances.

1. It was rape. Forcing the mother to carry a reminder of her trauma for 9 months is just sick. It should be up to the mother- I also understand that some will keep the baby. That's perfectly fine also.

2. For the health of the mother. This can include mental health, if it's going to make the mother feel so bad she wants to kill herself (which would kill the fetus as well, if she succeeds).
I had my abortion for health reasons - I had major abdominal surgery 4 1/2 months after my abortion, so with hindsight it was a good thing I did.

3. There is something very seriously wrong. It would have to be something very big, and this should really be a last resort. I can see why it might not be though.

I think that unless the mothers life is in imminent danger, she should have an abortion within the first 3 months. Some babies have survived at being born at 23/24 weeks, so I don't feel that abortions should be carried out after that point unless absolutely necessary.

That said, let's just look at the reasoning in Roe. It based the legality of abortion on the basis that a fundamental right to have an abortion existed.

It did no such thing. It based the legality on two things - the sovereign right to control one's own body - and the right to privacy.

Not once was a "right to have an abortion" ever mentioned.

See?

So, why are we using the Bible, hmm? Why not Hindu texts? Buddhist? Taoist? (etc.) For the US argument, since we allow all religions, and lack thereof, to be believed, and the government cannot force any religions onto us, how can we use the Bible to decide what a Hindi gets to do? How can we use it to define murder? Following that, the Bible can't be used to argue against the legality of abortion, although it can be used for personal choice. But that implies choice.

Oh crap. You just opened the "Christian Nation" bag of bees. Have fun- they won't listen to logic on this point either. Look back 20 pages or so...

So, why are we using the Bible, hmm? Why not Hindu texts? Buddhist? Taoist? (etc.) For the US argument, since we allow all religions, and lack thereof, to be believed, and the government cannot force any religions onto us, how can we use the Bible to decide what a Hindi gets to do? How can we use it to define murder? Following that, the Bible can't be used to argue against the legality of abortion, although it can be used for personal choice. But that implies choice.

I agree that the Bible can't be used to argue against the legality of abortion; that was my only point. The Bible was brought up before I got here and I was only responding to it.

This has nothing to do with what is smart or stupid... or moral or right. This has to do with what is LEGAL. If we are not allowed to deal with our own consequences by our own standards... if we are not allowed to act upon our OWN bodies, then what rights do we, as citizens, have?[/QUOTE]

You make a fine point, but that is not what he is arguing. Read his posts. He says that someone who has a heart attack while driving has been tried and convicted of manslaughter. Seriously.

Do I support abortion? Yes, but only in specific circumstances.

1. It was rape. Forcing the mother to carry a reminder of her trauma for 9 months is just sick. It should be up to the mother- I also understand that some will keep the baby. That's perfectly fine also.



This is completely illogical.
Most women don't report rape out of complete embarassment, and, as a female, I totally understand. In this case, they COULDN'T get an abortion. To force a woman to admit something that can be socially scarring is unreasonable.
Secondly, how much do you think the "rape" reportings will increase if this is the only way to abortions? Young girls who made a mistake with a one-night stand will be claiming rape everywhere jsut to get out of having the kid.

This is completely unreasonable, being, there is no proof that a rape did accure unless the woman went directly to a clinic afterwards.

If abortion is murder. If a fetus is a human being. But that's an assumption you are making, and the Bible doesn't support that assumption, ergo the Bible doesn't really support it unless you define words as supports your argument and reject definitions that don't.

How does the Bible not support this? For that matter, where does the Bible distinguish murder from abortion. Please, enlighten all of us. If you can't show me, then drop the argument because this is all just your interpretation - one which the vast majority of churches (you know, the people who study and teach the Bible) disagree with.

No, I simply used your logic: I decided that sperms, since they contain human DNA, are human beings and therefore, when I kill them through masturbating into a tissue destined for the toilet I am killing humans, ergo murder.

No, you didn't use my logic at all. You're twisting my arguments regarding fully fertilized lifeforms (46 chromosomes and all) with those of sex cells. However, I never spoke of sex cells nor did I even comment on non-reproductive sexual activities. Again, that's a strawman - I'll say no more on the subject.



Heh. An infant is defined as "a very young child (birth to 1 year)," therefore fetuses don't count as infants anyway.

Wow. Good one. Take my sarcasm regarding the writers of the Bible as a serious argument.

Quit wasting our time.

A fetus is certainly human due to its having human DNA. Now, if you want to talk about whether the fetus is a living human, then that's a slightly different discussion - but the DNA still dictates that it is human.

Forgive me for not qualifying my previous statement. I corrected it in a seperate post.

That said, let's just look at the reasoning in Roe. It based the legality of abortion on the basis that a fundamental right to have an abortion existed. More specifically, it concluded that the right to have an abortion is so pervasive in the traditions of our society as to make it fundamental to the society's existance. Now I ask you, could a subject which for the last 30-40 years sparked such heated debate even remotely resemble that standard. The obvious conclusion is "No." In that case, there is no substantive due process right; therefore, no protection under the 14th Amendment - allowing states to pass laws as they see fit.

You seriously didn't understand me. A fetus is not human if the DNA isn't human, for my first paragraph. So, you can't just say that a fetus is human. For my second paragraph, I'm not saying that it isn't human, I'm saying that it isn't a human being. There is a distinct difference. One is an adjective while the other is a noun. That noun has distinctive qualities to it.

As for Roe, no, those weren't the reasons. It was decided that abortion qualifies as an individual's choice, rather than state or federal. This is due to the end of the Bill of Rights, where it basically says that our individual rights include, but are not limited to those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Note that when the Consitution was originally created, there was no Bill of Rights because it was thought that it would be unnecessary, on account that everything not stated in the Constitution belonged to the individual, so a Bill of Rights would be superfluous, and could cause interpretation of the Constitution to mean that those were the only rights of individuals.

This is completely illogical.
Most women don't report rape out of complete embarassment, and, as a female, I totally understand. In this case, they COULDN'T get an abortion. To force a woman to admit something that can be socially scarring is unreasonable.
Secondly, how much do you think the "rape" reportings will increase if this is the only way to abortions? Young girls who made a mistake with a one-night stand will be claiming rape everywhere jsut to get out of having the kid.

This is completely unreasonable, being, there is no proof that a rape did accure unless the woman went directly to a clinic afterwards.
A better solution would be to educate people about the morning after pill and make it widely available. But just because that isn't someone's kneejerk reaction, it doesn't make abortion okay. Just like Ted Kennedy didn't think about telling the police that his girlfriend drowned for a whole day. It didn't make it right. (And he should have gone to prison, but that's another topic)

Just like Ted Kennedy didn't think about telling the police that his girlfriend drowned for a whole day. It didn't make it right. (And he should have gone to prison, but that's another topic)


I'm talking about rape not murder (though conservatives beg to differ). In many cases, the woman is blamed for being raped... even ridiculed. This is about whether or not you want to put yourself through the embarassment... even more so... anyone can say they were raped... but it doesn't mean they really were.

You seriously didn't understand me. A fetus is not human if the DNA isn't human, for my first paragraph. So, you can't just say that a fetus is human. For my second paragraph, I'm not saying that it isn't human, I'm saying that it isn't a human being. There is a distinct difference. One is an adjective while the other is a noun. That noun has distinctive qualities to it.

As for Roe, no, those weren't the reasons. It was decided that abortion qualifies as an individual's choice, rather than state or federal. This is due to the end of the Bill of Rights, where it basically says that our individual rights include, but are not limited to those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Note that when the Consitution was originally created, there was no Bill of Rights because it was thought that it would be unnecessary, on account that everything not stated in the Constitution belonged to the individual, so a Bill of Rights would be superfluous, and could cause interpretation of the Constitution to mean that those were the only rights of individuals.

But you have no basis nor argument for there being a difference between human and human being. (Except that human beings know more.)(And you still never responded to my question, even after I have asked it a million times, because you know you lose every leg you had to stand on. I'm not saying that there aren't good arguments for abortion, but I am saying that you haven't made one of them.

You seriously didn't understand me. A fetus is not human if the DNA isn't human, for my first paragraph. So, you can't just say that a fetus is human. For my second paragraph, I'm not saying that it isn't human, I'm saying that it isn't a human being. There is a distinct difference. One is an adjective while the other is a noun. That noun has distinctive qualities to it.

As for Roe, no, those weren't the reasons. It was decided that abortion qualifies as an individual's choice, rather than state or federal. This is due to the end of the Bill of Rights, where it basically says that our individual rights include, but are not limited to those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Note that when the Consitution was originally created, there was no Bill of Rights because it was thought that it would be unnecessary, on account that everything not stated in the Constitution belonged to the individual, so a Bill of Rights would be superfluous, and could cause interpretation of the Constitution to mean that those were the only rights of individuals.

Ah yes, the 9th Amendment - the forgotten amendment. While it says they are not limited to those enumerated, it also states that it is refering to rights which were retained by the people at the formation of the Constitution. You can't retain a right that never existed. Additionally, note that we are talking about a right here, not simply a law.

And yes, the court did use substantive due process as justification. Look at the discussions of Griswold, Skinner, and Miller (may be off on this last one).

How does the Bible not support this? For that matter, where does the Bible distinguish murder from abortion. Please, enlighten all of us. If you can't show me, then drop the argument because this is all just your interpretation - one which the vast majority of churches (you know, the people who study and teach the Bible) disagree with.

If you can show that the Bible means abortion when it says murder, then do so.

If you can't, then your argument fails. See, burden of proof here is on you. I don't have to prove a negative.

Nice appeal to authority, though. ;)


No, you didn't use my logic at all. You're twisting my arguments regarding fully fertilized lifeforms (46 chromosomes and all) with those of sex cells. However, I never spoke of sex cells nor did I even comment on non-reproductive sexual activities. Again, that's a strawman - I'll say no more on the subject.


You won't say anymore on the subject because you know you're wrong. You're not even reading what I say. You're redefining words left and right - for example, "human being" means "fertilized" and not "born." Then, "fetus" means "infant." Then "murder" includes "abortion."

Why is it you get to redefine words to support what you say, but I don't?


Wow. Good one. Take my sarcasm regarding the writers of the Bible as a serious argument.

Who says I took it any more seriously than you? It's not like I devoted energy to making a counter-argument to it.


Quit wasting our time.

OH SHIT! It's someone whose time is SO valuable you can't be arsed to communicate with lowly old me. Don't you have a meeting with the President to go to? Come on, if your time was so valuable you wouldn't be here arguing and making eye-roll smileys to show how superior you believe you are.

How many times will I make this argument and you not respond because you are WRONG??????? Does a one year old know what will happen if he shoots himself? Because that NEVER happens, does it? ANSWER ME! How many times do I have to make this point before you will acknowledge it?

You realize that we are talking about a fetus right?

You just can't admit that using "it want's to live" is not a valid arguement?

I'm talking about rape not murder (though conservatives beg to differ). In many cases, the woman is blamed for being raped... even ridiculed. This is about whether or not you want to put yourself through the embarassment... even more so... anyone can say they were raped... but it doesn't mean they really were.
Getting the morning after pill is not embarassing. And even though I don't think it is right, I support the ability of rape victims to choose. I was just making the point that people wouldn't lie about being raped to get an abortion if the just had the sense to get the morning after pill when they messed up with their boyfriend.

But you have no basis nor argument for there being a difference between human and human being. (Except that human beings know more.)(And you still never responded to my question, even after I have asked it a million times, because you know you lose every leg you had to stand on. I'm not saying that there aren't good arguments for abortion, but I am saying that you haven't made one of them.

Question? What question? I seem to have missed it. Can you please state it for me?

You realize that we are talking about a fetus right?

You just can't admit that using "it want's to live" is not a valid arguement?

Why not? Watch the videos. The fetus tries to CHOOSE to live. You keep making this argument about us knowing life and fetuses not but you have no grounds. Oh, except the time you said "Sorry dude..." and then said I was wrong. How do we comprehend being alive more than a fetus? Every example you've given had more holes in it than a screen door. "Dude, we just do, okay! Leave me alone!" Black Forest and Moon man, how old are you?

Are Morning-After Pills legal?
If so, how is that, in any way, different from abortion?

Fetuses are not Human Beings and they don't have the capability of deciding whether or not they choose to live or not. Otherwise, they'd pop out of the womb as soon as possible, hm?

Question? What question? I seem to have missed it. Can you please state it for me?
What is the difference between a human and a human being?

What is the difference between a human and a human being?


A human is an organism that pertains to the design of a human in its inheretance; whereas, a human being is an organism that has developed the traits, thoughts, and emotional characteristics that humans are idiosyncratic for.

Why not? Watch the videos. The fetus tries to CHOOSE to live. You keep making this argument about us knowing life and fetuses not but you have no grounds. Oh, except the time you said "Sorry dude..." and then said I was wrong. How do we comprehend being alive more than a fetus? Every example you've given had more holes in it than a screen door. "Dude, we just do, okay! Leave me alone!" Black Forest and Moon man, how old are you?

I have seen the photos. And gee what is the probably they are either lying and or misrepresenting what is going on? Hmmm kind of like the videos that showed Terri Schivo was aware of her surroundings.

-edit-

Do you have an unbiased source that says they are true?

I don't know what the proper term would be as anthropomorphism is not correct (So any grammarians, please give me one) you are interpreting things that are not there.

A human being is a human that has learned what it is intended to be or become.
Idealy, our human societies shape us into human beings.

What is the difference between a human and a human being?

"A human" and "a human being"? None. In the places where I noted a difference between "human" and "human being" the difference was the word type. "Human" was the adjective, and "human being" was the noun, as per formal use. Thus, any "a" in front of "human" in such a case was for the following noun.

Edit: Unless I did something ridiculous in one of my posts, in which case I may have accidentally done the definitions with the "organism" vs. "developed being" concept as well. If I did that, sorry.

I have seen the photos. And gee what is the probably they are either lying and or misrepresenting what is going on? Hmmm kind of like the videos that showed Terri Schivo was aware of her surroundings.



What videos?
How could human beings study the lifestyle or mentalities of fetuses without first aborting them or inducing trauma upon them?

National Genius, I would LOVE a name to one of these "videos," if they exist at all.

Are Morning-After Pills legal?
If so, how is that, in any way, different from abortion?

Fetuses are not Human Beings and they don't have the capability of deciding whether or not they choose to live or not. Otherwise, they'd pop out of the womb as soon as possible, hm?

RU238 is legal in the US as far as I know. Discussing stem cells will lead us way off topic, so I won't go there. (But we'd probably agree on what the law should say.) But a jew in Nazi Germany couldn't choose to live. I never said it could. The point is that you are taking that choice away by bing "prochoice." Video of abortions confirm that very youg fetuses try to escape abortion. Why are you not listening?

I don't know what the proper term would be as anthropomorphism is not correct (So any grammarians, please give me one) you are interpreting things that are not there.

Kindalikeanthropomorphismbutappliedtohumansism

I'm an English Major. I'm qualified to mangle the language like that.

"A human" and "a human being"? None. In the places where I noted a difference between "human" and "human being" the difference was the word type. "Human" was the adjective, and "human being" was the noun, as per formal use. Thus, any "a" in front of "human" in such a case was for the following noun.


Just the word itself shows that there is an indended difference in the meaning of these words. "Being" makes "human" sound purposeful and spiritual... and in my philosophical opinion, pertains to soul, perhaps... enlightenment.
Human is synonimous with homo sapien... it is merely a name of an organism.

But a jew in Nazi Germany couldn't choose to live.

EW EW EW!

Godwin!

Just the word itself shows that there is an indended difference in the meaning of these words. "Being" makes "human" sound purposeful and spiritual... and in my philosophical opinion, pertains to soul, perhaps... enlightenment.
Human is synonimous with homo sapien... it is merely a name of an organism.

Maybe, hence what I added as an edit to the post you quoted. However, I'm using dictionary definition, unless I was silly. It is late here.

Kindalikeanthropomorphismbutappliedtohumansism

I'm an English Major. I'm qualified to mangle the language like that.

Ah an English Major? So you are saying you unemployable? :p

Or is that historians? ;)

Thank you.

What videos?
How could human beings study the lifestyle or mentalities of fetuses without first aborting them or inducing trauma upon them?

National Genius, I would LOVE a name to one of these "videos," if they exist at all.
They couldn't. And ask my seventh grade health teacher. I saw it and didn't care to find out how I might view it again.

Ah an English Major? So you are saying you unemployable? :p

Or is that historians? ;)

Thank you.

Of course. Why else would I be on NS at 2:18 in the morning.

Hell, fucking McDonalds won't hire me!

"Oh, college? Rare for a MickeyDee's employee. Major?"

"... English..."

"GTFO!!!"

(By the way, that was low, and you're an asshole. And comming from me, that word-pair means a lot... ^_^)

RU238 is legal in the US as far as I know. Discussing stem cells will lead us way off topic, so I won't go there. (But we'd probably agree on what the law should say.) But a jew in Nazi Germany couldn't choose to live. I never said it could. The point is that you are taking that choice away by being "prochoice." Video of abortions confirm that very youg fetuses try to escape abortion. Why are you not listening?

You haven't responded to the arguments against those videos, which means you aren't listening, not the other way around.

Here's another argument: where did those videos come from? Did someone get an abortion, but prior to said abortion, the doctor said "Hey, can we take a video of this?" and the person said "Sure!"??? Think about it. It's logical to believe that the source will be biased, and the video unbelievable.

A human is an organism that pertains to the design of a human in its inheretance; whereas, a human being is an organism that has developed the traits, thoughts, and emotional characteristics that humans are idiosyncratic for.
But let him answer. It ought to be good. And which of these traits do 5 month fetuses not have? Before you answer, I call BS because if you had kids you would know better.

What videos?
How could human beings study the lifestyle or mentalities of fetuses without first aborting them or inducing trauma upon them?

National Genius, I would LOVE a name to one of these "videos," if they exist at all.

Oh they exist. You have to look in any hardcore antiabortion sites. Look into their collection of the "truth"

The one I am taling about is a hand that grabs a docs finger. People make all sorts of assumptions over that one.

When you can't argue the science; you have to run to emotion to try and get people to your cause.....

You haven't responded to the arguments against those videos, which means you aren't listening, not the other way around.

Here's another argument: where did those videos come from? Did someone get an abortion, but prior to said abortion, the doctor said "Hey, can we take a video of this?" and the person said "Sure!"??? Think about it. It's logical to believe that the source will be biased, and the video unbelievable.

How old are you? And you never answered my question. AND did it occur to you that the doctor asked the women, and possibly paid her for the video for research purposes?

I figure it should be allowed by choice... and if the "fetus" isn't conscious, what difference does it make? however, if the baby is conscious, its just as bad as murder - in fact it *is* murder. either way, i think it should be up to the individual cases whether or not its right to do it.

But let him answer. It ought to be good. And which of these traits do 5 month fetuses not have? Before you answer, I call BS because if you had kids you would know better.

I already answered! Read the thread! If it's not on this page, it's on the last one!

How do you know that I don't have kids? You've already gotten one characteristic about me wrong.

How old are you? And you never answered my question. AND did it occur to you that the doctor asked the women, and possibly paid her for the video for research purposes?

Research?!? :D

Ok do name the institution that is performing this "research"

RU238 is legal in the US as far as I know. Discussing stem cells will lead us way off topic, so I won't go there. (But we'd probably agree on what the law should say.) But a jew in Nazi Germany couldn't choose to live. I never said it could. The point is that you are taking that choice away by bing "prochoice." Video of abortions confirm that very youg fetuses try to escape abortion. Why are you not listening?


We are not discussing the choice of a creature that cannot yet contemplate it's own existance... we are discussing the right of the living being to whom's life is being infringed upon by her forced inability to decide her own future.

In a fetus with developed nerves, we don't even have to argue that it would, instinctively, avoid pain. However, this is no different from any sort of animal and, therefore, isn't proving any sort of point here. Unless you wish to conclude that a homo sapien with equal mentality and neuro-developement to that of a rabbit has God-given rights over all creatures?

I already answered! Read the thread! If it's not on this page, it's on the last one!

How do you know that I don't have kids? You've already gotten one characteristic about me wrong.

Do you have kids? How old are you? (Third time asking)

(By the way, that was low, and you're an asshole. And comming from me, that word-pair means a lot... ^_^)

Hey now. There was some self-flogging in there. I tried the historian route but then reality made me change majors ;)

Do you have kids? How old are you? (Third time asking)

Why does it matter the age? Some simple attempt to dismiss arguments because they are too young?

I am probably older then most people here and I have a 5 year old.

How old are you? And you never answered my question. AND did it occur to you that the doctor asked the women, and possibly paid her for the video for research purposes?

Yummy. Child-snuff. Fap-tastic material for when seeing grown people die just doesn't do it for you anymore.

(Okay, now THAT one should warrant at least SOME revulsion by you people!)

Hey now. There was some self-flogging in there. I tried the historian route but then reality made me change majors ;)

Oh, asshole isn't always negative. I'm a Dennis Leary fan. 'Nuff said.

Oh they exist. You have to look in any hardcore antiabortion sites. Look into their collection of the "truth"

The one I am taling about is a hand that grabs a docs finger. People make all sorts of assumptions over that one.

When you can't argue the science; you have to run to emotion to try and get people to your cause.....

Well said. Radical antiabortion sites can't, in the slightest, to be trusted to be unbaised... so how can we trust their media? We can't even be sure that any of these videos are even real, in the first place. Even so, anomolous images can easily be distorted by words to bring out inane pathos in weak-minded individuals.

Do you have kids? How old are you? (Third time asking)

That's none of your business. And you haven't volunteered your answer to the second question. Furthermore, if you *know* all this stuff about me, and that clearly I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have kids, then you must already *know* the answers to both of these.

Finally, giving your personal information out on the internet is not the wisest thing to do in the world. And even if I answered, how would you know that I'm telling the truth? Or that the truth I'm telling is the answer to the question you're trying to ask?

We are not discussing the choice of a creature that cannot yet contemplate it's own existance... we are discussing the right of the living being to whom's life is being infringed upon by her forced inability to decide her own future.

In a fetus with developed nerves, we don't even have to argue that it would, instinctively, avoid pain. However, this is no different from any sort of animal and, therefore, isn't proving any sort of point here. Unless you wish to conclude that a homo sapien with equal mentality and neuro-developement to that of a rabbit has God-given rights over all creatures?
Again, the only reason to take a life is for survival. I mentioned that already. But that's neither here nor there. OTHER THAN RAPE, the woman CHOSE to place that fetus in her body. If you choose not to work, you should go hungry. (Being a quadripalegic is not generally a choice.) If you Choose to have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. It is avoidable. My wife had to be on an IV through her whole pregnancy. Believe me, we didn't want the baby. But we made the choice, it was avoidable, and we accepted the consequences, and got our oldest daughter. We almost lost our house when I went into the hospital for a month during that same time period. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Right or wrong, why SHOULD we escape any consequences of a poor decision? It's not fun? That's life!

Research?!? :D

Ok do name the institution that is performing this "research"
Ever seen "The Miracle of Life? It is the exact same thing but they abort the fetus.

Again, the only reason to take a life is for survival. I mentioned that already. But that's neither here nor there. OTHER THAN RAPE, the woman CHOSE to place that fetus in her body. If you choose not to work, you should go hungry. (Being a quadripalegic is not generally a choice.) If you Choose to have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. It is avoidable. My wife had to be on an IV through her whole pregnancy. Believe me, we didn't want the baby. But we made the choice, it was avoidable, and we accepted the consequences, and got our oldest daughter. We almost lost our house when I went into the hospital for a month during that same time period. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Right or wrong, why SHOULD we escape any consequences of a poor decision? It's not fun? That's life!



Saying one who chooses to have sex, chooses to be pregnant is the same as saying one who horseback rides chooses to become a quadripalegic.
Counter me in that, dare you.

Good. As I have been asked all the questions that I need to be asked, have adequetely stated my opinion, and am well aware that this is way too late on a work night, I will be leaving. Byebye!

Again, the only reason to take a life is for survival. I mentioned that already. But that's neither here nor there. OTHER THAN RAPE, the woman CHOSE to place that fetus in her body. If you choose not to work, you should go hungry. (Being a quadripalegic is not generally a choice.) If you Choose to have sex, you run the risk of pregnancy. It is avoidable. My wife had to be on an IV through her whole pregnancy. Believe me, we didn't want the baby. But we made the choice, it was avoidable, and we accepted the consequences, and got our oldest daughter. We almost lost our house when I went into the hospital for a month during that same time period. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Right or wrong, why SHOULD we escape any consequences of a poor decision? It's not fun? That's life!

By that logic, if you break your leg because you went biking and fell, you should not have a cast? If you choose to live in the midwest and a tornado decides to use your house for a football, your insurance shouldn't cover it?

If a woman chose to go to a party and someone slipped something into her drink, it's a consequence of her being there that she was raped, yes?

Causality is one of my fortes.

Why does it matter the age? Some simple attempt to dismiss arguments because they are too young?

I am probably older then most people here and I have a 5 year old.
It doesn't matter to me, I just want him to acknowledge the question, because if he doesn't have kids, he really has no experience with a fetus at all and hopefully he'll do some research before he spouts off in the future. And not that it matters, but I think you're lying. 9 posts a day for over threee years, EVERY single day, just smacks of someone still in middleschool. Unless you're on welfare.

Saying one who chooses to have sex, chooses to be pregnant is the same as saying one who horseback rides chooses to become a quadripalegic.
Counter me in that, dare you.

I'm really going to catch flak for this one, but...

Add that to the list under Kryptonite...

Saying one who chooses to have sex, chooses to be pregnant is the same as saying one who horseback rides chooses to become a quadripalegic.
Counter me in that, dare you.
I think that a woman who is going to die from a pregnancy is entitled to an abortion. Someone who rides horses knows the risks and they can't blame anyone but themselves if they are hurt doing it. No DO OVERS. Why should the life of a baby be any different?

I'm really going to catch flak for this one, but...

Add that to the list under Kryptonite...


Sorry I didn't catch you on this one. :P
Where did Kryptonite come from?
And the term "flak" is foreign to me too.
haha. But, you seem to agree with me?

And not that it matters, but I think you're lying. 9 posts a day for over threee years, EVERY single day, just smacks of someone still in middleschool. Unless you're on welfare.

I'm calling bullshit.

Example: You've obviously never been around a hardcore gamer. A good friend of my father's was one for years, during the early days. Middle-aged woman, still managed to do everything that mattered to her, but when Final Fantasy came out, she was able to beat it within a week.

There are a lot of people who have jobs, families, and lives, but still have astronomical post counts. It's not that hard. Especially when you know the averages mean jack compared to bursts of posting.

Guess what, OMG, you've already had quite a few posts. I suppose this means you must be some high schooler who has no life, job, or family?

By that logic, if you break your leg because you went biking and fell, you should not have a cast? If you choose to live in the midwest and a tornado decides to use your house for a football, your insurance shouldn't cover it?

If a woman chose to go to a party and someone slipped something into her drink, it's a consequence of her being there that she was raped, yes?

Causality is one of my fortes.
but you didni't read what I wrote. Sex=choice. Rape=no choice. If your insurance company goes bankrupt and you wreck your car, should the government pay for it? No. You're screwed. That's life. If you choose NOT to have tornado insurance, then F*** you! you lost out. (Katrina victims, flood insurance also applies.) I don't think you analogy was accurate, but in principal, I agree with your sarcasm.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Right or wrong, why SHOULD we escape any consequences of a poor decision? It's not fun? That's life!So if you get in an accident that's your fault, no one should cut you out of the wreckage if you happen to be caught inside because they'd be helping you escape the consequences of a poor decision?

I think that a woman who is going to die from a pregnancy is entitled to an abortion. Someone who rides horses knows the risks and they can't blame anyone but themselves if they are hurt doing it. No DO OVERS. Why should the life of a baby be any different?

The surgical process of the abortion is punishment enough, not to mention guilt.

The fetus's existance has nothing to do with this decision. Arguing for its life can be compared to arguing the life of intestinal parasites. A simple mistake got you them and a medical procedure will them out of you.

Sorry I didn't catch you on this one. :P
Where did Kryptonite come from?
And the term "flak" is foreign to me too.
haha. But, you seem to agree with me?

Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman in quite a few movies, had an accident while horseback riding that left him paralyzed.

Flak is an anti-aircraft defense measure, not too important to know.

And yeah, I do. Look a post or two above the one you replied to. ^_^

Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman in quite a few movies, had an accident while horseback riding that left him paralyzed.

Flak is an anti-aircraft defense measure, not too important to know.

And yeah, I do. Look a post or two above the one you replied to. ^_^



AHH.
Gotcha.
I'm not too much in the mind for wit at the moment. XD

Flak is an anti-aircraft defense measure, not too important to know.FlAK is the German acronym for anti-aircraft guns, actually...

That's none of your business. And you haven't volunteered your answer to the second question. Furthermore, if you *know* all this stuff about me, and that clearly I don't know what I'm talking about because I don't have kids, then you must already *know* the answers to both of these.

Finally, giving your personal information out on the internet is not the wisest thing to do in the world. And even if I answered, how would you know that I'm telling the truth? Or that the truth I'm telling is the answer to the question you're trying to ask?
For the record, look at my profile, dipshit. (Report me! Wah!) And heavens to betsy I should know that you are a 45 year old in Massachusetts with two kids! I'll track you down and kill you with that info. I don't care if you lie, so long as you know you had to lie to save face because you don't know what you're talking about and have no experience with birth to back up anything that you are saying. Moron. GOODNIGHT!

Nope, never have, never will.... :P Of course, this is the internet, I kinda sorta expect to be in the minority here.

but you didni't read what I wrote. Sex=choice. Rape=no choice.

Sure it was. She was dressing provocatively. She wanted it. She was playing hard to get. She said she didn't care what it was, so long as it had alcohol, so it had something else too. She asked for it. (Common arguements.)

If your insurance company goes bankrupt and you wreck your car, should the government pay for it?

But you chose to go driving. I didn't say a thing about insurance. Nice save, though.

That's life. If you choose NOT to have tornado insurance, then F*** you! you lost out. (Katrina victims, flood insurance also applies.)

Again, didn't say insurance, but another nice save. You lose points for the self-censor though. ^_^

So if you get in an accident that's your fault, no one should cut you out of the wreckage if you happen to be caught inside because they'd be helping you escape the consequences of a poor decision?
You missed the point! Who should buy the new car?

FlAK is the German acronym for anti-aircraft guns, actually...

Aye, fliegerabwehrkanonen, correct? ^_^

Sure it was. She was dressing provocatively. She wanted it. She was playing hard to get. She said she didn't care what it was, so long as it had alcohol, so it had something else too. She asked for it. (Common arguements.)
But you chose to go driving. I didn't say a thing about insurance. Nice save, though.
Again, didn't say insurance, but another nice save. You lose points for the self-censor though. ^_^
If you choose not to have insurance (birthcontrol, oral sex, etc...) then I say screw you! Live with it. If I choose to drive and get in a wreck, and the insurance(Birth Control) doesn't cover me for some reason, Tough FOR ME!
If I drive and wreck without insurance TOUGH FOR ME. If sonmeone hits and runs, (RAPES) then I can see some leeway.

Aye, fliegerabwehrkanonen, correct? ^_^
... cause knowledge is power. Hey, any of you guys seen some of those late-war ME-SturmVogan's?

Nice jet-fighter developped by the Nazis, Messerschmidt, better than the BF109 ME

If you choose not to have insurance (birthcontrol, oral sex, etc...) then I say screw you! Live with it. If I choose to drive and get in a wreck, and the insurance(Birth Control) doesn't cover me for some reason, Tough FOR ME!

That arguement, however, creates the situation of someone correcting it for you. Insurance pays for the damages, while rebuilding your car on your own does not.

Abortion is more akin to going to a mechanic and having the offending tree removed from the front of your car and the damage repaired out of your own pocket, paying for an expert to make it better rather than doing it yourself. What would a do-it-yourself abortion be, anyway? Use a lot of mirrors?

You missed the point! Cutting someone out of the wreckage is an attempt to keep said person from dying, thus reducing the consequences of the action. If I missed the point, then you didn't have one in the first place.
Who should buy the new car?Who should pay for the abortion?

If you choose not to have insurance (birthcontrol, oral sex, etc...) then I say screw you! Live with it. If I choose to drive and get in a wreck, and the insurance(Birth Control) doesn't cover me for some reason, Tough FOR ME!


So, then I presume you think persons with lungcancer shouldn't be allowed treatment because they smoked their entire life?

Because it's reasonable to say to any law-abiding citizen, no matter their background, "No, you can't get help because you fucked yourself over. You are scum lower than dirt and should have to suffer for your weaknesses."

That's clearly the same exact situation.

I can't take these inapplicable analogies any longer. You guys suck at them. Plus I have to go to work in 5 hours. For all remarks I haven't addressed, I am sorry, I can't type fast enough to argue 6 people at once, not because I am ignoring or backing down. But I am arguing in spirit.:p
Good times all
Wes
OMFG! MY NAME IS ON THE INTERNET! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHH!

Aye, fliegerabwehrkanonen, correct? ^_^Technically yes. The original term was Flugabwehrkanone, but Fliegerabwehrkanone has become widely used too.

I can't take these inapplicable analogies any longer. You guys suck at them. Plus I have to go to work in 5 hours. For all remarks I haven't addressed, I am sorry, I can't type fast enough to argue 6 people at once, not because I am ignoring or backing down. But I am arguing in spirit.:p
Good times all
Wes
OMFG! MY NAME IS ON THE INTERNET! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHH!


How old are you?
Engarde.

I can't take these inapplicable analogies any longer. You guys suck at them. Plus I have to go to work in 5 hours. For all remarks I haven't addressed, I am sorry, I can't type fast enough to argue 6 people at once, not because I am ignoring or backing down. But I am arguing in spirit.:p
Good times all
Wes
OMFG! MY NAME IS ON THE INTERNET! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHH!

Aw, see you! ^_^ The first poll option raise a percentage point, yay I guess.

So, then I presume you think persons with lungcancer shouldn't be allowed treatment because they smoked their entire life?

Because it's reasonable to say to any law-abiding citizen, no matter their background, "No, you can't get help because you fucked yourself over. You are scum lower than dirt and should have to suffer for your weaknesses."

That's clearly the same exact situation.
I am enclined to feel that my health premiums should not be higher because some people smoke. But charitably i'll help them, and I would be happy to help any single mother pay for her pregnancy and help her place her baby up fopr adoption if i could afford it. I just don't think that she's ENTITLED to escape those consequences.
23 years old. And I actually live in a suburb called MURRAY! ACK!
Gnight. Furreals.

Ha. Purge the heathens.
Looks like we've won this round, guys.

:P And no, I'm not too big into socratic seminars.

I can't take these inapplicable analogies any longer. You guys suck at them. Plus I have to go to work in 5 hours. For all remarks I haven't addressed, I am sorry, I can't type fast enough to argue 6 people at once, not because I am ignoring or backing down. But I am arguing in spirit.:p
Good times all
Wes
OMFG! MY NAME IS ON THE INTERNET! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGHHH!

It has been a wonderful debate, friend, and your arguements have been posed quite well.

I suppose that makes you a Master-Debater? (Say it fast, then you'll get the joke...)

-Douglas
(OMG! MINE TOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!)

Do I ever.
It's a great way of reducing poverty and crime.
it cuts down on all of the main problems in society. i also think it should go a step further.only people who have passed a class on parenting and that have the cash to raise a child can procreate.we would not have problems like we do in africa.if this was a globally supported issue..it should not be a right it should be a priviledge to have children..

Technically yes. The original term was Flugabwehrkanone, but Fliegerabwehrkanone has become widely used too.

German-go o hanashimasen! Nihongo wo hanashimasu! URUSEI!!!

(I don't speak German! I speak Japanese! SHUT UP!!!)

Sorry, couldn't help it. ^_^

I'm A Master Debator!!

:d

German-go o hanashimasen! Nihongo wo hanashimasu! URUSEI!!!

(I don't speak German! I speak Japanese! SHUT UP!!!)

Sorry, couldn't help it. ^_^




baka.


:p

I'm A Master Debator!!

:d

Hey, as long as you clean up your mess, what you're a master of is your business.

(Gimme a break. Master-Debater was a joke in my high school forensics class.)

I'm A Master Debator!!

:d

Sorry, friend, I'd debate it but these things tend to get my blood pressure to a whole new level... and I can't take on 6 guys at once, I'm still only 15. Give me time. ^_^

baka.


:p

Zakenayo.

Hey, as long as you clean up your mess, what you're a master of is your business.

(Gimme a break. Master-Debater was a joke in my high school forensics class.)


Shall I admit that I'm in highschool or would that spoil the fun?

Shall I admit that I'm in highschool or would that spoil the fun?

Nah. Unlike some people, I don't have age biases. ^_^

Hell, I give middle schoolers the same respect as high-level company executives. (Meaning: none.)

Nah. Unlike some people, I don't have age biases. ^_^

Hell, I give middle schoolers the same respect as high-level company executives. (Meaning: none.)


XD
Agreed.
Though, these days, I'd say middle schoolers are more liberal in the topic of abortion (if that is still the subject of discussion... haha) ... being a fair number of them have already had them.

Foremost, I am very tired, so I am sure I am not making complete sense, and this is vague, but in order to come to some conlusion on whether or not abortion is moral or immoral, you would have to understand what makes killing wrong in the first place and then try to apply those reasons to the issue of abortion. This entails looking at killing and what it means to kill. What does it do to the organism? What does the killing process take away? What effect does it have on others around the victim.

I usually argue from Utilitarian grounds, but I use the modern forumulation of Preference Utilitarianism. I think the important issues to consider are the preferences or interests of the organism at stake compared to the like interests of those getting the abortion. The most core interests I think stem at least from having basic sentience, or awareness. I think it is wrong to kill someone, not because it causes them pain, because it might not do that at all. You can kill someone without causing pain. Therefore, I look at what else they are losing. Most people want to avoid dying because they have a life to lead and activities, preferences, desires, wants, and interests they want to fulfill. By killing them, you are preventing them from ticking those desires off of the ledger. You are thwarting their preferences. I try to maximize welfare preferences and interest. As an example, I think this helps explain why it is worse to kill a normal, healthy adult human than it would be to kill a man in a permanent vegative state. Both are technically alive, but one dying has little to lose compared to the other. Both are human, but I don't believe both have equal intrinsic value.

Similarly, a fetus' life has less personal utility intrinsically compared to a normal, healthy human with prospects of profitable future. The reason is that the fetus has few interests at all. It is not a bad to kill the fetus, or even the newborn, as it would be to kill the young adult who has far more preferences due to his self-awareness. As an aside, adult humans can suffer more than a fetus because of their self-awareness. It is more potent because they undrestand what is happening. This makes it worse. Applying this to abortion, I don't think abortion is morally wrong if the fetus or organism's suffering is minimized and weighed against the mother's and if it is not self-aware. I don't think anything has a right to life if it doesn't even have basic self-awareness.

I do think even a fetus has SOME value, even minimally, when it reaches the point of basic sentience. At this point, it has some interests at stake. It has something to lose from being mistreated. The interests are pain, primitive suffering, physical welfare. However, this criteria leads me to believe it is wrong to deliberately cause pain/suffering or decrease the quality of life of the organism if there are no other more important interests at stake, but not necessarily to kill it, because you can kill it, theoretically, without causing any pain or suffering as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, I would think it would be wrong to hurt the fetus if there were no significant reason to do so.

This leads me to believe there are other intersts at stake in the morality of killing other than pain, and I relate this to the difference between killing the PVS man or the man with severely retarded capabilities to the normal, healthy adult. Further, there are many other animals that can experience pain and are sentient, yet they do not have a right to life---a mouse, for example. This gives me a problem, so I think there's something more at stake in terms of interests to weigh. This leads me to ask: what makes humans valuable? I don't think a human is more valuable than a dog simply because it is human, but rather for some reason--some characteristic. Typically, Humans are not just sentient creatures. They are more than aware. They are often self-aware and have the cognitive capacity not only to feel pain/pleasure, but also to developerational attributes. They can, due to their more developed brain, formulate long-term preferences and interests beyond the mere present "avoid pain" instinct. They can desire continued life, they can make plans for the future because they have the ability to undrestand they exist as a being existing over time. They have more to lose in their life, interest-wise, than would a mouse. Humans are valuabe, I think, for their level of sapience. It's not black and white. It's more of a gradation.

Now, rights are not intrinsic to any creature anyway. It's an arbitrary, human-developed social creation. We attach them to beings for protection because we value those beings characteristics. We can't really value a being for no reason, either, since that wouldn't make sense. Given that the only real difference between humans and many other animals are their rational attributes derrived from self-awareness, I don't think it is appropriate to apply rights to something that does not have the characteristics that make humans valuable, or at least more valuable than other animals. To, this, however, one might utilize the argument from potentialities, but they have a few serious problems. There's no logical rule or justification for ascribing privilidges or protections Y to organism X for attaining status Z that X doesn't actually have. Lots of organisms have potential to reach a status to get protections, privlidges, yet they do not deserve them at the time. A fetus, although it can experience pain/pleasure at a point, and although it might be self-aware in the future, is likely not self aware from what I have seen in Singer, Tooley, and most Psychology literature. THere is some contention, however, whether the newborn is. I am hazy here.

No one would say the mouse has a "right" to life, and from what I have gathered in my readings of Tooley et al, an ethical "right" is based off of a claim on something, usually an interest. I don't see why we would protect interests or preferences that something doesn't have or is cognitively incapable of having, so I don't really see the fetus as having a right to life. It has no claim to a future. At a point, however, it does have an immediate interest in not being tortured or hurt wantonly.


I don't think it is good to say abortion is wrong simply because it is killing, or simply because it is killing a human. That doesn't make it wrong, intrinsically. It would depend on the utility of doing so. We kill lots of humans all the time for a variety of reasons. Some can be justified, some cannot. The act of killing a human does not make it wrong. If it did, we wouldn't be able to justify killing in self defence, war, justice etc. It depends upon weighing intersts and welfare. The welfare of the mother ought to count more than the welfare of the fetus because the mother's welfare, including the ability to suffer, is greater than the fetus'. The mother's welfare interests are of a higher order, complexity, and number. They really only intersect in the pain/pleasure interest.

My position would transfer to those who are severely retarded, extremely elderly, or other animals that aren't self-aware or have severely limited interests/preferences. It doesn't arbitrarily stop at abortion.

Edit: I don't really see viability or birth as important lines. They seem the most arbitrary of all in a situation that is relatively subjective anyway. Viability always changes, and it has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of a human. It more depends on technology. Little if anything changes at the point of birth from late term fetus stage.

I also don't see the importance of this whole "sex has consequences, so toughie,toughie deal with it, life's not fair" argument. Whether or not life is fair has no bearing on what it ought to be like. It's also nonsensical that you would have to "suffer" through the pregnancy becaue you might have been able to avoid it. Who cares? Nothing huge is at stake by killing the fetus.

Therefore, I look at what else they are losing. Most people want to avoid dying because they have a life to lead and activities, preferences, desires, wants, and interests they want to fulfill. By killing them, you are preventing them from ticking those desires off of the ledger.


Agreed. A baby is a very efficient way at taking years (aspirations and the such) off one's life.

As an aside, adult humans can suffer more than a fetus because of their self-awareness.
Exactly


I do think even a fetus has SOME value, even minimally, when it reaches the point of basic sentience. At this point, it has some interests at stake. It has something to lose from being mistreated. The interests are pain, primitive suffering, physical welfare. However, this criteria leads me to believe it is wrong to deliberately cause pain/suffering or decrease the quality of life of the organism if there are no other more important interests at stake, but not necessarily to kill it, because you can kill it, theoretically, without causing any pain or suffering as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, I would think it would be wrong to hurt the fetus if there were no significant reason to do so.
Well, of course. But I think the miscomfort (not to mention physical distortions during pregnancy) is enough a reason to eliminate something unintentional that cannot yet make sense of its own surroundings or what happens to it.


There's no logical rule or justification for ascribing privilidges or protections Y to organism X for attaining status Z that X doesn't actually have. Lots of organisms have potential to reach a status to get protections, privlidges, yet they do not deserve them at the time. A fetus, although it can experience pain/pleasure at a point, and although it might be self-aware in the future, is likely not self aware from what I have seen in Singer, Tooley, and most Psychology literature. THere is some contention, however, whether the newborn is. I am hazy here.
This very truth (at least in my opinion) leads me to even question infantacide, being I do not being newborn children have yet the priveledge to be considered human beings.


The welfare of the mother ought to count more than the welfare of the fetus because the mother's welfare, including the ability to suffer, is greater than the fetus'. The mother's welfare interests are of a higher order, complexity, and number. They really only intersect in the pain/pleasure interest.
Right on. An adult is, by far, more valuble than a child. Oddly, human nature and society seem to reverse this FACT.


My position would transfer to those who are severely retarded, extremely elderly, or other animals that aren't self-aware or have severely limited interests/preferences. It doesn't arbitrarily stop at abortion.

I pretty much agree with everything.

Bravo.

Value is an opinon- plain in simple. Say, a rock, a shiny rock, quartz. Someone would consider it possibly, worth as much as, say, an iPod? However, another person would disagree, and pretty much discard it, believing it worthless...


Anyhow, in my own beliefs, the old need to make way for the new, sometimes...

Anyhow, in my own beliefs, the old need to make way for the new, sometimes...

In what sense?
Are we talking materialisticly or ideally?

In what sense?
Are we talking materialisticly or ideally?

In an extreme fashion, like an old woman with teburculosis-- if you had a choice between her and saving, I don't know, say, a twelve year old, I'd say the twelve year old should live.

Although, he did mention cases such as 'too retarded, old, etc'.

It's late, and I need to head out. Busy week, CS:S tourney at the Texas Gaming Festival... >.<'

And Abortion's a touchy subject with me, I get... emotional, and kind of tear up reading threads like these.

Auf Wiedersehen!


EDIT: One last thing, to the post below mine here-- I disagree to an extent, however, on that. If there was a situation such as old lady x with x-y disease, then sure, save the child. But don't discard of Old people, Fetal Children, or Mentally retarded people because 'they dont contribute to society'.

And, as a side note: The middle-schoolers probably like it, because they do not have to suffer any consequences from having sex. /shrug Wierd world we live in, no?

In an extreme fashion, like an old woman with teburculosis-- if you had a choice between her and saving, I don't know, say, a twelve year old, I'd say the twelve year old should live.

Although, he did mention cases such as 'too retarded, old, etc'.


Ahhh.. yes.
Agreed.
The severely retarded have no room for the expanding and demanding populace. They really are just an inconvenience, as apathetic and stoic as I sound.

Read above edit, Tschus, I'm kind of tired. ^_^

Buh-bye, and remember-- May the NENA be with you, or rather "May the 99 Balloons be With You" (MTNNBBWY)

Ew, god.
Just watched an abortion video... gross.
It must hurt like crazy to get one.

How does the Bible not support this? For that matter, where does the Bible distinguish murder from abortion.

The Bible, to my knowledge, never explicitly mentions abortion. However, it does make a very clear distinction between a fetus and a born human being.

From Exodus 21:

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Causing a miscarriage got you a fine. Harming a born human being got you an eye for an eye, etc.

I say abortion should be legal up to the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, so...until about 6 1/2-7 months along.

I agree. If the fetus could feasibly be delivered and survive then aborting it is wrong. otherwise, Im not comfortable with abortion at all, but I am still pro choice.

To a certain degree, yes.
However, this degree is not expressed in your poll.

It doesn't matter to me, I just want him to acknowledge the question, because if he doesn't have kids, he really has no experience with a fetus at all and hopefully he'll do some research before he spouts off in the future. And not that it matters, but I think you're lying. 9 posts a day for over threee years, EVERY single day, just smacks of someone still in middleschool. Unless you're on welfare.

Ahh now we get to insults.

I accept your surrender.

Video of abortions confirm that very youg fetuses try to escape abortion. Why are you not listening?

They cannot possibly confirm any such thing - considering that embryos have either no nervous system or merely a reflexive one, and early fetuses have no higher order processes. At the time of most abortions, it is biologically impossible for the embryo/fetus to control its own movement, much less "choose" anything.

I'm pro-choice; I believe every woman should make her choice based on her current finacial and social circumstances. No one but her and her medical professional know what is right for her. Her doctor should be the only third party authority to offer an opinion, free of religious bias.

That being said...

Here is a nice little sight that doesn't come from any religious-based groups, or groups that are likely to protest the woman's right to abortion.

National Abortion Foundation (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/)

Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were openly advertised and commonly performed.

I am tired of all the so-called "fact" and "statistic" sites.

They always fail to take into account Nature's abortion - the miscarriage.

The people who advocate pro-life forget that those who seek abortion have acknowledged that they aren't ready nor want children through their usage of birth control, which is far from perfect and these people are married or in long term common law relationships.

I say abortion should be legal up to the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, so...until about 6 1/2-7 months along.

I agree, mostly because past that point, it's been WAY too long --- make a decision before the damn thing develops a brain.