NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh. Interesting. Do you have any ideas about the questions I posted?

I've answered them before, to you and everyone else here.

THe first question is flawed. You want to know when personhood begins not life. I believe it becomes a living organism, a living human organism, at the point when it responds as an organism which is at the time the brainstem engages. It meets the qualifications for life that we require for all other humans when the forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester.

I don't that it's ever moral to destroy a fetus but I would like it be legal until there is likely to be a functioning brain (at about the beginning of the third trimester) and then allowed for medical reasons in the third trimester. Current law already errs on the side of caution well enough for my opinion.

Yes, I think it should be legal up until the moment the forebrain engages, but if we're not going to measure, the beginning of the third trimester is adequate for my money.

And no, I don't value life or judge people based on potential so I don't buy the whole it's wrong because of what it will be argument. What if I was supposed to go out last night and meet some woman who would have several children with me, had we met, but my boss kept me at work? Did he kill those children simply because of the potential. We can't judge on potential. We can only look at what is. Last I checked, none of us were fortune-tellers.

Yes, but if you admit that it's a baby then, how do you make a magic line? When you can hear a heartbeat? Many abortions are performed well after there's a heartbeat, hands, feet, a head and brainwaves to go with it. Not a person my foot. If you want to stay pro-abortion don't think about it too hard.

Very, very few abortions occur after brainwaves exist, and they aren't elective.

People die. How do you make that magic line? When they're no longer a single living cell?

four simple questions.......no pro-abortion person has ever given me answers to

Perhaps because the questions suck, they're leading and assume the conclusion, are worded badly and pro-abortionists are pretty much non-existent.

I think it should be legal except for the third trimester abortion which is really disgusting.

WARNING RATHER GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION TO FOLLOW!

Just to let you know what happens in a third trimester abortion (at this age the baby actually could survive outside the womb)

The doctors reach into the uterus with forceps and grab the baby by the head, they then pull the baby out by the birth canal and stick a pair of scissors into the brain stem and make a hole. They then stick a vaccum into the brain cavity and suck out the brains, they then dispose of the baby's body.

END RATHER GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

By the third trimester there is no reason to get an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger and if her life is in danger and with all our technology there should be multiple avenues to birth the baby and try to save it.

I've answered them before, to you and everyone else here.

THe first question is flawed. You want to know when personhood begins not life. I believe it becomes a living organism, a living human organism, at the point when it responds as an organism which is at the time the brainstem engages. It meets the qualifications for life that we require for all other humans when the forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester.

I don't that it's ever moral to destroy a fetus but I would like it be legal until there is likely to be a functioning brain (at about the beginning of the third trimester) and then allowed for medical reasons in the third trimester. Current law already errs on the side of caution well enough for my opinion.

Yes, I think it should be legal up until the moment the forebrain engages, but if we're not going to measure, the beginning of the third trimester is adequate for my money.

And no, I don't value life or judge people based on potential so I don't buy the whole it's wrong because of what it will be argument. What if I was supposed to go out last night and meet some woman who would have several children with me, had we met, but my boss kept me at work? Did he kill those children simply because of the potential. We can't judge on potential. We can only look at what is. Last I checked, none of us were fortune-tellers.


You told me that I did not mean to ask the first question. I did. I don't care about "personhood". I care about life. Can you source your response to the second? Your answers to the third and fourth slided around a bit.

If the "forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester" why is it ok to destroy the fetus at the end of the second? If you just waited a week it would be a person in your opinion. I am a christian and do to others what I would want to be done to me. This is called being just. I would not want to be aborted.

I think it should be legal except for the third trimester abortion which is really disgusting.

WARNING RATHER GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION TO FOLLOW!

Just to let you know what happens in a third trimester abortion (at this age the baby actually could survive outside the womb)

The doctors reach into the uterus with forceps and grab the baby by the head, they then pull the baby out by the birth canal and stick a pair of scissors into the brain stem and make a hole. They then stick a vaccum into the brain cavity and suck out the brains, they then dispose of the baby's body.

END RATHER GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

By the third trimester there is no reason to get an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger and if her life is in danger and with all our technology there should be multiple avenues to birth the baby and try to save it.

D&X abortions are very rare. If her life is in danger, it's not your position to decide what medical option she should choose to protect her life.

Also, often times the child is dead or going to die when they perform this type of abortion.

For all of you people who support abortion I have four questions:

1) When does life begin in your opinion?
2) what medical evidence backs this up?
3) Is it moral to destroy a fetus the day before you believe its life will begin?
4) How about a month before?

The thing that bothers me about people that support abortion is that they cannot answer these simple questions. My belief is that life begins when the brain stem begins to function ( the opposite of death...which is when it stops functioning). This occurs very early. Second, I believe that even if you destroy a fetus at 2 weeks it is immoral because if you let it continue to grow it will be born, be a child, love, grow old, have friends, and have a life. To destroy any fetus at any age is to rob that future person of their entire life in my opinion.
Actually, there are answers to all those questions, but they are not the answers anti-choicers want.

In re question 1, LIFE already exists, in the egg and sperm, before sex is even had. Every living thing, including every living cell, is LIFE. LIFE is present at every stage of human development until death. The scientific concept of LIFE (capitalized to set apart the concept) is not the same as the moral or philosophical concept of A LIFE, or A HUMAN LIFE. Since the scientific concept of LIFE is an unending continuum, it is meaningless to the issue at hand.

What you really mean by question 1 must be "When does A HUMAN LIFE start?" Science and medicine have an answer for that, too, in the standard for determining life by brain activity. A body whose brain ceases to function is not alive. It is not a leap to conclude that a body whose brain has never yet functioned is also not alive. Ergo, A HUMAN LIFE starts with brain activity, i.e. third trimester.

In re question 2, standard medical practice of all hospitals in the world backs up the brain activity starting point of A HUMAN LIFE.

In re question 3, two points: (1) Morals are subjective, so the mere fact that our morals differ on this issue really proves nothing for either of our arguments. I suggest that its is reason, not morals, which will change people's minds by showing compelling ethical and/or pragmatic cause in favor of one side or the other. (2) Since I am pro-choice, yes, I do think it is acceptable to destroy a fetus before its life begins.

In re question 4, obviously if a person thinks it is okay to destroy a fetus one day before its life begins, then that person would think it is okay to destroy it one month before. Sorry, but that last question is kind of silly.

One last point: You cannot know anything at all about how the child's life will progress. You imply that it will necessarily be a happy life. How then do you account for the hundreds of millions of suicides, accident victims, disease victims, war victims, murder victims, as well as murderers and other evil bastards -- those who suffer and those who inflict suffering -- who live in or die out of the world every day? Were they not also born, just like the happy people? Birth guarantees nothing, not even continued life. To imply otherwise is nothing but baseless sentimentalism, which also adds nothing to the debate.

four simple questions.......no pro-abortion person has ever given me answers to
I did. Oh, and except for a few trolls, there is no such thing as a "pro-abortion" person. We are pro-choice, meaning we want to leave the decision in the hands of the pregnant woman.

I have stated the obvious here. abortion robs a person of their life. If you do not abort a fetus it becomes a human being. For those of you who can't grasp that...consider the following:

Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant with twins
Sometimes she only wants one child.
One twin gets aborted (it never lives it's life)
The other twin is not aborted ( it lives it's life)

I wonder if any of you have seen a picture of a second trimester baby/fetus (which you say is not human life). It has fingers, toes, eyes, a beating heart, ears, a mouth, etc. Not human life? Just a mass of cells carrying human DNA with no value at all to society? That really scares me.

I think it should be legal except for the third trimester abortion which is really disgusting.

<snip>

By the third trimester there is no reason to get an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger and if her life is in danger and with all our technology there should be multiple avenues to birth the baby and try to save it.
Then you should be satisfied, because that IS the reason why the world's very few, very rare late term abortions are performed. Another reason might be because the fetus has died in utero. I don't suppose you would expect the woman to continue with the pregnancy and risk putrefaction in such a case?

You told me that I did not mean to ask the first question. I did. I don't care about "personhood".

Fortunately, the law doesn't agree with you. Technically, a child born with no forebrain meets the requirements for life. We don't consider it living.

I care about life. Can you source your response to the second?

Source when the forebrain engages? Are you telling me you entered this discussion without a working knowledge of what you're arguing?

Your answers to the third and fourth slided around a bit.

No, I didn't. The law makes third trimester abortions non-elective and I clearly said I support that. What should be legal has nothing to do with the morality and I don't answer morality questions for other people. Never been in the position, but I don't imagine I would get an abortion at all. That's why we're not pro-abortionists. We don't support abortion, we support the choice.

If the "forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester" why is it ok to destroy the fetus at the end of the second? If you just waited a week it would be a person in your opinion. I am a christian and do to others what I would want to be done to me. This is called being just. I would not want to be aborted.
Ha. You wouldn't want anything at that point, because you wouldn't be capable of wanting.

Like I said, you're questions suck. It doesn't matter what the answers are, you're going to make the same argument. So what's the point. Yes, there's a line. You argue from potential and I can draw that back to long before your parents met. I'm not in a position to decide the future so I decide by the present as does the law. It is only willing to act on a violation to the rights of a person, not to the 'rights' of a person that might have been.

If a person is going to die next week can I perform the autopsy today? If I can't perform the autopsy today why is okay in a week? The answer is obvious. Because in one case there is a person with what we require for a person to be living and in the other case there isn't. This is the same reason why an abortion can be legal at one point and not another.

Your argument sucks because there will always be a line before which a birth can be prevented and after which it can't. You're argument is for a certain line and mine is for another. Or I could argue that I wouldn't want to be prevented by a condom. Or I could argue that I wouldn't want to be prevented by my mother saying no to sex. What I want is immaterial if I don't exist.

I have stated the obvious here. abortion robs a person of their life. If you do not abort a fetus it becomes a human being. For those of you who can't grasp that...consider the following:

Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant with twins
Sometimes she only wants one child.
One twin gets aborted (it never lives it's life)
The other twin is not aborted ( it lives it's life)

I wonder if any of you have seen a picture of a second trimester baby/fetus (which you say is not human life). It has fingers, toes, eyes, a beating heart, ears, a mouth, etc. Not human life? Just a mass of cells carrying human DNA with no value at all to society? That really scares me.
Both Jocabia and I have answered your questions. Kindly respond to our answers.

Or please let us know if you intend to ignore us and just shout your speech from a soapbox all day long.

EDIT: And for the last time, there is no such thing as an elective third trimester abortion.

I have stated the obvious here. abortion robs a person of their life. If you do not abort a fetus it becomes a human being.

And if I don't ejaculate my spunk on the buttocks of my lover, but instead in a woman's vagina, it'll become a baby, too! I've robbed a person of their life!!!!

Puh-lease. Your "argument" is pathetic.

At "20 weeks our baby is now big enough that you can see if it's a boy or a girl on an ultrasound. It can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon -- if you haven't already -- you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening." At 23 weeks babies have been known to survive outside of the womb"- WEB M.D.

In an earlier post you said that human life started at 24 weeks?

I have stated the obvious here. abortion robs a person of their life.

No, it doesn't. There is no person. You said you're not talking about personhood, and now you state that you're arguing the obvious which includes a person. Hmmmm... that's only half a dozen posts and you're already contradicting yourself.

If you do not abort a fetus it becomes a human being.

False. If you do not abort it, it MAY become a human being.

For those of you who can't grasp that...consider the following:

Can't grasp = if you're not willing to just accept my opinion that's based on emotion

Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant with twins
Sometimes she only wants one child.
One twin gets aborted (it never lives it's life)
The other twin is not aborted ( it lives it's life)

I wonder if any of you have seen a picture of a second trimester baby/fetus (which you say is not human life). It has fingers, toes, eyes, a beating heart, ears, a mouth, etc. Not human life? Just a mass of cells carrying human DNA with no value at all to society? That really scares me.
What is scary is people who try to make law based on emotional appeals rather than logic? I think molestation is very upsetting, but I'm not willing to take rights away from people to prevent it. The fact that something is upsetting doesn't change that you want to subjugate the rights of a person that DOES exist for a person that MAY exist sometime in the future. I'm not willing to do that just because some pictures make me feel emotions I don't like.

Have you ever seen an apendectomy? That really scares me too. Let's make them illegal. That's human cells to that don't meet the qualifications for personhood we require at every other stage of life. Outlaw the evil apendectomies today, before more innocent appendi die.

You told me that I did not mean to ask the first question. I did. I don't care about "personhood". I care about life. Can you source your response to the second? Your answers to the third and fourth slided around a bit.

If the "forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester" why is it ok to destroy the fetus at the end of the second? If you just waited a week it would be a person in your opinion. I am a christian and do to others what I would want to be done to me. This is called being just. I would not want to be aborted.
If you are not alive, how could you want or not want anything?

If you are never alive, what makes you think you would miss it?

If you are never alive, how can you die?

As for that "what's another week?" argument, if I don't want to be pregnant, then I'm not likely to buy into that, am I?

Oh, and to add to the point that there is no such thing as an elective third-trimester abortion, the vast majority of abortions, elective or otherwise, are performed in the FIRST trimester. Are you going to argue "what's another six months" next?

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.


Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.



Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of
blood through the body every day.



Week 15: The baby has an adult’s taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will be one half of its birth weight.

Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.


Week 20: the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice.

Month5: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

month six: the frontal brain tissue is done being formed and it becomes alive..........

wow.

At "20 weeks our baby is now big enough that you can see if it's a boy or a girl on an ultrasound. It can suck a thumb, yawn, stretch, and make faces. Soon -- if you haven't already -- you'll feel your baby move, which is called "quickening." At 23 weeks babies have been known to survive outside of the womb"- WEB M.D.

In an earlier post you said that human life started at 24 weeks?

You are talking about from conception. The third trimest starts at 24 weeks from the last period.

40 million slaughtered since 1973 in these stages of development. Grotesque.

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.
Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mothers’.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.


Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.



Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of
blood through the body every day.



Week 15: The baby has an adult’s taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will be one half of its birth weight.

Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.
Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.


Week 20: the baby recognizes its’ mothers voice.

Month5: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

month six: the frontal brain tissue is done being formed and it becomes alive..........

wow.

One, you're not citing your sources. Two, most studies have shown that a fetus cannot experience pain at 12 weeks. It has much of the required equipment to do it, but it cannot do so in any real sense.

Amusing though.

Both Jocabia and I have answered your questions. Kindly respond to our answers.

Or please let us know if you intend to ignore us and just shout your speech from a soapbox all day long.

EDIT: And for the last time, there is no such thing as an elective third trimester abortion.

Didn't you see him in the other thread. We've answered these questions before. He's not actually here to discuss anything.

http://www.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm

http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.htm

For all of you people who support abortion I have four questions:

Stating that abortion should be legal is not the same thing as "supporting abortion." I do not support abortion. I think it is, most often, not the best choice. If someone were to ask for my advice when faced with the decision, I would most likely advise them to look for other options. I hold that, in a perfect world, neither abortions nor the necessity to choose whether or not to have one would ever happen.

But I do hold that a woman should make her own moral decisions - her own decisions about what to do with her body.

1) When does life begin in your opinion?

Life itself begins at the point at which the fetus meets all of the requirements to be deemed an organism - around the end of the 1st trimester when it gains the ability to respond to stimulus as an entity.

I would say that it becomes a human person when it has the same capabilities a born human person must have to avoid being declared brain dead or in a persistant vegitative state - that is, it must have activitiy in the forebrain. That occurs around 20-22 weeks.

2) what medical evidence backs this up?

See above.

3) Is it moral to destroy a fetus the day before you believe its life will begin?

I wouldn't say it is necessarily moral to destroy a fetus at any point, although, once put in the situation where the choice has to be made, it may be the most moral thing one can do.

4) How about a month before?

See above.

My belief is that life begins when the brain stem begins to function ( the opposite of death...which is when it stops functioning). This occurs very early.

Not all that early. Nearly 80% of all abortions (in the US at least) occur at or before this point.

Second, I believe that even if you destroy a fetus at 2 weeks it is immoral because if you let it continue to grow it will be born, be a child, love, grow old, have friends, and have a life. To destroy any fetus at any age is to rob that future person of their entire life in my opinion.

Be careful to use proper terminology. There is no fetus at 2 weeks - there is an embryo. The fetal stage does not begin until 8 weeks.


Yes, but if you admit that it's a baby then, how do you make a magic line? When you can hear a heartbeat? Many abortions are performed well after there's a heartbeat, hands, feet, a head and brainwaves to go with it.

Incorrect. Some 80% of abortions occur before any type of "brainwaves" are possible. And even then, "brainwaves" could only be taken to mean synaptic activity in the brain. Brainwaves that might indicate consciousness (what most people mean when they say "brainwaves") are not seen until approximately 5 months into gestation. In the US, abortions after that are nearly always (if not always) for medical reasons - something most would not argue with.

four simple questions.......no pro-abortion person has ever given me answers to

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that precious few people are actually pro-abortion.

I think it should be legal except for the third trimester abortion which is really disgusting.

Liver transplants are really disgusting too, but we allow them when necessary.

The only legal reasons for third trimester abortions (in the US, anyways) are medical necessity for the mother, in utero fetal death, or qualifying defects in the fetus (generally severe hydrocephalus or gross chromosomal defects).

If the "forebrain engages at about the beginning of the third trimester" why is it ok to destroy the fetus at the end of the second? If you just waited a week it would be a person in your opinion. I am a christian and do to others what I would want to be done to me. This is called being just. I would not want to be aborted.

Then don't get an abortion.

As a Christian, I wouldn't want to relinquish control of my own body to someone else, so I will not force someone else to submit to my control.

I have stated the obvious here. abortion robs a person of their life. If you do not abort a fetus it becomes a human being.

These two sentences are incompatible. If an abortion robs a person of their life, they have to already be a person. They can't be "becoming a human being", they already have to be a human being. You can't rob an as-yet nonexistent human being of life.

Didn't you see him in the other thread. We've answered these questions before. He's not actually here to discuss anything.


Yes I am. If by discuss you mean insult and mock people the way that you love to do it me, I guess I am not. Please try being polite.

http://www.webmd.com/content/tools/1/slide_fetal_dev.htm

http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.htm

Your own source tells you the two week thing I explained. It's in your interest to make note of that fact. Because they are using development weeks and the pregnancy weeks are two more than that. Thus the 23rd week is the 25th week of pregnancy.

<snip>
wow.
Wow, indeed. You are obviously not interested in debating honestly. All you do is post propaganda -- in bulk, apparently.

I posted direct answers to your questions and responses to your statements in posts 507 and 516. You have ignored these. Is that because you cannot counter my points?

Either engage the debate properly and try to respond to my points, or admit that you have no answers and cannot carry your own argument.

Yes I am. If by discuss you mean insult and mock people the way that you love to do it me, I guess I am not. Please try being polite.

As long as you continue to preach and not listen, I will mock. It amuses me and if a discussion is not available at least we can amuse ourselves with mocking. Or you can try actually talking and get of your pulpet.

I don't think it's polite to ask leading questions, pretend like you've never heard the answers and then preach at people no matter what they answer.

Didn't you see him in the other thread. We've answered these questions before. He's not actually here to discuss anything.
No, I must have missed him. Well, if this is the case -- and it certainly seems to be -- then the hell with him.

I am leaving this forum after all of these insults. I hope that you all understand that I know you have strong opinions. I do not share them. I believe that abortion is an abomination on the level of murder. I am thankful, as I hope you are, that you and I were not aborted. I am also thankful that America has never given a "pro-choice" candidate for President a majority of the popular vote. ( pro-lifers Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Bush the younger did)

amen.

Yes I am. If by discuss you mean insult and mock people the way that you love to do it me, I guess I am not. Please try being polite.
Polite like you, with that "for those who cannot grasp" wisecrack? :rolleyes:

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

"Brainwaves" in this case refers to random firing of synapses in the spine. Because such firings will show up on an EEG, same as waves from the actual brain, many sources refer to them as such. There are no synapses in the brain at this point, thus no waves can actually eminate from the brain.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

I have to wonder about your source. Only random firing is present at this point, which usually results in the entire body convulsing. No coordinated movement is yet possible.

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain,

....except, as recently studied, the actual receptors and level of consciousness required for pain. The research indicates that pain cannot actually be felt until sometime between the 20th and 22nd week.

Edit: Or, in the measuring of your source, between the 22nd and 24th week.

<snip>


If it is too hard to watch your fellow man being murdered maybe you shouldnt allow it to happen.
Isn't it against forum rules to post graphic images (didn't look, just assumed from the message that went with)?

And isn't it sad when losers can do nothing but throw crap at their opponents while they run away?

No, I must have missed him. Well, if this is the case -- and it certainly seems to be -- then the hell with him.

Actually, I mistook what we discussed before. We were discussing the SCOTUS. It is his opinion that if the right is not enumerated in the Constitution then it is not a right, but something to be legislated by more local governments.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11032778&postcount=114
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11033027&postcount=132
doesnt appoint judges who try to shove new rights down our throats.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11033359&postcount=173
Rights that have been made up that cant be found in the constitution:

abortion
sodomy
seperation of church and state
flag burning

The judges sat outside the law
And in their pride no evil saw
In setting teeth to Satan's jaw
And feeding him our children.
When viewed in terms of cost and ease
An unborn child is a disease
A holocaust seen fit to please
Our own convience.
A curse A curse the law it cries.
A curse a curse on mankind's pride.
A curse on him who would deny
God's image in mankind.
Torn from out their mother's womb
Denied the sky - denied a tomb
Conceived in lust to their own ruin
A sacrifice to pleasure.
The doctors with their blood red hands
Who love their money more than man,
With greed their god they lay their plans
The butchers of mankind.
A curse a curse the blood cries out
A curse a curse the heavens shout
A curse a curse on he who flouts
God's image in mankind.
O rid us of this evil, Lord
And turn our hearts by cross or sword.
Our nation cannot long afford
To live beneath your judgements.
A curse a curse upon their heads
O save them Lord or slay them dead
And fill our country with your dread
And turn away Your anger.

Wash the blood from your hands and be thankful that you were not one of the forty million.

Actually, I mistook what we discussed before. We were discussing the SCOTUS. It is his opinion that if the right is not enumerated in the Constitution then it is not a right, but something to be legislated by more local governments.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11032778&postcount=114
Whew. The way he carpet bombs with those talking points, I think maybe he should switch to decaf. Sorry, but, what a jerk.

Free for raped victims and tremendous prices for whores.

The judges sat outside the law
And in their pride no evil saw
In setting teeth to Satan's jaw
And feeding him our children.
When viewed in terms of cost and ease
An unborn child is a disease
A holocaust seen fit to please
Our own convience.
A curse A curse the law it cries.
A curse a curse on mankind's pride.
A curse on him who would deny
God's image in mankind.
Torn from out their mother's womb
Denied the sky - denied a tomb
Conceived in lust to their own ruin
A sacrifice to pleasure.
The doctors with their blood red hands
Who love their money more than man,
With greed their god they lay their plans
The butchers of mankind.
A curse a curse the blood cries out
A curse a curse the heavens shout
A curse a curse on he who flouts
God's image in mankind.
O rid us of this evil, Lord
And turn our hearts by cross or sword.
Our nation cannot long afford
To live beneath your judgements.
A curse a curse upon their heads
O save them Lord or slay them dead
And fill our country with your dread
And turn away Your anger.

Wash the blood from your hands and be thankful that you were not one of the forty million.
originally posted by Alabamamississippi in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=114
I sense so much hate in your writing. Let me be frank, I am not into such hatred. <snip>
Thanks for setting the example.

I think abortion should be legal because most unwanted pregnacies are from the lower class, who would want a child to be born into a situation where hope, healthcare, a truly loving family, to live, aborting the child would be an act of mercy.

(just a thought I wanted to mention)

*snip*

Wash the blood from your hands and be thankful that you were not one of the forty million.

Demonizing those who disagree with you does you no favors, you know.

Free for raped victims and tremendous prices for whores.

Ah, the dirty whore argument.

What, pray tell, do you have to say about most women? Or are "rape victims" and "whores" the only possibilities?

Whew. The way he carpet bombs with those talking points, I think maybe he should switch to decaf. Sorry, but, what a jerk.

I added more. He's got to be young. I posted the explanations of the ninth amendment by the drafters of it and he said what it was intended for doesn't matter. All that matters is that judges pretend like it means what he wants it to mean. The FACT that the ninth amendment was to assuage fears that mentioning rights in the constitution would make people think those were the only rights that were protected, but he would like to pretend it simply leaves it to the states to decide (in which case it would mean the same as the tenth amendment).

I added more. He's got to be young. I posted the explanations of the ninth amendment by the drafters of it and he said what it was intended for doesn't matter. All that matters is that judges pretend like it means what he wants it to mean. The FACT that the ninth amendment was to assuage fears that mentioning rights in the constitution would make people think those were the only rights that were protected, but he would like to pretend it simply leaves it to the states to decide (in which case it would mean the same as the tenth amendment).
He doesn't have to be young. There are a few gray-haired folks on Capitol Hill who think that way, too. (They are wrong, of course. The 9th is very clearly worded.)

All he needs to be is a fanatic, and I guess he's shown us that he is.

I am 30. Not too young. Not too old. Speaking of the constitution....where does it grant a right to an abortion?

I am 30. Not too young. Not too old. Speaking of the constitution....where does it grant a right to an abortion?
Yes, we'll pretend the ninth doesn't exist again. This'll be fun. Why accept reality?

I am 30. Not too young. Not too old. Speaking of the constitution....where does it grant a right to an abortion?
I thought you said you were leaving because you couldn't stand the onslaught of insults (i.e. arguments you have no answer to). What, you lack the strength of even such a small conviction?

Or maybe you're trying to change the topic. Do you think you'll fare any better with constitutional law than you did with answers to 4 little questions?

I thought you said you were leaving because you couldn't stand the onslaught of insults (i.e. arguments you have no answer to). What, you lack the strength of even such a small conviction?

Or maybe you're trying to change the topic. Do you think you'll fare any better with constitutional law than you did with answers to 4 little questions?

Well, in the other thread he just ended up bailing when the arguments got too tough there and never returned. So I guess he figures he'll bring it up here again.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11033462&postcount=175
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.


Now, you'll notice that it says that it is designed to prevent the argument that if not enumerated it can be ruled on. With the fourteenth amendment this same protection from rule extends to the states.

You blew your attempt at the last conversation. My questions "sucked" I was " a fanatic". I was " ignorant". I was " pathetic". Look, you guys can get serious now. I will take your word for it that you did not like the last topic I brought up. You just baited me with various insults. I will have a serious discussion with you.

Where is the right to abortion found in the constitution?

give me your strongest statement in support of your position that you can without it becoming a personal attack. Go for it. I won't leave. This is called "civilized debate". I thought that was what I was gonna get the last two times with you. Let's try it for real.

Well, in the other thread he just ended up bailing when the arguments got too tough there and never returned. So I guess he figures he'll bring it up here again.
Well, let's see, he said he was bailing on his 4 questions argument after just, what, 3 pages? How long before he does the same with this one, and then I wonder what other talking points he could bring up and bail on, and in what sequence will he go through them?

give me your strongest statement in support of your position that you can without it becoming a personal attack. Go for it. I won't leave. This is called "civilized debate". I thought that was what I was gonna get the last two times with you. Let's try it for real.

You got the answers already. You never replied. Why should we repost? Saying your questions suck is not more rude than you accuse people who don't agree with you of being unable to grasp your points. The difference is that we are willing to support our debate with more than spewed talking points. So far, your evidence requires us not to actually read your sources as they actually support our side of the debate.

You blew your attempt at the last conversation. My questions "sucked" I was " a fanatic". I was " ignorant". I was " pathetic". Look, you guys can get serious now. I will take your word for it that you did not like the last topic I brought up. You just baited me with various insults. I will have a serious discussion with you.

Pray tell, where did I insult you?

I must say I find it rather interesting that you have completely ignored all of my posts.

You blew your attempt at the last conversation. My questions "sucked" I was " a fanatic". I was " ignorant". I was " pathetic". Look, you guys can get serious now. I will take your word for it that you did not like the last topic I brought up. You just baited me with various insults. I will have a serious discussion with you.

Where is the right to abortion found in the constitution?

No, we didn't bait you with various insults. We answered your questions and peppered our replies with snarky comments. You haven't replied to any of the replies to you in several threads. Why should we waste our time? Your modus operandi is to enter threads, preach and when people have you nailed to simply ignore them or leave. What makes that interesting debate?

You blew your attempt at the last conversation. My questions "sucked" I was " a fanatic". I was " ignorant". I was " pathetic". Look, you guys can get serious now. I will take your word for it that you did not like the last topic I brought up. You just baited me with various insults. I will have a serious discussion with you.
Unfortunately, all legitimate criticisms of your arguments. And you not only insulted us ("those who cannot grasp") but also engaged in some threatening tones (that charming little poem of yours). Now you want to get serious? I refer you to posts 507 and 516. Address the points, if you can.

Where is the right to abortion found in the constitution?
Off topic. I don't know about Jocabia, but I am not inclined to let you start a new argument before you have addressed the old one.

Well, let's see, he said he was bailing on his 4 questions argument after just, what, 3 pages? How long before he does the same with this one, and then I wonder what other talking points he could bring up and bail on, and in what sequence will he go through them?


I will let you take this anywhere you want. I will even capitulate your point on the ninth amendment. Lets say that a right to privacy exists. Why does this extend to abortion if abortion clinics get public funding? You might have a better reason, but I'd be interested to hear it.

give me your strongest statement in support of your position that you can without it becoming a personal attack. Go for it. I won't leave. This is called "civilized debate". I thought that was what I was gonna get the last two times with you. Let's try it for real.
You've never debated with me before. Posts 507 and 516. I'll wait. I have things to do, so you'll have plenty of time, too.

The two topics both fall under the larger umbrella. Say that a fetus has no potential. Say that life begins at the third trimester. These things are opinions of individuals. In reality we live with legal abortion on demand as a result of the 1973 roe v. wade ruling of the Supreme Court.

You've never debated with me before. Posts 507 and 516. I'll wait. I have things to do, so you'll have plenty of time, too.

No offense to you. I was talking about Jacobia.

I will let you take this anywhere you want. I will even capitulate your point on the ninth amendment. Lets say that a right to privacy exists. Why does this extend to abortion if abortion clinics get public funding? You might have a better reason, but I'd be interested to hear it.

What is an "abortion clinic"? As far as I can tell, such things are a myth. There are clinics which provide, among other medical procedures, abortions, but I have yet to see a clinic whose sole purpose is abortions.

Meanwhile, those who are on Medicaid and Medicare have the same right to privacy as the rest of us - and their medical care comes directly from public funds. The fact that public funds are used for healthcare does not mean that the right to privacy suddenly stops. Even an inmate on death row has the right to determine his own medical care.

The two topics both fall under the larger umbrella. Say that a fetus has no potential. Say that life begins at the third trimester. These things are opinions of individuals. In reality we live with legal abortion on demand as a result of the 1973 roe v. wade ruling of the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade only guarrateed fully elective abortions up until the end of the first trimester. In the second trimester, further restrictions can be added. In the third trimester, only abortions necessary to preserve the health of the mother must be allowed.

The rest is state-to-state variation within these guidelines.

I will let you take this anywhere you want. I will even capitulate your point on the ninth amendment. Lets say that a right to privacy exists. Why does this extend to abortion if abortion clinics get public funding? You might have a better reason, but I'd be interested to hear it.

Public funding does not remove medical privacy, my friend. If I work for the government, do I have to tell them how I spend my money?

Meanwhile, why are you avoiding our points? Did you realize you were in over your head on a medical debate?

I will let you take this anywhere you want. I will even capitulate your point on the ninth amendment. Lets say that a right to privacy exists. Why does this extend to abortion if abortion clinics get public funding? You might have a better reason, but I'd be interested to hear it.
As I said, I am not inclined to let you start a new game until we have finished the earlier one.

As for this, I will state my position briefly, but I will not pursue it until you have addressed my earlier posts. My position is that, if there is a right to privacy, and that right covers medical decisions/procedures/treatments, then it covers abortion too, because abortion is a medical decision/procedure.

If privacy protects medical decisions/procedures, then you must show a compelling reason why ONE medical decision/procedure should not protected. This puts you right back where we left off, at posts 507 and 516.

This is all I will say on this matter until you address the earlier one.

No offense to you. I was talking about Jacobia.

And Straughn and the various other posters you've made similar comments to. My patience is limited. Every time you get in over your head you bail while complaining about rudeness while being rude. Loaded questions are rude. Telling people they can't grasp your arguments is rude. Particularly when you're not actually making an argument but instead simply preaching and trying to tug at the heart strings.

No offense to you. I was talking about Jacobia.
I know that. I'm sitting at the virtual table, too, and this is an open conversation. I was jumping in on your comment to him.

Roe v. Wade only guarrateed fully elective abortions up until the end of the first trimester. In the second trimester, further restrictions can be added. In the third trimester, only abortions necessary to preserve the health of the mother must be allowed.

The rest is state-to-state variation within these guidelines.

Yes, I agree it did. But what did it base that on? The opinion of the court in Roe seems random to me. It seems like they made it up as they went along.

Yes, I agree it did. But what did it base that on? The opinion of the court in Roe seems random to me. It seems like they made it up as they went along.

Anything but going back to addressing the replies to your invalid developmental claims?

The two topics both fall under the larger umbrella. Say that a fetus has no potential. Say that life begins at the third trimester. These things are opinions of individuals. In reality we live with legal abortion on demand as a result of the 1973 roe v. wade ruling of the Supreme Court.
Insufficient. I now refer you to posts 507, 516 and 561. The last one shows how you cannot pursue your new point without specifically addressing my earlier ones.

My arguement is the following: Roe v. wade was a bad opinion by the court. It was not based in constitutional law. It was based on medical science which was pre-1973. It was based on the concept of "prenumbras" of rights which were hidden in the ninth amendment. My logic is the following: the debate over abortion often comes down to its legality. Here is one thing that I believe to be true:

"From the dissent of Griswold V. Connecticut (1965)"

"The Ninth Amendment ... was intended to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else.....For a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against Federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of Federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs".

Insufficient. I now refer you to posts 507, 516 and 561. The last one shows how you cannot pursue your new point without specifically addressing my earlier ones.

It's called 'dropping arguments' and it seems to be a regular tactic of our friend. It leads me to believe that a discussion isn't what he's looking for. He got dozens of talking points on the developmental issues and no answer. Not the typical practice of someone actually interesting in exploring the topic.

My arguement is the following: Roe v. wade was a bad opinion by the court. It was not based in constitutional law. It was based on medical science which was pre-1973. It was based on the concept of "prenumbras" of rights which were hidden in the ninth amendment. My logic is the following: the debate over abortion often comes down to its legality. Here is one thing that I believe to be true:

"From the dissent of Griswold V. Connecticut (1965)"

"The Ninth Amendment ... was intended to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else.....For a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against Federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of Federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs".

And we'll be happy to debunk that when we get a reply to the arguments we ALREADY made that you dropped. If you're just going to drop arguments every time it gets hairy, then we might as well not bother.

Yes, I agree it did. But what did it base that on? The opinion of the court in Roe seems random to me. It seems like they made it up as they went along.

Not really. The right to privacy was established in earlier cases, and was used in Roe. As for the points at which the various levels of restriction are allowed, those came out of medical and scientific testimony and literature - with the courts establishing points at which the state can claim a compelling interest in protecting the fetus. The reasons for the timepoints used have already been explained in earlier posts.


Are you, by the way, going to answer any of my earlier posts?

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.
Abortion is a heated political topic that should be decided by heated political elections, votes, and the people.

It's called 'dropping arguments' and it seems to be a regular tactic of our friend. It leads me to believe that a discussion isn't what he's looking for. He got dozens of talking points on the developmental issues and no answer. Not the typical practice of someone actually interesting in exploring the topic.
He's not interested in exploring topics at all, but I guess we all know that. I'm just bored with this dropped argument thing, and I'm not in the mood to let him get away with it. And anyway, he can't chase this point if he drops those.

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.
Abortion is a heated political topic that should be decided by heated political elections, votes, and the people.
Then enter the debate and address the points that Dempublicents, Jocabia and I have already brought up.

Not really. The right to privacy was established in earlier cases, and was used in Roe. As for the points at which the various levels of restriction are allowed, those came out of medical and scientific testimony and literature - with the courts establishing points at which the state can claim a compelling interest in protecting the fetus. The reasons for the timepoints used have already been explained in earlier posts.


Are you, by the way, going to answer any of my earlier posts?

We discussed this is another thread. When his claims were debunked he conveniently went to bed and never returned. I linked the thread.

Not really. The right to privacy was established in earlier cases, and was used in Roe. As for the points at which the various levels of restriction are allowed, those came out of medical and scientific testimony and literature - with the courts establishing points at which the state can claim a compelling interest in protecting the fetus. The reasons for the timepoints used have already been explained in earlier posts.


Are you, by the way, going to answer any of my earlier posts?

The "right to privacy" was mention in cases earlier than Griswold? I did not know that. Which ones? The real question is why do the justices of the court have the arrogance to believe that they are the ones who decide when the state has a compelling interest. My state may have a different opinion as to when the compelling interest begins than Massachusetts for example. Let me look up your old posts. You seem very reasonable compared to some others.

The "right to privacy" was mention in cases earlier than Griswold? I did not know that. Which ones? The real question is why do the justices of the court have the arrogance to believe that they are the ones who decide when the state has a compelling interest. My state may have a different opinion as to when the compelling interest begins than Massachusetts for example. Let me look up your old posts. You seem very reasonable compared to some others.

I suppose the fact that your own sources didn't agree with the medical argument you were making made a losing argument so you figure you'll try another tactic. You lost this one too. You might as well at least flesh the medical argument out a bit more.

EDIT: Actually, I should point out that abandoning a losing argument is actually impressive as it proves you recognize when you're losing that argument. However, it would be polite to simply admit you were in over your head.

The "right to privacy" was mention in cases earlier than Griswold? I did not know that. Which ones? The real question is why do the justices of the court have the arrogance to believe that they are the ones who decide when the state has a compelling interest. My state may have a different opinion as to when the compelling interest begins than Massachusetts for example. Let me look up your old posts. You seem very reasonable compared to some others.
Compared to whom? To the people whose arguments you apparently cannot answer? Trust me, you will not run rings round Dempublicents, either. She is exceedingly good at this game.

What is an "abortion clinic"? As far as I can tell, such things are a myth. There are clinics which provide, among other medical procedures, abortions, but I have yet to see a clinic whose sole purpose is abortions.




http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/alabama.html

http://www.drhern.com/

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/newyork.html

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/listing.html

those are some.

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/alabama.html

http://www.drhern.com/

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/newyork.html

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/listing.html

those are some.

None of which say that abortions are all that they do. All of them appear to be women's health services that include abortion. In fact, many of them specfically list other things they offer like OB/GYN visits. Yet another set of links that support your opponents. You have any that support you?

It is also true, as you point out, that medical privacy is a right that is generally accepted under law.

It is also true, as you point out, that medical privacy is a right that is generally accepted under law.

Yet you argue against it. And not generally accepted. Guaranteed.

None of which say that abortions are all that they do. All of them appear to be women's health services that include abortion. In fact, many of them specfically list other things they offer like OB/GYN visits. Yet another set of links that support your opponents. You have any that support you?

I think you mistook the point I was trying to make. You asked what an abortion clinic was. Those are some. Many also perform various other health services. That has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

I think you mistook the point I was trying to make. You asked what an abortion clinic was. Those are some. Many also perform various other health services. That has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

She didn't ask. She said they aren't abortion clinics, and it's an improper term and then explained why she thinks that. Then she told you what kind of clinic DOES exist. Your reply was to link to clinics like the ones she was talking about. How does that help your argument?

Yet you argue against it. And not generally accepted. Guaranteed.


I am just not sure how it is guarenteed under law. The ninth amendment is a good reference point but how do we know what rights are protected under it. Is there a right to cloning under the ninth amendment? I am not willing to go that far.

I am just not sure how it is guarenteed under law. The ninth amendment is a good reference point but how do we know what rights are protected under it. Is there a right to cloning under the ninth amendment? I am not willing to go that far.

Interesting how I'm good enough to talk to now. Still waiting for you to STOP dropping arguments.

She didn't ask. She said they aren't abortion clinics, and it's an improper term and then explained why she thinks that. Then she told you what kind of clinic DOES exist. Your reply was to link to clinics like the ones she was talking about. How does that help your argument?

They advertise themselves as abortion clinics so I called them that. She called that an improper thing to do. I don't care if they do other things than abortions also. They call themselves abortion clinics with "abortion on demand".

They advertise themselves as abortion clinics so I called them that. She called that an improper thing to do. I don't care if they do other things than abortions also. They call themselves abortion clinics with "abortion on demand".

I advertise myself under efficiency experts. I'm not one, but people looking for what I do mistaking look for that term, so I have to or turn away work. Still not an efficiency expert.

Meanwhile, still waiting for you to stop dropping arguments.

And Jacobia, I want to respond to your claims about the ninth amendment. Where does one draw the line with these unnamed rights to liberty and privacy? How far can one take them? There are many things that one can call liberty or privacy from cocaine selling to machine gun stockpiling which I think are not granted under that amendment.

Interesting how I'm good enough to talk to now. Still waiting for you to STOP dropping arguments.
I'm still not good enough for him to talk to, apparently. Funny, how I'm not offended at all. ;)

I'm still not good enough for him to talk to, apparently. Funny, how I'm not offended at all. ;)

What is it you want to ask? I'l try hard to answer.

And Jacobia, I want to respond to your claims about the ninth amendment. Where does one draw the line with these unnamed rights to liberty and privacy? How far can one take them? There are many things that one can call liberty or privacy from cocaine selling to machine gun stockpiling which I think are not granted under that amendment.

I'll be glad to reply when you stop dropping arguments. Since your tactics evidence the fact that you drop arguments when they get too hairy, I'm not going to waste my time until you reply to the posts we took to the time to map out.

ok lets do it your way. Lets go. What is it that I need to respond too?

And Jacobia, I want to respond to your claims about the ninth amendment. Where does one draw the line with these unnamed rights to liberty and privacy? How far can one take them? There are many things that one can call liberty or privacy from cocaine selling to machine gun stockpiling which I think are not granted under that amendment.
FYI, until the first half of the 20th century, it was perfectly legal to sell cocaine in the US. You didn't even need a prescription for it. It was in practically every kind of remedy. As for stockpiling machine guns, take that up with the 2nd Amendment. Have you ever actually read the Constitution? You know, the Bill of Rights is part of it.

What is it you want to ask? I'l try hard to answer.

He told you what posts to reply to. You still haven't. You're not the first to pull this tactic. To pretend like we aren't worth talking to when they're not happy with what we have to say. It's amusing but it's poor debate.

"I'm willing to answer all your questions... well except for the posts I didn't like that destroyed all my points."

What is it you want to ask? I'l try hard to answer.
Posts 507, 516, and 561 of this thread.

If you make me type it again, I will be cross with you.

Posts 507, 516, and 561 of this thread.

If you make me type it again, I will be cross with you.

Or how about he just goes back to that part of the thread, look for the posts he didn't address and then addresses them. It's not a magic trick.

FYI, until the first half of the 20th century, it was perfectly legal to sell cocaine in the US. You didn't even need a prescription for it. It was in practically every kind of remedy. As for stockpiling machine guns, take that up with the 2nd Amendment. Have you ever actually read the Constitution? You know, the Bill of Rights is part of it.


Oh I have. I am fully aware of such amendments. There is a difference between a constitutional right and a state law that gives you a right. Cocaine selling was legal for those dime store meds back in the old days. That does not mean it was a constitutional right. It was a right under law but not overtly protected under the constitution. Most rights are like this. For example, there is no constitutional right to memorial day. But under the laws of the United States we celebrate it. The constitution serves as a framework for the construction of laws, not as a guarenteer of every right you can imagine. As it relates to abortion, why not let the states decide? Why not let Congress decide? like any other law...

Or how about he just goes back to that part of the thread, look for the posts he didn't address and then addresses them. It's not a magic trick.
If he actually comes up with some answers to our points, I'll be as amazed as if he turned a lady into a tiger.

Oh I have. I am fully aware of such amendments. There is a difference between a constitutional right and a state law that gives you a right. Cocaine selling was legal for those dime store meds back in the old days. That does not mean it was a constitutional right. It was a right under law but not overtly protected under the constitution. Most rights are like this. For example, there is no constitutional right to memorial day. But under the laws of the United States we celebrate it. The constitution serves as a framework for the construction of laws, not as a guarenteer of every right you can imagine. As it relates to abortion, why not let the states decide? Why not let Congress decide? like any other law...
POSTS 507, 516 AND 561, PLEASE.

You made me type it again. I am now very, very annoyed with you.

EDIT: I'm going to bed now. When I log in tomorrow, I expect to see answers to the posts listed above. I don't enjoy having my time wasted, A.

[QUOTE=Muravyets]Actually, there are answers to all those questions, but they are not the answers anti-choicers want.

In re question 1, LIFE already exists, in the egg and sperm, before sex is even had. Every living thing, including every living cell, is LIFE. LIFE is present at every stage of human development until death. The scientific concept of LIFE (capitalized to set apart the concept) is not the same as the moral or philosophical concept of A LIFE, or A HUMAN LIFE. Since the scientific concept of LIFE is an unending continuum, it is meaningless to the issue at hand.

What you really mean by question 1 must be "When does A HUMAN LIFE start?" Science and medicine have an answer for that, too, in the standard for determining life by brain activity. A body whose brain ceases to function is not alive. It is not a leap to conclude that a body whose brain has never yet functioned is also not alive. Ergo, A HUMAN LIFE starts with brain activity, i.e. third trimester.

In re question 2, standard medical practice of all hospitals in the world backs up the brain activity starting point of A HUMAN LIFE.

In re question 3, two points: (1) Morals are subjective, so the mere fact that our morals differ on this issue really proves nothing for either of our arguments. I suggest that its is reason, not morals, which will change people's minds by showing compelling ethical and/or pragmatic cause in favor of one side or the other. (2) Since I am pro-choice, yes, I do think it is acceptable to destroy a fetus before its life begins.

In re question 4, obviously if a person thinks it is okay to destroy a fetus one day before its life begins, then that person would think it is okay to destroy it one month before. Sorry, but that last question is kind of silly.

QUOTE]

First of all I am wary of such loaded rhetoric as "anti-choice". I appreciate that you believe that life is present at conception. I do not understand how you seperate human life from the life of the fetus in the first two trimesters. The fetus has human DNA, human characterists, will be ( in all likelyhood) a human, but you seperate life from human life in this context. That seems illogical. I am not certain about your claims that there is no brain function before the sixth month of pregnancy.

http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ-body.html#critical2

Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)

The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem, which sits above the spinal cord but below the higher, more recently-evolved cerebral cortex. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions--heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.

We simply have a difference of opinion on the third and fourth questions. I believe firmly that the future life of the yet unborn fetus has value even if it has not yet occured. If left unharmed the fetus will be born and live among us. I understand that you disagree but questions 3 and 4 really are opinion questions that are responed to with "yes or no". Your answer was no they have no value and my answer was that they do.

POSTS 507, 516 AND 561, PLEASE.

You made me type it again. I am now very, very annoyed with you.

EDIT: I'm going to bed now. When I log in tomorrow, I expect to see answers to the posts listed above. I don't enjoy having my time wasted, A.


It just took me a while. Your quote was soooo long. Sorry if I ticked you off but it was a lot to respond too!

If you are not alive, how could you want or not want anything?

If you are never alive, what makes you think you would miss it?

If you are never alive, how can you die?

As for that "what's another week?" argument, if I don't want to be pregnant, then I'm not likely to buy into that, am I?

Oh, and to add to the point that there is no such thing as an elective third-trimester abortion, the vast majority of abortions, elective or otherwise, are performed in the FIRST trimester. Are you going to argue "what's another six months" next?

You are right that I would not know at the time. But let me rephrase my clumsy speech. If I had a twin that was aborted I would feel like I had been robbed of a twin. If I had a son who was aborted I would feel like it was a kid that I never got to know. Sure, they may never have been alive, but it makes me think, if only the fetus had not been ripped apart, I would have had a son or a brother. I hope that you would buy into the " what's another week" arguement because it is a real one. If you only waited 40 weeks you would give birth to a child. The arguement extends back to conception. Why destroy your own offspring that has its own unique DNA? Why destroy somthing that if you only let develope will be your child? a baby , the most wonderous thing in all of the world.

It seems like the new left, whether it be Iraq or abortion, always has to make fun of and try to break down its opponent.

It seems like the new left, whether it be Iraq or abortion, always has to make fun of and try to break down its opponent.

Well, there's the difference to the right, then. The left has a sense of humour.... ;)

You are right that I would not know at the time. But let me rephrase my clumsy speech. If I had a twin that was aborted I would feel like I had been robbed of a twin. If I had a son who was aborted I would feel like it was a kid that I never got to know. Sure, they may never have been alive, but it makes me think, if only the fetus had not been ripped apart, I would have had a son or a brother. I hope that you would buy into the " what's another week" arguement because it is a real one. If you only waited 40 weeks you would give birth to a child. The arguement extends back to conception. Why destroy your own offspring that has its own unique DNA? Why destroy somthing that if you only let develope will be your child? a baby , the most wonderous thing in all of the world.

So, what you're saying is that you as a relative would mourn the possibility that there may have some day been a child? And you want restrictive legislation on that ground?

If you left the foetus alone it would have a - what? - 40% chance of growing into a baby. A great number of pregnancies end before coming to term, actually, even without abortion.

And has it ever occured to you that a baby may not necessarily be the most wonderful thing in the world, and that an unwanted child can in fact ruin and destroy the mothers life in more than one way?

Yeah, I can be pretty funny when you get me going. But the guys on this thread were really being rude.

So, what you're saying is that you as a relative would mourn the possibility that there may have some day been a child? And you want restrictive legislation on that ground?

If you left the foetus alone it would have a - what? - 40% chance of growing into a baby. A great number of pregnancies end before coming to term, actually, even without abortion.

And has it ever occured to you that a baby may not necessarily be the most wonderful thing in the world, and that an unwanted child can in fact ruin and destroy the mothers life in more than one way?

May become a child? It will become a child! Can you source your claim on a 60% fetal death rate? That's in America? On your last comment I have to wonder...are you justifiying the destruction of one life to make another more convenient?

CBS News Poll. April 6-9, 2006. MoE ± 3.
"What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases. (2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. (3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. OR, (4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life."

all cases- 29%
greater restrictions-17%
Rape,incest, womans life-33%
only woman's life-14%
never-4%

currently, about 4% of abortions are non-elective ( rape, incest, womans life). 51% of the public supports only these abortions. That would bring the abortion rate down to only 50,000 per year instead of 1.2 million per year

only 29% support unlimited abortion on demand, which is demanded of every state under Roe

.

May become a child? It will become a child! Can you source your claim on a 60% fetal death rate? That's in America?

It is worldwide. Most pregnancies end in a natural abortion, without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. Lots of tampax with fertilised eggs in them are thrown in the dustbin every day.

On your last comment I have to wonder...are you justifiying the destruction of one life to make another more convenient?

We do that all the time. I at least asssume you eat even when not truly hungry ?
Where the opinions diverge is when life has so much value that there should be restrictions on ending it "for convenience". Your reasoning is based on the idea that the fetus life is always that valuable. The reasoning of many pro-choice advocates is that the fetus life is only valuable from the moment the fetus itself ascribes value to it.

It is worldwide. Most pregnancies end in a natural abortion, without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. Lots of tampax with fertilised eggs in them are thrown in the dustbin every day.



We do that all the time. I at least asssume you eat even when not truly hungry ?
Where the opinions diverge is when life has so much value that there should be restrictions on ending it "for convenience". Your reasoning is based on the idea that the fetus life is always that valuable. The reasoning of many pro-choice advocates is that the fetus life is only valuable from the moment the fetus itself ascribes value to it.

But that's scary! Lets see, when did you first ascribe value to your life? how old were you? It was ok to destroy you before that?

also, what source are you basing 40% on? What is it in America?

But that's scary! Lets see, when did you first ascribe value to your life? how old were you? It was ok to destroy you before that?

About when my neural net was formed and I could experience things. Well before I was born, well after conception and the date most abortions are performed.

Killing me before that would have perfectly ok - since I would have never known and there was no me. Just a clump of cells, experiencing nothing.

also, what source are you basing 40% on? What is it in America?

The 40% was not my number, but there is support for it:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
http://www.emcom.ca/health/abortion.shtml
Though they estimate it at 50%.

I voted that it should stay legal, not because of any moral arguement, but because of a logical look at the human race. If it's not legal, then people are going to do it illegally, and a LOT more people are going to die that way. Since it IS going to happen, I'd rather it happen within a safe and medically stable environment. I think it's arrogant and rediculous to say that if abortions were illegal they wouldn't happen... we need to look beyond that and see the facts. They WILL happen, but whether by a doctor or by some guy with a coat hanger in a back alley (like it used to be) is our choice. I chose the healthier route.

Right now, in most of America, abortions are legal to a certain time period in the pregnancy, so there's no second or third trimester abortions, no partial birth abortions, and anyone over the time limit is pointed firmly to adoption agencies. I support this. The bombing of the facilities, the protesting with graphic pictures and violence towards the people who enter, the blind and self-righteous belief that everyone in the world MUST believe as some do... that I do not support.

Just for the record, I am christian (nondenominational), and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life. That includes the people who work in the clinics and the mothers (and fathers) who have to make this horribly serious decision.

Just for the record, I am christian (nondenominational), and I believe strongly in the sanctity of life.

You do realise that God doesn't I hope ? As in Him being completely indifferent as to what happens to an embryo ? ( see e.g. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - notice the lack of comments like "but wait 9 months so the chiild can be saved". Abortion is simply not adressed in the Bible.)

The healthiest way to deal with the abortion issue is to address the CAUSES of abortions.

I think we can all agree on that.

You do realise that God doesn't I hope ? As in Him being completely indifferent as to what happens to an embryo ? ( see e.g. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - notice the lack of comments like "but wait 9 months so the chiild can be saved". Abortion is simply not adressed in the Bible.)

Well, God's opinion of the sanctity of life is shown pretty clearly by the flood, yeah? :P There's also that verse that shows up now and then in these debates that if a pregnant woman is hit so that she loses the child the assailant will pay a small fine to her husband.

I never mentioned the Bible at all in my post, and I never supported my arguement with moral or spiritual claims at all. Did you read the entire post? I mentioned my belief system in the hopes to reach the other believers out there with a bit of logic and reasoning and maybe show at least one person that forcing their morals down another persons throat ... or in this case, millions, with lawmaking ... is not how we should approach the issue. If I can get just one of my siblings to lighten up a bit then the world would be a better place.

May become a child? It will become a child! Can you source your claim on a 60% fetal death rate? That's in America? On your last comment I have to wonder...are you justifiying the destruction of one life to make another more convenient?

It had a chance of becoming a child. It won't necessarily become a child.

To give some numbers here :

"Miscarriages occur more often than most people think. About 25% of women will experience one in their lives. Up to 78% of all conceptions may fail, in most cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant.[1] A fifth of confirmed pregnancies have some bleeding occurring in the first 20 weeks and in all 15% proceed to miscarriage.[2] After the age of 35, the risk of miscarriage increases considerably: 1 in 5 or 6. After 40, the risk increases to 1 in 3, and after 45 it is 1 in 2." Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage)

I'm not justifying the destruction of life, as I personally wouldn't call a fertilized egg life. I do, however, justify the destruction of a parasitic lump of cells to save another life from destruction.

Was my disablity "an act of nature"? was it "God's will"? Should we just let children born with defects die so that "nature can take its course"?

I don't know what your disability is a result of. Every human life is as sacred as another.

It seems like the new left, whether it be Iraq or abortion, always has to make fun of and try to break down its opponent.

That's because someone upset because two people are having sex the wrong way alone in their bedroom is not a person that ascribes to the science of logic. When they start with arguments like "Look how pretty the fetus is," well, they deserve a little ridicule.

Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution.
Abortion is a heated political topic that should be decided by heated political elections, votes, and the people.

Contraception and vasectomies aren't mentioned in the Constitution either. If a town that is majority Catholic wants to, should they be able to deny all citizens in their midst access to condoms, birth control pills, and vasectomies?

*takes Beer and eat popcorns*

*gets refills for everyone*

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.

And that helps who?

They advertise themselves as abortion clinics so I called them that. She called that an improper thing to do. I don't care if they do other things than abortions also. They call themselves abortion clinics with "abortion on demand".

Only one of them actually advertised itself as such or seemed to focus near-exclusively on abortions.

The rest were women's or reproductive health clinics, with abortion being one of the services offered.

As it relates to abortion, why not let the states decide? Why not let Congress decide? like any other law...

Are we goign to have the states and Congress decide whether or not you can get each and every medical procedure you might want/need? Should the states or Congress decide whether or not I can get a birth control pill prescription? Should they decide whether or not I can get an emergency apendectomy? Should they decide whether or not I can buy condoms? Should they decide whether or not I can get immunized against Heptatitis?

Or should these things be my decision?

I believe firmly that the future life of the yet unborn fetus has value even if it has not yet occured.

Yes, many of us do. Many of us also realize that the value we place upon that potential is a subjective value, and that others do not share it. What right do we have to force it upon them?

First of all I am wary of such loaded rhetoric as "anti-choice".

You mean like the term "pro-abortion"? Don't set the terms of debate and then get upset when people respond in kind.

I appreciate that you believe that life is present at conception. I do not understand how you seperate human life from the life of the fetus in the first two trimesters.

He didn't say life of the fetus. He said life of the cells. Don't misrepresent his argument. The fetus as an organism does not qualify for life until near the second trimester.

The fetus has human DNA, human characterists, will be ( in all likelyhood) a human, but you seperate life from human life in this context.

No, he is seperating the scientific life requirements from the medical life requirements. Do you want to change the requirements for life at death as well?

That seems illogical. I am not certain about your claims that there is no brain function before the sixth month of pregnancy.

Then look it up and actually read your source. There are no reliable sources that claim the forebrain is active prior to the the 22 week of pregnancy (20 weeks after conception). As far as being illogical, you said the same thing a couple of pages earlier, but just said it wrong.

http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ-body.html#critical2

Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)

The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem, which sits above the spinal cord but below the higher, more recently-evolved cerebral cortex. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions--heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.

Yes, read that properly. You talking about the creation of the brainstem and its activity. I'll bold for you. It mentions it is not the Cerebral Cortex which is the part of the brain that must be functioning in order for us to consider a human being alive.

You really need to start reading your sources. That's yet another that we often use to prove our statements. It very much says the forebrain is NOT operating earlier than when we claim.

We simply have a difference of opinion on the third and fourth questions. I believe firmly that the future life of the yet unborn fetus has value even if it has not yet occured. If left unharmed the fetus will be born and live among us. I understand that you disagree but questions 3 and 4 really are opinion questions that are responed to with "yes or no". Your answer was no they have no value and my answer was that they do.
Wrong. This is simply untrue. The human life that MAY come is far from guaranteed if no medical abortion occurs. Another point you've yet to address.

Yeah, I can be pretty funny when you get me going. But the guys on this thread were really being rude.

You were being equally rude by absolutely refusing to answer several posts, including mine, in answer to your questions. The minute you got answered, you skipped out of the conversation and moved on.

only 29% support unlimited abortion on demand, which is demanded of every state under Roe

We've been over this already. Roe does not require unlimited abortion on demand, and there isn't a single state in the union that actually has unlimited abortion on demand.

May become a child? It will become a child! Can you source your claim on a 60% fetal death rate? That's in America? On your last comment I have to wonder...are you justifiying the destruction of one life to make another more convenient?

Ha. You are so unaware of the statistics. It's estimated that about fifty percent of conceptions spontaneously abort, many times without a woman ever being aware of the conception. We're not talking about stillbirth. Why do you think artificial implantation is so difficult? In order for a successful pregnancy to occur everything has to be perfect and that's a much more rare occurrence that you seem to realize.

You are right that I would not know at the time. But let me rephrase my clumsy speech. If I had a twin that was aborted I would feel like I had been robbed of a twin. If I had a son who was aborted I would feel like it was a kid that I never got to know. Sure, they may never have been alive, but it makes me think, if only the fetus had not been ripped apart, I would have had a son or a brother. I hope that you would buy into the " what's another week" arguement because it is a real one. If you only waited 40 weeks you would give birth to a child. The arguement extends back to conception. Why destroy your own offspring that has its own unique DNA? Why destroy somthing that if you only let develope will be your child? a baby , the most wonderous thing in all of the world.

And this is why we make jokes. There is nothing about this that is a logical appeal. We are appealing to the brain and you are appealing to the heart. Why? Is it because there is no logical reason to deny abortions so you need to try and make people feel guilty?

Posts you didn't answer -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11052474&postcount=511http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11052539&postcount=523
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11052583&postcount=531

And I'm a bit tired of recreating the same arguments so if you'd like an informative post I wrote on the development of the brain and neural activity -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10556144&postcount=179

Notice one of my sources is a source you used, and it very much support our position on the activity of the brain. Another source compares brain activity up until the third trimester to the activity of "anencephalics" and those with "forebrain destruction". That means that without a brain the fetus is capable of the same activity and would certainly be pronounced dead when born unless more complex activity develops.

First of all I am wary of such loaded rhetoric as "anti-choice".
You consider "anti-choice" to be more loaded than your own phrase "pro-abortion"? Please. :rolleyes:

I appreciate that you believe that life is present at conception. I do not understand how you seperate human life from the life of the fetus in the first two trimesters. The fetus has human DNA, human characterists, will be ( in all likelyhood) a human, but you seperate life from human life in this context. That seems illogical. I am not certain about your claims that there is no brain function before the sixth month of pregnancy.

http://www.zerotothree.org/brainwonders/FAQ-body.html#critical2

Generally speaking, the central nervous system (which is composed of the brain and the spinal cord) matures in a sequence from "tail" to head. In just the fifth week after conception, the first synapses begin forming in a fetus's spinal cord. By the sixth week, these early neural connections permit the first fetal movements--spontaneous arches and curls of the whole body--that researchers can detect through ultrasound imaging. Many other movements soon follow--of the limbs (around eight weeks) and fingers (ten weeks), as well as some surprisingly coordinated actions (hiccuping, stretching, yawning, sucking, swallowing, grasping, and thumb-sucking). By the end of the first trimester, a fetus's movement repertoire is remarkably rich, even though most pregnant women can feel none of it. (Most women sense the first fetal movements around eighteen weeks of pregnancy.)

The second trimester marks the onset of other critical reflexes: continuous breathing movements (that is, rhythmic contractions of the diaphragm and chest muscles) and coordinated sucking and swallowing reflexes. These abilities are controlled by the brainstem, which sits above the spinal cord but below the higher, more recently-evolved cerebral cortex. The brainstem is responsible for many of our body's most vital functions--heart rate, breathing, and blood pressure. It is largely mature by the end of the second trimester, which is when babies first become able to survive outside the womb.

We simply have a difference of opinion on the third and fourth questions. I believe firmly that the future life of the yet unborn fetus has value even if it has not yet occured. If left unharmed the fetus will be born and live among us. I understand that you disagree but questions 3 and 4 really are opinion questions that are responed to with "yes or no". Your answer was no they have no value and my answer was that they do.
In addition to our difference of opinion, we are also hindered by your absolute inability (or is it refusal) to actually address a point.

I explained the difference between the scientific concept of life and the philosophical concept of a human life. I did it as carefully as I possibly could, even using GREAT BIG LETTERS to make sure you saw the difference. So I'm pretty sure you saw it. You claim not to understand it. That is possible, I suppose. But you could also simply be choosing to ignore it because you can't argue against it.

You have not addressed any of my points. You have merely posted another soapbox speech of anti-choice propaganda. I have seen numerous sources posted by people far more medically qualified than me that completely contradict what you claim as facts. Interestingly, I have never seen any anti-choicer post any source for their facts other than zerotothree. Hm. That doesn't build a lot of confidence. In fact, sorry, but it is a source I rejected as unreliable a long time ago.

The bottom line here is that you have not show how your argument answers or counters my points. You have not shown any flaw in my argument at all. All you are saying here is "I think differently from you." Well, we already knew that. But thanks for trying at last, and at least. Too bad it didn't accomplish much.


EDIT: Disclaimer = I want to clarify that I don't really have anything against zerotothree per se. It may well be a good source of facts. It's just that anti-choicers love it so much and use it so consistently, that I find it too easily manipulated by biased readers. So I prefer not to use it. Just like I wouldn't always go to the same newspaper for my information and if my opponent did, then I would suspect he was not giving me good facts that he had checked himself.

WHAWHAWHAAAATTT?? :eek: :eek: :eek:

This thread again???

:rolleyes:

You are right that I would not know at the time. But let me rephrase my clumsy speech. If I had a twin that was aborted I would feel like I had been robbed of a twin.
Not if you were not told about it.

If I had a son who was aborted I would feel like it was a kid that I never got to know.
And if your son died after he was born? Who would you blame then?

Sure, they may never have been alive, but it makes me think, if only the fetus had not been ripped apart, I would have had a son or a brother.
So your interest in this is purely selfish then. You're worried about how you would feel? No concern for the eventual child, or for the woman right in front of you? Only poor little you who doesn't have a cuddly little baby to play with? "If only the fetus had not been ripped apart, how much nicer that would have been for me." This is the worst kind of sentimentalism. Blech.

I hope that you would buy into the " what's another week" arguement because it is a real one. If you only waited 40 weeks you would give birth to a child. The arguement extends back to conception. Why destroy your own offspring that has its own unique DNA? Why destroy somthing that if you only let develope will be your child? a baby , the most wonderous thing in all of the world.
I don't want to have a child. Get it?

If I get pregnant, it will be because my birth control failed. I made a deliberate decision not to have a child. What makes you think I'll change my mind just because one little sperm made it through the barricades? Your little miracle is not welcome in my uterus. My uterus is closed for business. Baby Wonderous needs to get the fuck out, preferably while he's still a wonderously microscopic globule of miracle goo.

Here's what we can conclude from this little happy-dance through tele-tubby land with you: You want to claim that the instant a sperm joins with an egg, a fully realized baby exists. Leaving aside the fact that this is nonsense, scientifically, let me ask you:

Do you oppose the use of contraception?

Do you oppose allowing abortions to save the life of the woman?

I just want to know the limits of your position.



PS: FYI and just as an aside, sentimentalism makes me ill. It hits me like the stink from a candy factory. Sickening.

It seems like the new left, whether it be Iraq or abortion, always has to make fun of and try to break down its opponent.
Oh, now it's a left vs right issue? Sorry, A, but I know plenty of pro-choice Republicans and Conservatives. Especially real Conservatives, the ones who want the government to stay out the citizens' private lives. So you can put "left" back into your demonizing labels folder. It was weak to begin with.

Oh, and we tear you down because we can -- and we can because your arguments are crap.

And we make fun of you because you're funny. :p