NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that the debate about abortion revolves around one question: What is the unborn being.

If the unborn is a living being deserving of rights, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal, likewise if the unborn is not a living being then abortion is a medical procedure and a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Here's the way I see this:
A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed.
B. In a civilized society these are not grounds for the loss of rights (i.e. the young cannot be killed because they are young, the mentally challenged are protected, your location does not dictate wether you should live or die)>
C. Therefore abortion impedes on the fetuses rights (I.e. life, liberty, and property (pursuit of hapiness).
D. Abortion is murder and should be illegal.

Lets get to the discussion.

http://users.pandora.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Seriously, the abortion "debate" is so 60 years ago. Pro-choice (and thus sanity) won. Get over it.

http://users.pandora.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Seriously, the abortion "debate" is so 60 years ago. Pro-choice won. Get over it.
I'll see that and raise you a 'Fuck me running. Not again!"

http://users.pandora.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Seriously, the abortion "debate" is so 60 years ago. Pro-choice (and thus sanity) won. Get over it.
Was it 'sanity' for the unbor...

No, actually, you were right with the picture. It's far too late to get into a "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" 'debate'.

I'll see that and raise you a 'Fuck me running. Not again!"

Fuck you running? Your cheeks would chafe.

Nerdy Individuals']It seems to me that the debate about abortion revolves around one question: What is the unborn being.

If the unborn is a living being deserving of rights, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal, likewise if the unborn is not a living being then abortion is a medical procedure and a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Here's the way I see this:
A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed.
B. In a civilized society these are not grounds for the loss of rights (i.e. the young cannot be killed because they are young, the mentally challenged are protected, your location does not dictate wether you should live or die)>
C. Therefore abortion impedes on the fetuses rights (I.e. life, liberty, and property (pursuit of hapiness).
D. Abortion is murder and should be illegal.

Lets get to the discussion.
It's not just less intelligent than me, it's less intelligent than a groundhog during much of it's development. (assuming brain size and development correlates to intelligence)

We don't charge people with murder for killing a groundhog.

It's also dependent on another person's body for it's life. That person's right to her body outweighs anyone else's. If not, then the law could force you to give up your extra kidney and lung for transplant.

Not as simple as you thought, is it?

I'll see that and raise you a 'Fuck me running. Not again!"
Up a hill. Wearing high heels.

the essential question of abortion is one of human rights. when does the right of a potential person overrule the rights of an actual human being?

im very satisified with the general outline given by the supreme court of the united states in roe v wade. the extremely potential embryo/early fetus has no rights whatsoever; the all-but-born fetus can only be terminated for extreme medical reasons; in between is decided on a state by state, case by case basis.

Nerdy Individuals']It seems to me that the debate about abortion revolves around one question: What is the unborn being.

If the unborn is a living being deserving of rights, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal, likewise if the unborn is not a living being then abortion is a medical procedure and a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Here's the way I see this:
A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed.
B. In a civilized society these are not grounds for the loss of rights (i.e. the young cannot be killed because they are young, the mentally challenged are protected, your location does not dictate wether you should live or die)>
C. Therefore abortion impedes on the fetuses rights (I.e. life, liberty, and property (pursuit of hapiness).
D. Abortion is murder and should be illegal.

Lets get to the discussion.
I agree. There should be no abortion. It must be illegal, and not only that, we need to put in place extensive state programmes for helping mothers every step of the way. This will crush the illegal abortion trade.

It's not just less intelligent than me, it's less intelligent than a groundhog during much of it's development. (assuming brain size and development correlates to intelligence)

We don't charge people with murder for killing a groundhog.

It's also dependent on another person's body for it's life. That person's right to her body outweighs anyone else's. If not, then the law could force you to give up your extra kidney and lung for transplant.

Not as simple as you thought, is it?

It is simple, just not black and white.

You are correct, the development of a fetuses brain is extremely less than ours. However, I don't think anyone would suggest that we should kill the retarded (who's brain is less devleoped or developes slower than ours) if they become an inconvenience. Also, killing newborns is illegal, but killing a fetus ten minutes before labor might happen is legal, so if we are using the inelligenc as a judgement, then we should either be able to kill the newborn, or not kill either.

About the right to your body comment, you are correct. The issue here is that the fetus is not part of his/her mother's body, the fetus is it's own body (DNA, blood, possibly a penis). It is true that the fetus is using thew resource of the mothers body, however that is not basis for allowing someone to kill him/her for the following reason:

I. The child is there because the mother choose to have sex, and therefore a child was created.
A. both the mother and the father must take resposibility (and if one doesn't the other should as well).
II. The child is the result of rape.
B. Ther is no reason to punish anyone for their fathers mistake. I suggest punishing the rapist, rather than killing a fetus. Bad things happen, rape is the most terrible thing someone can go through, but hopefully a child produced can at least make some good out of a horrible situation/assault.

http://users.pandora.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

That always makes me laugh purely for the sheer amount of irony inherent in it.

That always makes me laugh purely for the sheer amount of irony inherent in it.

I love when people pick up on it.

I'm for abortion not out of some big idea of what is alive and what isn't more out of the fact that it’s the parents choice if they have kids not the states

Also looking at how things have turned out in Malta(using my experience:) ) I think a legal abortion is far better than having women taking a mixture of illegal pills to get rid of a baby (and no having programmes to help a unplanned mother will not help reduce illegal abortions the slightest no matter how much money you throw at it)

And the thing that always gets me about anti-abortion debates how is a child born in incest and rape any different?

edit: oh and why the hell is this still being debated I though anti-abortionists died out?

Nerdy Individuals'] Also, killing newborns is illegal, but killing a fetus ten minutes before labor might happen is legal,

No, it's not.


B. Ther is no reason to punish anyone for their fathers mistake. I suggest punishing the rapist, rather than killing a fetus. Bad things happen, rape is the most terrible thing someone can go through, but hopefully a child produced can at least make some good out of a horrible situation/assault.

Ignoring the massive physical trauma that a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth? And the risk of death?

Childbirth, and possible death, is hardly just for someone who has been raped, it's more a punishment for being raped than anything else.

http://users.pandora.be/elnutsio/pics/shit.jpg

Seriously, the abortion "debate" is so 60 years ago. Pro-choice (and thus sanity) won. Get over it.

Yeah, you don't see Deep Kimchi starting any abortion threads... and people think I'm crazy...

Nerdy Individuals']

I. The child is there because the mother choose to have sex, and therefore a child was created.
A. both the mother and the father must take resposibility (and if one doesn't the other should as well).

And sometimes the responsible thing is not to have the child. Ever thought of it this way?


II. The child is the result of rape.
B. Ther is no reason to punish anyone for their fathers mistake. I suggest punishing the rapist, rather than killing a fetus. Bad things happen, rape is the most terrible thing someone can go through, but hopefully a child produced can at least make some good out of a horrible situation/assault.

Let me guess... you're a virgin?
This isn't about punishment. This is about the fact that coping with having been raped is hard enough, virtually impossible for some, even without being reminded of that horrible event each and every day for the rest of their lives.

That always makes me laugh purely for the sheer amount of irony inherent in it.
...there's irony--OH!

I think I get it. Let me white it so you can check: It's because it's a picture from the fifties, a time when people would never have accepted abortion, and thus using it to declare pro-life statements annoying is ironic?

...there's irony--OH!

I think I get it. Let me white it so you can check: It's because it's a picture from the fifties, a time when people would never have accepted abortion, and thus using it to declare pro-life statements annoying is ironic?

No, it's because "Aw jeez, not this shit again" could equally be applied to the picture itself, such is its proliferative nature.

No, it's because "Aw jeez, not this shit again" could equally be applied to the picture itself, such is its proliferative nature.
...thus proving that, once again, I think far too deeply and miss the obvious all too easily.

Nerdy Individuals']It seems to me that the debate about abortion revolves around one question: What is the unborn being.

If the unborn is a living being deserving of rights, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal, likewise if the unborn is not a living being then abortion is a medical procedure and a right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution.And it's the latter that's been determined by the SCUS. Do you know why? Have you ever heard of Griswold v. Connecticut? Well, that case decided that sperm ≠ living creature, and so the use of birth control is protected under the implied privacy rights in our Constitution. So when Roe v. Wade came up, they decided that medically speaking, it's not until the second trimester that a fetus can live outside of the womb, therefore it's not a living creature.

Here's the way I see this:
A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed. And not living, to boot.
B. In a civilized society these are not grounds for the loss of rights (i.e. the young cannot be killed because they are young, the mentally challenged are protected, your location does not dictate wether you should live or die)>Well, like I said, we're talking about a grouping of cells that can't actually live on their own. It's like calling amputation murder.
C. Therefore abortion impedes on the fetuses rights (I.e. life, liberty, and property (pursuit of hapiness).No. You're simply incorrect. "Life, liberty, and property" aren't Constitutionally protected. Unless Common Sense has become our body of law.
D. Abortion is murder and should be illegal.No. No it should not.

Lets get to the discussion.Discussion over.

Nerdy Individuals']Lets get to the discussion.
You might also note that these ideas of babies you keep mistaking for actual people don't have the rights you think they do. Notice in the Constitution where it talks about citicenship. Citizenship clearly goes to those who are BORN not concieved, and certainly not could possibly be born, in the United States.

No one is here till they're here. They're not people until they survive initiation into the club. It's been that way for all of recorded history, and just because kooks can now afford to be so ignorant of the world that's no reason to change what's worked for scores of millenia.

If a woman chooses to not have a parasite grow inside her, then pop out to saddle her with all sorts of responsibilities and statutory obligations, well that's what expert medical advice is for. The people who can't understand this simple truth, are the unfortunate products of unrealized abortion opportunities.

There are all kinds of reasons to get an abortion, a few are; My parents will kill me if they find out, or, You don’t understand. They’ll kick me out of the house, maybe, My boyfriend will leave me (or the reversal, I don't want to be with him forever it was a mistake) if I have this baby, perhaps, I’m so embarrassed! What will everyone think? And another one, I’ve got my whole life ahead of me. A baby doesn’t fit into my plans at this time (if ever), or It would be irresponsible of me to raise a child now, I wouldn’t be good for them (because what they don’t say is they won’t stop doing what they are doing simply for the babies sake…) ”.

And what is it that these reasons have in common? The are about us, they are all in the singular. About the me, here and now and the past and future are irrelevant to what I want now (for both men and women, we are talking about the outlook, not the actual act of getting one), Abortion requires a certain self-focusing outlook to make sense, and once it makes sense, it makes perfect and complete, utterly flawless sense. Those who believe in it think it is a logical and unselfish conclusion. Or so it would seem.

The shortsightedness of abortion as a solution to a temporary problem is revealed when the outlook of individuals is transposed with that of the outlook of society and all of the generations that are involved with being a human being . The question of priorities is brought before us in the long term instead of the short term and we begin to see the the question differently. And when I say long term, I mean multiple generations, not just the few decades of an individual’s lifetime.

Do we thank or begrudge our grandparents for the pains and the struggling they went through to raise our parents? And then our parents in turn, to raise us? Are we the end all of their struggles? Were their efforts simply for our personal gain? No. They certainly had us in mind, but not only us, the generations to come after us as well.

Does our personal plan for the next twenty years of our lives really outweigh in priority the rights of those that come after us entirely? If so, then I should be able to pollute with abandon and spend our children’s inheritance without remorse, as the here and now are the only things that matter. But a healthy long-lasting society will have a different answer to those questions.

In the same way that it no longer matters what our retired grandparents used to do in society, as in, they don’t do it anymore and the rewards and benefits of their labor have long since been used up and passed away, our efforts and labors and pains and tribulations will likewise be insignificant to the society of a later time than our own, our own grandchildren will not need to care about our daily struggles or choices, but perhaps they will be thankful for the entire effort. But they won’t thank us if they don’t exist. What we leave them will matter, but even more importantly, we need to ‘choose’ to allow them to exist so that we live through them, as our grandparents and parents effort live through us.

We say we want only wanted children, our efforts will be guided toward the few that we desire better if we aren’t distracted by so many unwanted children, so society is better without the ‘extra’ unwanted unborn children. Are any of us wanted, are many of us ‘unwanted?’ If thirty or sixty years ago we were NOT wanted, it makes no difference to us today, what matter now is that we have been given the opportunity to find for ourselves a reason to exist. Our right to existence is not dependent on the whims of a few people many years ago for problems likely forgotten today. But yes, many of us are now and were before unwanted, but we now have the ability for ourselves to determine our wantedness in the world, replaceing the whims of other people from earlier years with our desire to do good for the next generation. But that doesn't hold true IF the earlier whim ended us, then there are no future generations of that line.

The society (like ours) that thinks like this one does, that our problems are more troublesome than all of the others problems that came before us, and compound shortcoming by claiming priority over those that come after them as well, deserve no better than what we get. We want abortion because of our self-centered world outlook, thus, we deserve it (like a self induced punishment).

Hopefully the survivors, if there are any, but the people that find themselves in power in the generations to come, ruling over those that think of themselves as young now, will recognize the ignorant foolishness of our reasons and rationales for not ‘valuing’ them, valuing them even before they were here, and forgive us. Because if they don’t forgive us but instead learn the same lessons we live by, we will discover then that the ideology of valuing ONLY the here in now will leave us high and dry then when we are old and useless to them…

Those that truly believe in something more, something longer lasting then themselves, do not support abortion.

Ignoring the massive physical trauma that a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth? And the risk of death?

Childbirth, and possible death, is hardly just for someone who has been raped, it's more a punishment for being raped than anything else.

Getting pregnant brings a significant chance of death?

Getting pregnant brings a significant chance of death?
It certainly used to. With modern medicine, we of course typically avoid most of the problems that plagued women in centuries before, but there is still a risk, of course.

Here's the argument I typically use for favoring legal abortion: In legal abortion, abortions are safe, conducted in sterile environments by trained, practiced doctors who know what they are doing, and in most cases there is little possible danger to the mother. With illegal abortions--which I assure you would start occurring the instant abortion becomes illegal--we would not have any of those conditions, as noted in history. The mother would be placed in serious danger. Frankly, I'd rather a faetus--an organism which cannot survive out of the womb that MAY turn into a human after time--be eliminated safely than risk a life already in existence as well. Call me cold and heartless(which would be wholly inaccurate, of course) but I'm looking at this from a scientific, logical perspective. On an issue like this, you have to if you are going to make the right decision.

Getting pregnant brings a significant chance of death?

Did I say that only being pregnant brings any risk of death, let alone significant?

No, I mentioned childbirth as well, which does bring a risk of death.

Still didn't say significant, though.

I dunno. I just think all you pro-choice people should be thankful that your mother chose to have you. It was probably a mistake on her part, unfortunately.

I dunno. I just think all you pro-choice people should be thankful that your mother chose to have you. It was probably a mistake on her part, unfortunately.

Well, it's not as if I would care if she didn't.

It's always the black and Jewish babies who go first. It's extermination, but as long as the mother's happy...

Did I say that only being pregnant brings any risk of death, let alone significant?

No, I mentioned childbirth as well, which does bring a risk of death.

Still didn't say significant, though.

Childbirth is part of the pregnancy isn't it? Besides if the risk isn't anywhere near significant then why bring it up? I mean any activity brings some chance of death.

snip

How does any of this analysis exclude the decision to simply not have sex to have a child? Or are you saying that people should conceive as many children as possible? If you don't have children, you are "wasting" your grandparents efforts and "wasting" potential for the future, am I right?

It's always the black and Jewish babies who go first. It's extermination, but as long as the mother's happy...

Jews have higher abortion rates? Pourquoi, mon ami?

Childbirth is part of the pregnancy isn't it? Besides if the risk isn't anywhere near significant then why bring it up? I mean any activity brings some chance of death.

About 1 in 1800 I believe. Still a risk that could be avoided if the mother doesn't want the child.

About 1 in 1800 I believe. Still a risk that could be avoided if the mother doesn't want the child.

And if the mother is just escaping from an abusive situation, or is too young to have the child, or several other things, the risks could probably be higher.

About 1 in 1800 I believe. Still a risk that could be avoided if the mother doesn't want the child.

Are we talking about a national figure? It seems pretty high for any industrial country.

I agree. There should be no abortion. It must be illegal, and not only that, we need to put in place extensive state programmes for helping mothers every step of the way. This will crush the illegal abortion trade.

Why? Do you intend to brainwash them into wanting to undergo pregnancy and childbirth?

If such "extensive state programs" would be so successful in eliminating abortions, implement them now, keep it legal, and solve the problem without violating women's rights.

Are we talking about a national figure? It seems pretty high for any industrial country.

Worldwide average, I believe. According to the WHO it's about 1 in 4000 for Europe.

Jews have higher abortion rates? Pourquoi, mon ami?

Margaret Sanger herself believed African Americans shouldn't reproduce. And others working with her were Nazi-enthusiasts.

you know what I think? I can sum this whole discussion up easily: my brother got his girlfriend pregnant. Her mother wanted an abortion. My brother's baby is almost two now. Are you going to want to tell him in a couple years that his grandmother wanted him dead, when she had never known him?

Margaret Sanger herself believed African Americans shouldn't reproduce. And others working with her were Nazi-enthusiasts.

And this is why most people get abortions?

Yes, Eugenicists invented some of the first concepts of birth control (and Home Ec. was invented by a feminist). Actions can be taken from their original context.

Worldwide average, I believe. According to the WHO it's about 1 in 4000 for Europe.

Well there you go. Childbirth should not be an issue for industrial countries. For "third world" countries if they have high childbirth deaths I bet they have real problems doing proper abortions that won't kill the woman as well.

you know what I think? I can sum this whole discussion up easily: my brother got his girlfriend pregnant. Her mother wanted an abortion. My brother's baby is almost two now. Are you going to want to tell him in a couple years that his grandmother wanted him dead, when she had never known him?

He'll probably be able to surmise this for himself, given his mother's inability to care for him.

What? His mother was ready to care for him, you say? That's why it's the mother's choice, not the grandmother's.

you know what I think? I can sum this whole discussion up easily: my brother got his girlfriend pregnant. Her mother wanted an abortion. My brother's baby is almost two now. Are you going to want to tell him in a couple years that his grandmother wanted him dead, when she had never known him?

Anecdotal evidence and appeals to emotion do not sum up discussions.

How does any of this analysis exclude the decision to simply not have sex to have a child? Or are you saying that people should conceive as many children as possible? If you don't have children, you are "wasting" your grandparents efforts and "wasting" potential for the future, am I right?

To have a responsibility is to require us to act on it. IF we have to act only then must we choose anything, but we must choose FOR it or AGAINST it, the existence that required us to act is already there.

Some people may choose to try and have kids, others may try NOT to have them, but we are not ‘required’ to perform an action if they don’t exist. If they don't exist, then we don't have to do anything about them, we don't need an abortion and we don’t have to choose to feed it, or give it up to adoption either, if they do not exist. If they DO exist then we must choose to do something about it, only then is there a reason and that reason is then that the new 'existence' exists and required some kind of reaction from us.

Well there you go. Childbirth should not be an issue for industrial countries. For "third world" countries if they have high childbirth deaths I bet they have real problems doing proper abortions that won't kill the woman as well.

Do you not think that 1 in 4000 is something we shouldn't have to accept when it can be avoided, unless the mother actually wants to take the risk?

This is, of course, without going into the simple fact that it's the mother's body; she can decide what she wants to do with it.

I don't understand feminists, and I'm a girl. I guess they must be like annoying girlfriends? It's not about equality, now. It's about superiority.

And abortion is sexist...men can't have abortions. And what if a man doesn't want his child aborted, and the child's mother does it anyway? He has a right, it's part of his body. People need to stop talking about how it's women's rights.

I don't understand feminists, and I'm a girl. I guess they must be like annoying girlfriends? It's not about equality, now. It's about superiority.

No, it's not. Some extremes at the fringes may want superiority, but mainstream feminism wants equality and equity between the sexes.

And abortion is sexist...men can't have abortions. And what if a man doesn't want his child aborted, and the child's mother does it anyway? He has a right, it's part of his body. People need to stop talking about how it's women's rights.

A foetus is part of a mans body? Learn some anatomy, girl.

No, it's not. Some extremes at the fringes may want superiority, but mainstream feminism wants equality and equity between the sexes.



A foetus is part of a mans body? Learn some anatomy, girl.


wait, you do know what sex is, right? maybe I shouldn't tell you, but...okay, the sperm comes from the man, and the egg from the woman, and they meet and create a new individual...half that child belongs to the man.

P. S. I think you mean "fetus".

A foetus is part of a mans body? Learn some anatomy, girl.

I believe she meant that the man contributes his half of the new childs genetic material so he should have rights as well. I certainly agree that the man should have some say.

How does any of this analysis exclude the decision to simply not have sex to have a child? Or are you saying that people should conceive as many children as possible? If you don't have children, you are "wasting" your grandparents efforts and "wasting" potential for the future, am I right?
Every sperm is sacred.....

I don't understand feminists, and I'm a girl. I guess they must be like annoying girlfriends? It's not about equality, now. It's about superiority.

And abortion is sexist...men can't have abortions. And what if a man doesn't want his child aborted, and the child's mother does it anyway? He has a right, it's part of his body. People need to stop talking about how it's women's rights.
Do you actually have any thoughts of your own? So far, you have not posted a single comment that is not a slogan or talking point of extremist anti-choice organizations and propagandists. In fact, you seem to be bent on posting all of the slogans that have ever been used. You're trolling, right? Yes, definitely, you're BS-ing us. It's obvious. *having sorted that out, goes back to just reading the thread*

I don't understand feminists, and I'm a girl. I guess they must be like annoying girlfriends?

nope there cool and most of all much more interesting some girly girls :fluffle:

It's not about equality, now. It's about superiority.

that’s a rather big generalisation (are you thinking of a dominatrix group?)

And abortion is sexist...men can't have abortions. And what if a man doesn't want his child aborted, and the child's mother does it anyway? He has a right, it's part of his body. People need to stop talking about how it's women's rights.

oh it is a women’s right whether or not she goes through it hard cheese on us men really and for the most part we don’t care its sort of built in reflex to listen to the women on these things (though the man can simply scarper if he doesn’t want the kid and not have anything to do with it

wait, you do know what sex is, right? maybe I shouldn't tell you, but...okay, the sperm comes from the man, and the egg from the woman, and they meet and create a new individual...half that child belongs to the man.

Once the sperm leaves the man it is no longer "part of his body". Sure, half may "belong" to the man, it may be derived from his genetics, but it is in no way part of his body; it's part of the mother's body until birth.

P. S. I think you mean "fetus".

I'll use common usage rules; you use what you like.

I am replying later than when I wrote this post because of comp issues, byt adreesed as many objections as I have time for

The actual post:

Okay, to many things to respond to,but i'll adress a few things.


Quote:
Here's the way I see this:
A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed.
And not living, to boot.

First off, I would really perfer if we use science as a guid to our disucussion over life. If anyone objects, let me know.

Second, if you read any high-school biology text book, you will see that human life begins when a living sperm and a living egg become a living zygote. That zygote is considered a living human being in the zygote stage, just as a toddler is a living human being in the toddler stage.

Well, like I said, we're talking about a grouping of cells that can't actually live on their own. It's like calling amputation murder.

A newborn child is a grouping of cells that can't survive on it's own. your amputation comparison is wrong because the fetus is it's own being as compared to his/her mother. Amputation cuts off and kills a part of someone, abortion cuts off and kills a seperte human being.

No. You're simply incorrect. "Life, liberty, and property" aren't Constitutionally protected. Unless Common Sense has become our body of law.

What? I am not sure I understand. However, the constitution explicitly states the right to life, liberty and, the pursuit of hapiness. The property part is from John Locke's natural law theory which is the basis for the U.S. legal system. And second, common sense should be the basis of the law, but it's not (after all, abortion uis legal :P )

Discussion over.

Why? You didn't prove anything. I would perfer that we all learn the correct position (whatever it is) before we end this discussion. If i'm wrong, I hope I learn that considering I have more or less dedicated my life to saving children and women from abortion, and I don't like wasting my time.

No one is here till they're here.

Define here, because this deserves adressing but in the proper context.

And sometimes the responsible thing is not to have the child. Ever thought of it this way?

Yes, and I agree. Solution: keep it in your pants. If you mess up, you mess up, but that child already exist, at this point you either kill it or support it.

nd it's the latter that's been determined by the SCUS. Do you know why? Have you ever heard of Griswold v. Connecticut? Well, that case decided that sperm ≠ living creature, and so the use of birth control is protected under the implied privacy rights in our Constitution. So when Roe v. Wade came up, they decided that medically speaking, it's not until the second trimester that a fetus can live outside of the womb, therefore it's not a living creature.

I am not arguing for sperm rights, I am arguing for human rights. Abortion procedures do not kill sperm, they kill the after effect, a zygote, which is scientifically classified as a human being.

Let me guess... you're a virgin?
This isn't about punishment. This is about the fact that coping with having been raped is hard enough, virtually impossible for some, even without being reminded of that horrible event each and every day for the rest of their lives.

I don't see why that's relevant, or why it is required to personally attack me (though if I am wrong on those two points, please point it out).

Onto adressing your argument, you are correct, rape is nearly imposible to cope with. Rape is possibly the worse thing one person can do to another person. However, I don't think our response to a women who has been raped should be to encourage them to do something horrible as well. Abortion doesn't erase a rape, nothing does. Rape is wrong, abortion is wrong, and I doubt that many here would agree that two wrongs make a right. In no way does it help anyone to abort a product of rape, in fact it hurts the women involved. I personally have one friends who aborted her child who was conceived through rape, and she repeatedly states that it is the one thing she regrets most in her life.

Most doctors now except that abortion is a cause of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. If you want more information, look up Silent No More/Silent No More Awareness. It's a group of women and men who acknowledge that abortion hurt them. If you don't agree with me, try e-mailing some of the people on the website, or you can ask me through e-mail for the the e-mail of my friend I was discussing (I don't want to post it on the forums, but if anyone is seriously interested I will porvide it if she allows it).

gnoring the massive physical trauma that a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth? And the risk of death?

Childbirth, and possible death, is hardly just for someone who has been raped, it's more a punishment for being raped than anything else.

Pregnancy is physically dangerous, and so is childbirth. But regardless, abortion is much less safe. I have personally seen an ambulence come to "Her Medical Clinic" in Long Beach three times in one day to remove victims of sloppy abortionists. Most clinics are fairly clean, however many in low income neighborhoods have terrible conditions. Since in many states (that I know of California, Kansas, South Dakota, New York) abortion clinics aren't considered medical facilities they have very little sanitary rules. The majority of clinics like this are considered hazardous/bio-waste facilities. Her Medical clinic, for instance, is a converted garage. It consist of a large open space, a small recovery room made out of that stuff used for cubicals, seven stalls made of the same kind of thing in which the aboritons take place, and a desk with some benches in front of it (waiting room). Many abortionists brag about being able to do abortions quickly (one california doctor has done seven in ten minutes, according to him). The abortion industry is driven by profit, and therefore safety usually isn't considered of high priority.

Some exceptions are Planned Parenthood clinics, which are generally maintained to a higer standard than others. But regardless, there have been over 600 women who have been documentd as dying as a result of an abortion. The New England Journal of medicine cites that thitry percent of women suffer life threatening blood loss one week after legal abortions, and that, statistically, women who have abortions are 1000 times more likely to die within a week than women who have not had an abortion.

Legal abortion is less safe than childbirth, even Planned Parenthood's Allan Gutmacher institute admits that.

If a woman chooses to not have a parasite grow inside her, then pop out to saddle her with all sorts of responsibilities and statutory obligations, well that's what expert medical advice is for. The people who can't understand this simple truth, are the unfortunate products of unrealized abortion opportunities.

Your premise is false, a fetus is a human, humans are mammals. Mushrooms, algae, things like that are parasites, and people don't get pregnant with mushrooms.

I think that's all.
Thank you to all those people who chose to be intelligent and debate, as opposed to simply saying fuck you. Let's keep it up.

I believe she meant that the man contributes his half of the new childs genetic material so he should have rights as well. I certainly agree that the man should have some say.
I am more than happy to allow my lover/boyfriend/husband to tell me his opinion, and I would certainly take his opinion/advice into consideration, but in the end, the choice is mine because the pregnancy is in my uterus. That is the bottom line, right there. No one can force me to carry a pregnancy against my will -- not a fetus, not a man, no one.

I believe she meant that the man contributes his half of the new childs genetic material so he should have rights as well. I certainly agree that the man should have some say.

are you suggesting forced abortions?

Do you actually have any thoughts of your own? So far, you have not posted a single comment that is not a slogan or talking point of extremist anti-choice organizations and propagandists. In fact, you seem to be bent on posting all of the slogans that have ever been used. You're trolling, right? Yes, definitely, you're BS-ing us. It's obvious. *having sorted that out, goes back to just reading the thread*

I hope you know that that was in no way relevant to this at all...insulting my arguments.

I'm just saying, I like babies and stuff, so they shouldn't get killed. also, I don't remember any slogans like that. I mean, I haven't been to every March for Life, so maybe I'm wrong...maybe you did see a sign with the Sacred Heart of Jesus that said I just don't get feminists...maybe they're like annoying girlfriends? et cetera...I really might be wrong about that...

P. S. you used asterisks to say what I was doing. first of all, that is a stupid thing to do, and secondly, I never did that, so that's libel.

Originally Posted by Crumpet Stone
wait, you do know what sex is, right? maybe I shouldn't tell you, but...okay, the sperm comes from the man, and the egg from the woman, and they meet and create a new individual...half that child belongs to the man.
Once the sperm leaves the man it is no longer "part of his body". Sure, half may "belong" to the man, it may be derived from his genetics, but it is in no way part of his body; it's part of the mother's body until birth.
<snip>
I'd like to add the observation that, by saying the man owns the sperm, that it remains part of his body even after he ejaculates it, that therefore, half the child belongs to him, Crumpet Stone is, essentially, reducing babies to property over which other people have rights of ownership. Hardly surprising. A point of view that wishes to see women forced to submit to the (presumed) desires of a fetus (i.e. enslaved to the fetus so it can use her body for its gestation), obviously already thinks of human beings as property. And apparently, there's a pecking order to it, as well. Fetuses get to own women, and men get to own fetuses.

P. S. you used asterisks to say what I was doing. first of all, that is a stupid thing to do, and secondly, I never did that, so that's libel.

Yup, troll.

Asterisks denote an action the person posting is taking.

Anyhow, I don't know what country you're in, but that ain't libel under UK law. Tough shit.

I'd like to add the observation that, by saying the man owns the sperm, that it remains part of his body even after he ejaculates it, that therefore, half the child belongs to him, Crumpet Stone is, essentially, reducing babies to property over which other people have rights of ownership. Hardly surprising. A point of view that wishes to see women forced to submit to the (presumed) desires of a fetus (i.e. enslaved to the fetus so it can use her body for its gestation), obviously already thinks of human beings as property. And apparently, there's a pecking order to it, as well. Fetuses get to own women, and men get to own fetuses.

so you don't think parents have rights over their children? You don't think fathers count for anything, that because the mother had the child in her womb, the child isn't part of its father?

are you suggesting forced abortions?

I was talking about if the man wanted the child. I never even thought of it going the other way. I'd say the right would only swing in the direction of keeping the child, forcing death would not be included.

Yup, troll.

Asterisks denote an action the person posting is taking.

Anyhow, I don't know what country you're in, but that ain't libel under UK law. Tough shit.

wait, so we're in england now? cheerio, then! be a good sport, and fetch those cucumber sandwiches off the trolley! Why is the UK law our standard? I go by US law, and I think you went to too much trouble to look up what "libel" means.

P. S. you used asterisks to say what I was doing. first of all, that is a stupid thing to do, and secondly, I never did that, so that's libel.


I know you think you're being smart and all, but please refrain from using legal terms when you don't know what they mean.

Nerdy Individuals']Yes, and I agree. Solution: keep it in your pants. If you mess up, you mess up, but that child already exist, at this point you either kill it or support it.

how old are you? you really should know sex isn’t always about keeping it “in your pants“ and the fact of the matter is no its not a child yet and yes you can kill it and so you should have the choice to terminate it or not

there is so much else I could pick apart in your post but this seemed to need addressing

I go by US law, and I think you went to too much trouble to look up what "libel" means.

You'd still be wrong.

wait, so we're in england now? cheerio, then! be a good sport, and fetch those cucumber sandwiches off the trolley! Why is the UK law our standard?

Because this is a British forum.

And no, not England. The UK. England is one part of the UK. It's as innacurate as me saying "Oh, the US? Yeah, good old Washington, all you guys from Washington are crazy. What do you mean Washington isn't the same as the USA?"

I go by US law, and I think you went to too much trouble to look up what "libel" means.

You may go by US law, I would doubt very much that this place would. ".co.uk" and all that, and where this is posted to is all important.

And, honestly my dear, I have no need to look libel up. I know the meaning of the word. I didn't take Law modules un Uni for nothing.

I think you should give us your definition of libel and how it relates to what you claim is libel.

I know you think you're being smart and all, but please refrain from using legal terms when you don't know what they mean.

a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
And don't try to say something like, "That wouldn't damage your reputation." because it totally would. What that person wrote was calling me stupid, and that is something I find offensive and wrong...I mean, who can judge my mental aptitude better than myself?

P. S. Isulting someone's intelligence is never a good way to go.
P. P. S. Who here likes taquitos?
P. P. P. S. <~~~~I said pee pee!

You may go by US law, I would doubt very much that this place would. ".co.uk" and all that, and where this is posted to is all important.

And, honestly my dear, I have no need to look libel up. I know the meaning of the word. I didn't take Law modules un Uni for nothing.

I think you should give us your definition of libel and how it relates to what you claim is libel.

Don't worry, even under US law this definition of "libel" is wrong. BTW, and do hate to say it, just to add fuel to fire, but it's worth noting it's been held that things published on the net, even if the host is in a foreign country, can be considered defamation in the US if the information can be disseminated to the US.

Good luck with jurisdiction though....

I was talking about if the man wanted the child. I never even thought of it going the other way. I'd say the right would only swing in the direction of keeping the child, forcing death would not be included.

well when the day comes when a foetus can be implanted into a man to gestate you may have a point until then the woman is the gestation capsule and thus she can choose not to allow such a creature to gestate

a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
And don't try to say something like, "That wouldn't damage your reputation."

BZZZZZT, wrong. If you're going to talk about how you "know US law" then you should....know US law. Been held that mearly calling someone stupid is not harmful to a reputation

What that person wrote was calling me stupid, and that is something I find offensive and wrong...

That's nice, but unfortunatly for you american defamation law doesn't give a damn about what YOU find offensive, but rather how the community at large would respond to that information, believing it to be true. And it's been held time and again that "petty insults" do not rise to a standard of defamation.

You fail, try again.

Don't worry, even under US law this definition of "libel" is wrong. BTW, and do hate to say it, just to add fuel to fire, but it's worth noting it's been held that things published on the net, even if the host is in a foreign country, can be considered defamation in the US if the information can be disseminated to the US.

You Americans and your crazy laws...

It's totally true. I saw it on Spiderman. Who's seen Spiderman here? sorry guys, if we could just take a break, who here likes Pizza Lunchables? I mean, I just want to take headcount...I'm really serious, it's nothing personal, for purely scientific purposes, of course...but, I mean, I LUVVVV them!!!11

Okay, to begin with I want to acknowledge two key points:

1. This is a very sensitive issue, and one that brings out the worst in people
2. I have a surprisingly conservative (although not as much as some people) view on this, so I'm already going to be hated.

Consequently, I'll say my piece in as few words as possible and leave it there. I won't check back. Normally, I would love to discuss issues with you guys, but I have no interest in the inevitable flamewar that this issue always produces.

Simply put, I see both sides to the debate, but I do have strong feelings about this. I summarise my debate into the following points:

1. It certainly is the couple's choice whether or not they have a baby. It isn't the foetus' choice to exist.
2. A condom is cheaper than an abortion
3. Abortions should remain legal, but only in cases where the mother's welfare is a priority (ie, if the mother is in (medical/psychological/physical) danger, a victim of rape, unable to use contraception for some reason, etc. Simply walking into a clinic and saying "well, I don't want it" is no excuse.
4. People tend to forget that you can dispose of unwanted babies without killing them. Adoption is a much better option.

well when the day comes when a foetus can be implanted into a man to gestate you may have a point until then the woman is the gestation capsule and thus she can choose not to allow such a creature to gestate

I love that word "gestate". Reminds me of the Aliens movies. Still, given the fact that it took two to make that unborn child then both should be part of the decision process.

BZZZZZT, wrong. If you're going to talk about how you "know US law" then you should....know US law. Been held that mearly calling someone stupid is not harmful to a reputation



That's nice, but unfortunatly for you american defamation law doesn't give a damn about what YOU find offensive, but rather how the community at large would respond to that information, believing it to be true. And it's been held time and again that "petty insults" do not rise to a standard of defamation.

You fail, try again.

No, man, do you live in the US? Probably not, because you have terrible spelling. I'm totally going to bring a lawsuit against you, Arthritis101.

I hope you know that that was in no way relevant to this at all...insulting my arguments.
Sorry, but I have a low opinion of your arguments so far. I feel that way about all arguments that are composed entirely of other people's talking points. I consider that to be an intellectually lazy habit, and I have no respect for it.

I'm just saying, I like babies and stuff, so they shouldn't get killed.
I like babies, too. They're cute and all. So are puppies and butterflies. I also get all misty about bunnies and springtime. I do not consider any of these little sentiments to be reason to strip half the human population of civil rights.

Also, FYI, abortion does not kill babies. I have to post this in every single abortion rights thread: Words like "baby" are descriptors of certain stages of development. You don't become a "baby" until AFTER you are born. It goes thusly: conceptus - embryo - fetus - baby/infant - child/teenager - adult. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. The VAST majority of abortions -- and ALL elective abortions -- take place during the conceptus and embryo stages. Abortion and babies never get near each other. It is physically impossible for them to cross paths because once the baby exists, the pregnancy has already ended of its own accord.

also, I don't remember any slogans like that. I mean, I haven't been to every March for Life, so maybe I'm wrong...maybe you did see a sign with the Sacred Heart of Jesus that said I just don't get feminists...maybe they're like annoying girlfriends? et cetera...I really might be wrong about that...
You are wrong about it, actually. Attacking feminism is standard in anti-choice propaganda, including baseless accusations that feminism is about "superiority" (implied message: if we let women run things, they'll kill all the babies) and dismissive comments about how annoying it is when women stand up for their rights.

P. S. you used asterisks to say what I was doing. first of all, that is a stupid thing to do, and secondly, I never did that, so that's libel.
No, dear, I used asterisks to say what I was doing. The asterisks set off a sort of stage direction to provide a visual cue to other readers to imagine what I am doing.

And no, it's not libel. Libel would be if I got a story published in a newspaper that falsely accused you of being a drunk, a mobster and a beater of dogs. That would be libel. Suggesting that someone continued reading is not libel -- unless you consider reading to be a crime or a mark of bad character?

But as I say, I was the one doing the reading, not you.

4. People tend to forget that you can dispose of unwanted babies without killing them. Adoption is a much better option.

Nobodies advocating killing unwanted babies.

Unwanted foetus's, now, that's a different matter.

You Americans and your crazy laws...

Well the elements of libel are:

1) it was published
2) it identified the plaintiff
3) it contained a falsehood
4) the publisher knew, or should have know, it was a falsehood
5) the falsehood harmed the reputation of the plaintiff.

WHERE the publication took place is only relevant insofar as if it was published "far away" it might make it difficult to show that it made it to the US where it then proceeded to damage ones reputation.

But it need not strictly be published HERE to bring suit here, merely that the information MADE it here, and did its damage.

how old are you? you really should know sex isn’t always about keeping it “in your pants“ and the fact of the matter is no its not a child yet and yes you can kill it and so you should have the choice to terminate it or not

there is so much else I could pick apart in your post but this seemed to need addressing

I am 18. From what I understand, sex generally involves the ojects in your pants (i.e. penises, vaginas, and in some cases other things).

Second you hit the nail on the head, the question revolves around if the fetus is a child.

Two questions for you:

1. What makes the fetus not a human being person. I don't care if it is a child, adults, babies, and all other humans deserve protection. So please state the basis for saying this.

2. What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing that which one is pregnant with?

Thank you for civility.

3. Abortions should remain legal, but only in cases where the mother's welfare is a priority (ie, if the mother is in (medical/psychological/physical) danger, a victim of rape, unable to use contraception for some reason, etc. Simply walking into a clinic and saying "well, I don't want it" is no excuse.


If it's in her body, and she doesn't want it in her body, then the fact that she wants it OUT of her body is a perfectly valid excuse.

The fact that the fetus can not survive outside the womb is not really relevant to that. If it could, great. Maybe some day technology will allow for that. Right now it can't. Oh well.

so you don't think parents have rights over their children? You don't think fathers count for anything, that because the mother had the child in her womb, the child isn't part of its father?
I refer you right back to what I actually said in an earlier post. No one has the right to use my body for their purposes against my will. Period.

Also, children are not property. Let's fast forward to after a willing woman gives birth to a wanted child. The parents do not own that child. The father has no rights of ownershiop. Neither does the mother. The child is its own person. The parents are guardians of the child until it doesn't need them anymore, and any competent adult could do that job. It doesn't have to be the parents. Therefore, parental rights are entirely conditional.

My right to control usage of my body is NOT conditional.

Nerdy Individuals']1. What makes the fetus not a human being person. I don't care if it is a child, adults, babies, and all other humans deserve protection. So please state the basis for saying this.

Sentience

2. What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing that which one is pregnant with?

Sentience. Additionally, the pregnant woman is not using your body. The fetus is using hers.

One could also argue that no living creature has the right to force another living creature to use it as a host. It is not killing the fetus, it is simply removing it from an unwilling host.

The fact that it dies as a result is an unfortunate concequence. Even IF the fetus were alive, it would still be putting its rights above the mother's rights to use her own body for her own purposes.

Thank you for civility.


No problem. Cheers

Well the elements of libel are:

1) it was published
2) it identified the plaintiff
3) it contained a falsehood
4) the publisher knew, or should have know, it was a falsehood
5) the falsehood harmed the reputation of the plaintiff.

Oh, I know all that well enough.

WHERE the publication took place is only relevant insofar as if it was published "far away" it might make it difficult to show that it made it to the US where it then proceeded to damage ones reputation.

But it need not strictly be published HERE to bring suit here, merely that the information MADE it here, and did its damage.

The funny thing, for me, is that the US is kind of extending its jurisdiction over things published in other countries, which it doesn't really have a right to do? As far as I know, if someone printed libellous material about me in the US, I would have to sue them in the US, I couldn't sue them here, as British courts have no authority over things printed in the US.

well, then I'm proud of you for reading, and I'll drop the lawsuit against Arthritis. And I'll excuse the fact that you weren't a baby once. (were you an alien? I've seen that movie. It was scary.) not that I would judge you if you weren't a baby once, I'd judge you on the fact that you think we should kill things that were once not babies. Just because they aren't babies doesn't mean we should allow them to be killed...trees aren't babies, but we're against killing them.

You guys have said too much. All the magic is gone. I mean, I should probably admit there's no such person as santa claus...or martin luther king...or that animals can't talk...

but hey, who here likes Pizza Lunchables? Let's get off this grim topic.

trees aren't babies, but we're against killing them.

We are?

Where does paper, or wood, come from then?

wait, so we're in england now? cheerio, then! be a good sport, and fetch those cucumber sandwiches off the trolley! Why is the UK law our standard? I go by US law, and I think you went to too much trouble to look up what "libel" means.
Now who's making fun of others? I was right. You are a troll.

PS: It's not libel under US law, either.

If it's in her body, and she doesn't want it in her body, then the fact that she wants it OUT of her body is a perfectly valid excuse.

The fact that the fetus can not survive outside the womb is not really relevant to that. If it could, great. Maybe some day technology will allow for that. Right now it can't. Oh well.

yeah, well if I want my liver taken out, the doctors won't do that for me. trust me, I've tried.

I love that word "gestate". Reminds me of the Aliens movies. Still, given the fact that it took two to make that unborn child then both should be part of the decision process.

well what is the guy going to do exactly tie her to a bed till the pregnancy is over after all I‘m sure there a plenty of things pretty much all over the house that can kill foetuses?

As for the point well a man can cut all connections with a child strait away a woman has the luxury of having control over whither or not she continues the pregnancy a rather good trade for us men if you ask me

Oh, I know all that well enough.



The funny thing, for me, is that the US is kind of extending its jurisdiction over things published in other countries, which it doesn't really have a right to do? As far as I know, if someone printed libellous material about me in the US, I would have to sue them in the US, I couldn't sue them here, as British courts have no authority over things printed in the US.

The argument can go is that once you publish a knowing falsehood you are responsible for how it spreads.

If the information you publish never, EVER makes it over here, then no harm. However once you release it "out there", you're responsible for where it goes, and if it ends up over here...

in a way, defamation is not punishing you for PUBLISHING, it's punishing you for damaging someone's reputation. In that sense it's not really regulating the PUBLISH, it's regulating the DAMAGE, which took place here.

It doesn't matter that the publish happened abroad, that's not what defamation is. Defamation is that you injured someones reputation, and that injury happened HERE. That's the catch to it. The publication is merely the medium as to how it happened.

Of course, again, it's a jurisdiction problem of suing you in US courts if you are, in fact, in the UK.

well, then I'm proud of you for reading, and I'll drop the lawsuit against Arthritis.

Ohhhh, you're concious and truth. OK, guess you're reborn after the ban?

Now who's making fun of others? I was right. You are a troll.

PS: It's not libel under US law, either.

Teasing someone and making fun of someone is different. I was teasing. I love English culture. In fact, the woman in charge of my British Theatre finds my ideas (like those above) very amusing. In fact, that's actually how she acts. She says someone who is terribly British talks like that. Well, if you're a fellow, anyway.

...
Also, FYI, abortion does not kill babies. I have to post this in every single abortion rights thread: Words like "baby" are descriptors of certain stages of development. You don't become a "baby" until AFTER you are born. It goes thusly: conceptus - embryo - fetus - baby/infant - child/teenager - adult. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. The VAST majority of abortions -- and ALL elective abortions -- take place during the conceptus and embryo stages. Abortion and babies never get near each other. It is physically impossible for them to cross paths because once the baby exists, the pregnancy has already ended of its own accord.
...

What is that? The dictionary of Muravyets ordains for all?

I suggest that you spend a little time in a maternity ward or a obstetricians office, I think you will find many if not all of the women calling the entity in their wombs their 'babies.'

I suggest that your ordination of the right to be called a 'baby' is in fact simply a transfer of your objective, rather than what dictionaries and society use the word to mean.

The only REAL difference between a womb occupant being called a baby or not is IF the mother wants the offspring to be born or not. If it is wanted, it is a Baby, if it is not wanted, it is a cell growth. The difference is semantics, it is not as you pretend it to mean in that post, the offspring being called a baby is NOT dependant on whether or not is is umbilical cord connected or not umbilical cord connected.

a: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
And don't try to say something like, "That wouldn't damage your reputation." because it totally would. What that person wrote was calling me stupid, and that is something I find offensive and wrong...I mean, who can judge my mental aptitude better than myself
So you DO think reading is a sign of bad character and that saying that someone reads causes damage to their reputation? Then what are you doing here? Do you hire a crack whore (whose reputation is already ruined) to read the thread to you so you don't have to lower yourself to reading the words with your own eyes?

P. S. Isulting someone's intelligence is never a good way to go.
P. P. S. Who here likes taquitos?
P. P. P. S. <~~~~I said pee pee!
Troll. Time to stop feeding you.

Ohhhh, you're concious and truth. OK, guess you're reborn after the ban?

what? reborn? there was nothing wrong with me in the first place. Well, not counting that I'm only half white, which, according to Margaret Sanger, means I shouldn't've been born...

I love that word "gestate". Reminds me of the Aliens movies. Still, given the fact that it took two to make that unborn child then both should be part of the decision process.
Hypothetical scenario: My man and I have sex using a condom. It breaks. I get pregnant. I don't want to have a child. He decides he might like to be a dad. I decide to abort. He says he wishes I wouldn't.

Now, tell me how he gets to have his daddyhood, if I don't want to be pregnant?

The argument can go is that once you publish a knowing falsehood you are responsible for how it spreads.

If the information you publish never, EVER makes it over here, then no harm. However once you release it "out there", you're responsible for where it goes, and if it ends up over here...

in a way, defamation is not punishing you for PUBLISHING, it's punishing you for damaging someone's reputation. In that sense it's not really regulating the PUBLISH, it's regulating the DAMAGE, which took place here.

It doesn't matter that the publish happened abroad, that's not what defamation is. Defamation is that you injured someones reputation, and that injury happened HERE. That's the catch to it. The publication is merely the medium as to how it happened.

Of course, again, it's a jurisdiction problem of suing you in US courts if you are, in fact, in the UK.

I prefer the UK way, seems much fairer :p

In the UK, you can get sued for printing it. But it's the distributors who can be sued for distributing it (as happened when John Major sued the New Statesman in 1989, he sued the distributors for distributing it as well as the New Statesman for printing it), which is why people hosting or running forums are liable for comments made on their forums.

So you DO think reading is a sign of bad character and that saying that someone reads causes damage to their reputation? Then what are you doing here? Do you hire a crack whore (whose reputation is already ruined) to read the thread to you so you don't have to lower yourself to reading the words with your own eyes?


Troll. Time to stop feeding you.

Are you saying crack whores can't read? You know, you really need to stop judgin' people. Trolls. Trolls are a protected species, so you'd sure as hell keep that food dish in front of me full.

remember those trolls? they have that puffy hair that's pink or orange or even green! it's even green sometimes! not even kidding! I even had one that had a jewel in its bellybutton. It was a genie. I was so pretty. (You know, like in the movie Aladdin.) I even have a pirate one. You know, they're so ugly, they're cute...sort of like your mom. LOLLLZ! just joshing, guyz. seriously...I love you guys. I love you guys.

no, seriously; who here speaks spanish?

Nerdy Individuals']I am 18. From what I understand, sex generally involves the ojects in your pants (i.e. penises, vaginas, and in some cases other things).

you missed out lots of things sex can involve like the natural urge to "go the next step" which can/usually does boil down to natural instinct I don't know how you can blame that on someone especially with all the crap you hear about condoms being 100% effective

for the record there not 100% on anything stopping pregnancies and STI (just needed to point that out because I encountered idiot who seemed to think otherwise)

Nerdy Individuals']
1. What makes the fetus not a human being person. I don't care if it is a child, adults, babies, and all other humans deserve protection. So please state the basis for saying this.

what makes someone truly a sentient human is it imagination? (not developed till about 4 oddly enough) love? or the ability to be beyond instinct

a foetus has none of these (nor does a child but meh)

Nerdy Individuals']
2. What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing that which one is pregnant with?

what is the difference between terminating a fly and killing it? nothing just snazzy words

I like the nerd person. I bet if he (or she) were not 18 we'd hang out. I personally enjoy the company of nerds. They are very interesting and amusing people, just like you and I are. I made a vow in fourth grade to never tease nerds, and by gosh, I'm keeping it.

I prefer the UK way, seems much fairer :p

In the UK, you can get sued for printing it. But it's the distributors who can be sued for distributing it (as happened when John Major sued the New Statesman in 1989, he sued the distributors for distributing it as well as the New Statesman for printing it), which is why people hosting or running forums are liable for comments made on their forums.

That sounds somewhat like the distributive chain for products liability....

not sure exactly how that works in US distribution. It is worth noting though that libel claims made by "public figures" are much, much MUCH harder to win than those made by private figures. Pesky 1st amendment.

facts:

a fetus will likely be born if you do not abort it
most abortions are not done for the mother's health
abortion denies the fetus its life
a fetus has human DNA and meets all qualifications of being life

The slaughter of the unborn is nothing short of a blight on the human race. A disgusting sacrifice of convenience and pleasure which was made mandatory by activist judges. There have been 30 million abortions since Roe v. wade was decided, in America. If it was up to me those 30 million people would have had the opportunity to live, love, see the world, participate in our lives, and be able to experience the gifts that God intended for them. The vile holocaust of abortion seems to be off the charts of the very people who should be concerned with the civil rights and human rights of the unborn.

facts:

a fetus will likely be born if you do not abort it
most abortions are not done for the mother's health
abortion denies the fetus its life
a fetus has human DNA and meets all qualifications of being life

The slaughter of the unborn is nothing short of a blight on the human race. A disgusting sacrifice of convenience and pleasure which was made mandatory by activist judges. There have been 30 million abortions since Roe v. wade was decided, in America. If it was up to me those 30 million people would have had the opportunity to live, love, see the world, participate in our lives, and be able to experience the gifts that God intended for them. The vile holocaust of abortion seems to be off the charts of the very people who should be concerned with the civil rights and human rights of the unborn.

We agree on a lot of stuff. Do you happen to like Pizza Lunchables, too? Because if so, then you're my kinda guy!

We agree on a lot of stuff. Do you happen to like Pizza Lunchables, too? Because if so, then you're my kinda guy!

Pizza lunchables got me through years of summer camp counseling back in the day. :D

facts:

Facts shmacks. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.

a fetus will likely be born if you do not abort it

Incorrect. You do not abort a fetus. You abort a pregnancy. One can have an abortion even after the fetus has already died naturally. If your statement is that a fetus might be born if you do not terminate its life, this is true (and don't say "likely" unless you can find evidence that 51% or more of pregnancies result in carrying a fetus to term, this is not actually true). It is true that it might. And it might not. Had I chosen to have sex with my girlfriend last night instead of falling asleep she MIGHT have gotten pregnant (damned bloody unlikely but possible). And she might not. If you want to use this example, anything that is not two fertile couples having sex prevents the possibility of a birth 9 months later.

Moreover, something is not, until it is. Whether or not it might later be born is of no relevance. A child is not born until it is born.

most abortions are not done for the mother's health

I promise you the cigarette i smoked 5 minutes ago was not smoked for my health. Since when is that a requirement for anything?

abortion denies the fetus its life

So does the steak deny the cow its life. Point?

a fetus has human DNA

So does my appendix.

and meets all qualifications of being life

So did Bessy the cow, until I ate her. Once again, point?

If it was up to me

Fortunatly for all of us the Constitution of the United States is not up to you.

and be able to experience the gifts that God intended for them.

Ah yes, it always comes back to god. Tell you what, if god wants abortions to stop let it come down here and tell us ok?

who should be concerned with the civil rights and human rights

If it is not human, it has no human rights.

of the unborn.

Exactly. Not born. When it's born (or at least, has viability) it can stand as human. Until then a fetus is a parasite.

um... I LOVE pizza lunchables. It... isn't even funny. Like... that is my life.


:sniper:

Food for thought perhaps?:

Those who think the abortion choice is a rationale choice should get abortions. It’s the right thing for them to do.

FYI: Abortion is likely just simply Evolution’s litmus test for thinning out the weak from the herd. Those who think the abortion choice is rationale will be culled from the herd, they will not pass on their genes. The genes of those that think abortion is NOT a rationale choice should generate the descendants of the human race so that they continue to have descendents themselves, it’s the evolutional way, after all. Broken individuals become self destructive individuals, they need to be culled from species for the good of the herd and one way or another evolution will find a way to do it. Even if it involves them thinking their doing it of their own accord.

who here loves streaking?

Teasing someone and making fun of someone is different. I was teasing. I love English culture. In fact, the woman in charge of my British Theatre finds my ideas (like those above) very amusing. In fact, that's actually how she acts. She says someone who is terribly British talks like that. Well, if you're a fellow, anyway.
A comedian with one fan, then. Thank you. Next.

Food for thought perhaps?:

Those who think the abortion choice is a rationale choice should get abortions. It’s the right thing for them to do.

FYI: Abortion is likely just simply Evolution’s litmus test for thinning out the weak from the herd. Those who think the abortion choice is rationale will be culled from the herd

The majority of women who get an abortion already have at least one child already. That alone negates your...um....screw being charitable, extraordinarly stupid argument.

The majority of women who get an abortion already have at least one child already. That alone negates your...um....screw being charitable, extraordinarly stupid argument.

Really, you think having 1 child instead of 2 or 3 isn't a reduction in numbers? That's an extraordinarily stupid way of doing mathematics.

Facts shmacks. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.

lol

Incorrect. You do not abort a fetus. You abort a pregnancy. but the fetus is what makes it a pregnancy One can have an abortion even after the fetus has already died naturally. not the issue we are debating If your statement is that a fetus might be born if you do not terminate its life, this is true (and don't say "likely" unless you can find evidence that 51% or more of pregnancies result in carrying a fetus to term, this is not actually true). It is true that it might. And it might not. Had I chosen to have sex with my girlfriend last night instead of falling asleep she MIGHT have gotten pregnant (damned bloody unlikely but possible). And she might not. If you want to use this example, anything that is not two fertile couples having sex prevents the possibility of a birth 9 months later.
pointless argument. By not having sex the human being is never created. Abortion destroys life that has been created. Very different things. You never thought of the difference?
Moreover, something is not, until it is. Whether or not it might later be born is of no relevance. A child is not born until it is born.
ah, but creating life jsut to destroy it out of convenience is another story right?


I promise you the cigarette i smoked 5 minutes ago was not smoked for my health. Since when is that a requirement for anything?
indeed, my point was that more than 90% of abortions are not for a valid medical reason


So does the steak deny the cow its life. Point?



So does my appendix.



So did Bessy the cow, until I ate her. Once again, point?

comparing human life to that of cows does not dignify comment

Fortunatly for all of us the Constitution of the United States is not up to you.
its text contains no right to an abortion.....it seems like you never read it


Ah yes, it always comes back to god. Tell you what, if god wants abortions to stop let it come down here and tell us ok?

ever read anything by the Pope?

If it is not human, it has no human rights.
any human fetus has human DNA and meets the qualifications of life . This makes it human.


Exactly. Not born. When it's born (or at least, has viability) it can stand as human.so a baby that will be born in five minutes is not a human? Being squeezed out of a birth canal is what makes us human? How odd, my younger brother was born by c section. They planned the time of his birth. According to you if it was planned by 5pm thats when it became human. If it was planned for 2 pm it became human then? Absurd. Until then a fetus is a parasite.this comment demonstrates a cruel and emotionally dead worldview of a trolling pro-abortion liberal. Human offspring is a parasite. Heavens you are a scary individual.
gah!:(

That always makes me laugh purely for the sheer amount of irony inherent in it.
I love the guy's hairdo.
Of course, if we still did our hair like that I figure World oil supplies would run out within 6 months.

Food for thought perhaps?:

Those who think the abortion choice is a rationale choice should get abortions. It’s the right thing for them to do.

FYI: Abortion is likely just simply Evolution’s litmus test for thinning out the weak from the herd. Those who think the abortion choice is rationale will be culled from the herd, they will not pass on their genes. The genes of those that think abortion is NOT a rationale choice should generate the descendants of the human race so that they continue to have descendents themselves, it’s the evolutional way, after all. Broken individuals become self destructive individuals, they need to be culled from species for the good of the herd and one way or another evolution will find a way to do it. Even if it involves them thinking their doing it of their own accord.

Even that very logical argument makes me sad. Mass murder of our own children has no place in civilized society.

Even that very logical argument makes me sad. Mass murder of our own children has no place in civilized society.

Agreed.

Facts shmacks. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.

so you can't use facts? I'll tell you a fact...gravity exists. But it doesn't mean anything because it's a fact.

Incorrect. You do not abort a fetus. You abort a pregnancy. One can have an abortion even after the fetus has already died naturally. If your statement is that a fetus might be born if you do not terminate its life, this is true (and don't say "likely" unless you can find evidence that 51% or more of pregnancies result in carrying a fetus to term, this is not actually true). It is true that it might. And it might not. Had I chosen to have sex with my girlfriend last night instead of falling asleep she MIGHT have gotten pregnant (damned bloody unlikely but possible). And she might not. If you want to use this example, anything that is not two fertile couples having sex prevents the possibility of a birth 9 months later.
what reason would you have for terminating a pregnancy if you've already had a miscarriage? that's silly.


Moreover, something is not, until it is. Whether or not it might later be born is of no relevance. A child is not born until it is born.

well, duh, I could've told you that...thanks, Plato...or should I say...Play-DOH! And a child doesn't have to be born to be a child. It has to be born to be born.


I promise you the cigarette i smoked 5 minutes ago was not smoked for my health. Since when is that a requirement for anything?

so the women abort their children's lives for convenience, not for health.


So does the steak deny the cow its life. Point?



So does my appendix.

yeah, well my liver has human DNA, but they still won't let me take that out...trees have DNA. everything has DNA. It's a fact...you shouldn't've said that thing about appendixes, because you hate facts.

So did Bessy the cow, until I ate her. Once again, point?

I love steak.


Fortunatly for all of us the Constitution of the United States is not up to you.

Fortunatly for all of us, you did not write the constitution.

Ah yes, it always comes back to god. Tell you what, if god wants abortions to stop let it come down here and tell us ok?


tell you what, I'm actually a prophet...and I say stop. And you know what? Abraham Lincoln was a prophet, and so was Abraham, and also Elijah, and that other one Elisha.
And I don't remember God ever having come down personally to stop the holicaust. He got the allies to stop it.


If it is not human, it has no human rights.

If it doesn't have human rights, it better have at least animal rights, because I know they exist. Like, I don't want somebody abusing my dog that I'm pregnant with.

Exactly. Not born. When it's born (or at least, has viability) it can stand as human. Until then a fetus is a parasite.
actually...fetus means offspring. You'd know that if you'd studied latin...or Latina, as we scholars call it.

The majority of women who get an abortion already have at least one child already. That alone negates your...um....screw being charitable, extraordinarly stupid argument.

well you know studies have suggested that the drop in inner city crime since 1973 has a lot to do with black babies and poor babies being aborted. Many pro-abortion individuals have even used this as a basis for why abortion should be kept legal. scary bulls%&t if you ask me.

Crumpet Stone , impressive response on that last one.

What is that? The dictionary of Muravyets ordains for all?
No, it's English.

I suggest that you spend a little time in a maternity ward or a obstetricians office, I think you will find many if not all of the women calling the entity in their wombs their 'babies.'
Maternity wards -- that's where babies are, right? Not concepti, embryos, or fetuses.

What a woman calls the entity inside her womb is irrelevant. She could call it a little angel straight from Jesus. She could call it a space alien. What she calls it does not affect what it actually is.

I suggest that your ordination of the right to be called a 'baby' is in fact simply a transfer of your objective, rather than what dictionaries and society use the word to mean.
That sentence makes no sense.

Also, Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b : BOY, MAN -- often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING <is one tough baby>
- ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Nothing there about fetuses, I notice.

The only REAL difference between a womb occupant being called a baby or not is IF the mother wants the offspring to be born or not. If it is wanted, it is a Baby, if it is not wanted, it is a cell growth. The difference is semantics, it is not as you pretend it to mean in that post, the offspring being called a baby is NOT dependant on whether or not is is umbilical cord connected or not umbilical cord connected.
No, the difference is that a baby is born and a fetus is not born. The terms are not interchangeable for anyone other than the anti-choice movement, who use "baby" as a form of propaganda to demonize the pro-choice movement as people who somehow want particularly to kill babies. Abortion does not kill babies.

Are you saying crack whores can't read? You know, you really need to stop judgin' people. Trolls. Trolls are a protected species, so you'd sure as hell keep that food dish in front of me full.

remember those trolls? they have that puffy hair that's pink or orange or even green! it's even green sometimes! not even kidding! I even had one that had a jewel in its bellybutton. It was a genie. I was so pretty. (You know, like in the movie Aladdin.) I even have a pirate one. You know, they're so ugly, they're cute...sort of like your mom. LOLLLZ! just joshing, guyz. seriously...I love you guys. I love you guys.

no, seriously; who here speaks spanish?
I'm done with you. You are deliberately pretending to have no reading comprehension, and you're just tossing out nonsense at this point -- I suppose it's because you can't carry your initial argument.

No, it's English.


Maternity wards -- that's where babies are, right? Not concepti, embryos, or fetuses.

What a woman calls the entity inside her womb is irrelevant. She could call it a little angel straight from Jesus. She could call it a space alien. What she calls it does not affect what it actually is.



space alien? like ET? Hey, who here has seen Aliens? Remember "Third Rock from the Sun"? They were aliens but they looked like humans. At first I thought they were retarded (which is totally cool, too) but then I found out they were actually aliens...boy, was my face red.

Nerdy Individuals']It is simple, just not black and white.

You are correct, the development of a fetuses brain is extremely less than ours. However, I don't think anyone would suggest that we should kill the retarded (who's brain is less devleoped or developes slower than ours) if they become an inconvenience. Also, killing newborns is illegal, but killing a fetus ten minutes before labor might happen is legal, so if we are using the inelligenc as a judgement, then we should either be able to kill the newborn, or not kill either.
Excuse me, but when and where in pro-abortion literature/legislation does it say that it's legal to kill a fetus at full gestation?

Seems to me, all you're doing is using emotionally charged language to defend a topic, cause logic can't.
But then, that's all the antis do anyway.

I'm done with you. You are deliberately pretending to have no reading comprehension, and you're just tossing out nonsense at this point -- I suppose it's because you can't carry your initial argument.

wait, what are we talking about? I thought it said "Application." Boy, is my face red...seriously, guys...this is awkward.

Food for thought perhaps?:

Those who think the abortion choice is a rationale choice should get abortions. It’s the right thing for them to do.

FYI: Abortion is likely just simply Evolution’s litmus test for thinning out the weak from the herd. Those who think the abortion choice is rationale will be culled from the herd, they will not pass on their genes. The genes of those that think abortion is NOT a rationale choice should generate the descendants of the human race so that they continue to have descendents themselves, it’s the evolutional way, after all. Broken individuals become self destructive individuals, they need to be culled from species for the good of the herd and one way or another evolution will find a way to do it. Even if it involves them thinking their doing it of their own accord.
So now you advocate abortions for some kind of genetic cleansing, to get rid of view points that differ from your own? Nice "culture of life" you anti-choicers have there.

No, it's English.


Maternity wards -- that's where babies are, right? Not concepti, embryos, or fetuses.

What a woman calls the entity inside her womb is irrelevant. She could call it a little angel straight from Jesus. She could call it a space alien. What she calls it does not affect what it actually is.


That sentence makes no sense.

Also, Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b : BOY, MAN -- often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING <is one tough baby>
- ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Nothing there about fetuses, I notice.


No, the difference is that a baby is born and a fetus is not born. The terms are not interchangeable for anyone other than the anti-choice movement, who use "baby" as a form of propaganda to demonize the pro-choice movement as people who somehow want particularly to kill babies. Abortion does not kill babies.

How about these terms instead of baby "human life" or "offspring". Do those float your boat? also, I resent the term "anti-choice", that is about the same as saying that those who are against bank robbery are "anti-choice" for denying the choice of stealing. Pro-choice is another loaded term, we are discussing the right to an abortion not a "choice". It is a sick way of getting around the graphic and violant nature of the procedure that we are talkinga bout. You are right that abortion does not kill babies. It kills human life, human offspring, that if left alone would become a fully functioning member of society. Jesus said to treat the least among us as you would treat him. I live by the standard that I treat others as I would wish to be treated. I am thankful that Jesus was not ripped from his womb, and that I am here instead of ripped apart and thrown out as medical waste before I got the chance to be born. Do onto others as you would have done to you....think about it.

Excuse me, but when and where in pro-abortion literature/legislation does it say that it's legal to kill a fetus at full gestation?

.

whats the difference between full gestation the the week before? Or the month before? There is none.

No, it's English.

Maternity wards -- that's where babies are, right? Not concepti, embryos, or fetuses.

What a woman calls the entity inside her womb is irrelevant. She could call it a little angel straight from Jesus. She could call it a space alien. What she calls it does not affect what it actually is.

That sentence makes no sense.

Also, Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1ba·by
Pronunciation: 'bA-bE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural babies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT (2) : an extremely young animal b : the youngest of a group
2 a : one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest
3 slang a : GIRL, WOMAN -- often used in address b : BOY, MAN -- often used in address
4 : PERSON, THING <is one tough baby>
- ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun
- ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective

Nothing there about fetuses, I notice.


No, the difference is that a baby is born and a fetus is not born. The terms are not interchangeable for anyone other than the anti-choice movement, who use "baby" as a form of propaganda to demonize the pro-choice movement as people who somehow want particularly to kill babies. Abortion does not kill babies.

child
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(-&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT

Nope, sorry, looks like you are over-reaching to try and win a point. A baby is a child which is an offspring, born or unborn. Just because YOU object to the mother's whom call the entity in their wombs 'Babies' does not in fact mean that the english language in dictionaries or popular use agree with you. Obviously, as has been shown, they do not agree with you.

You lose the point.

? Nice "culture of life" you anti-choicers have there.

anti-choice as in denying the right to "choose" to have an abortion and destroy your own offspring. . Talk about a poor choice of words. If I am anti-choice than I guess I have no choice but to continue to oppose abortion. I have no other choice. because ...I am anti-choice.

So now you advocate abortions for some kind of genetic cleansing, to get rid of view points that differ from your own? Nice "culture of life" you anti-choicers have there.

I don't have to choose anything, you choose it for me...

whats the difference between full gestation the the week before? Or the month before? There is none.
Surprise surprise, didn't (read=couldn't) answer the question.

Let me put it to you another, simply way:
Tell me, when do you consider a cake a cake?
Which one of the following would you choose, and why?
Are couple of eggs, some milk, flour and chocolate sitting in my kitchen a cake?
What if I mixed them all together and left the mixture sitting in a bowl on the table - would you call that a cake?
If I put the bowl into a hot oven. Is it now a cake?
30 minutes later, while it's still all runny inside, would you now say, "Yum, chocolate cake! Let's have a piece!"?
What about 59 minutes after first insertion - just 1 minute before one would take it out normally. Is it now a cake?

]but the fetus is what makes it a pregnancy

True, however your use of the term is wrong.

not the issue we are debating

If we are debating abortion, it is useful to use the term correctly. You can not debate something if you don't define it right. You do not abort a fetus you abort a pregnancy. Use the term right or don't use it at all.

pointless argument. By not having sex the human being is never created. Abortion destroys life that has been created. Very different things. You never thought of the difference?

It is not human life. It may, one day, become human life. Just as having sex at any point may, one day, become human life. To say that we should not commit an act that will stop the potential for human life in the future is to say we should never do anything that can not result in pregnancy. A fetus is not human. It has no rights of humanity. It may, one day, become human. But it's not yet.

ah, but creating life jsut to destroy it out of convenience is another story right?

Well, different than destroying it for medical reasons yes. That is however irrelevant. Her body, after all.

indeed, my point was that more than 90% of abortions are not for a valid medical reason

Without questioning your fact of % there, which is questionable, I again say...point?

comparing human life to that of cows does not dignify comment

Quite right. Fortunatly for me a fetus is no more human life than the cow is. The difference is that the fetus may, someday, become human life. But it isn't yet.

it seems like you never read it

Considerably more than you. It would certainly seem that the freedom to make choices regarding ones own body would well be fined as an aspect of "liberty". Are you familiar with the 14th amendment?

ever read anything by the Pope? Ocassionally. They tend to be interesting men now and again. I missed the memo where someone proved god was the pope though. In fact not even the catholic church has ever claimed that the pope WAS god, and they got rid of papal infallability a long time ago. The pope's a man, nothing more.


any human fetus has human DNA and meets the qualifications of life . This makes it human.

A single cell of my body has human dna. That single cell meets the qualifications of life. Is my one singular cell a human life? No, it's a cell. Take two cells, is it human life NOW? No, it's two cells. Three? Nope, three cells. The cells that make up my hand are all of them, each and every one of them, alive. They all contain human DNA (mine). Is my hand a human life? Is an amputation murder? Human life is defined as a collection of living cells, with human dna, with a functional brain that is sentient. A collection of cells, though they may be alive, and may well contain human dna, is not sentient. Ergo it is not human life.

Being squeezed out of a birth canal is what makes us human? How odd, my younger brother was born by c section. They planned the time of his birth. According to you if it was planned by 5pm thats when it became human. If it was planned for 2 pm it became human then?


It became human at the point where the collection of cells that formed its brain developed sentience, and the ability to survive outside of the womb.

Absurd. Until then a fetus is a parasite.this comment demonstrates a cruel and emotionally dead worldview of a trolling pro-abortion liberal. Human offspring is a parasite. Heavens you are a scary individual.

parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from
the host without benefiting or killing the host

A fetus lives in the womb of the pregnant woman, which obtains nourishment through the umbillical cord, does not kill the woman, but provides no biological benefit.

What part of that definition or description is incorrect. A fetus is, in a very literal sense, a parasite.

How about these terms instead of baby "human life" or "offspring". Do those float your boat?
Same difference, except that by being less specific, they become even more irrelevant.

also, I resent the term "anti-choice",
I don't care.

that is about the same as saying that those who are against bank robbery are "anti-choice" for denying the choice of stealing.
Bullshit. Robbery is a crime. Abortion is not a crime. The two do not become the same just because you try to sneak them into the same category.

Pro-choice is another loaded term, we are discussing the right to an abortion not a "choice".
More bullshit. We are discussing the right to make a choice, and you know it.

It is a sick way of getting around the graphic and violant nature of the procedure that we are talkinga bout.
Lots of things are graphic and violent. Lots of decisions are unpleasant, but they have to be made anyway. That's life. That's why they say it's a bitch.

You are right that abortion does not kill babies. It kills human life, human offspring, that if left alone would become a fully functioning member of society.
(A) The argument from potential is meaningless because you cannot predict the future. While often, embryos become fetuses and fetuses get born and become babies, this is not always the case. In fact, the majority of concepti never even make it to embryo stage. Embryos and early stage fetuses can spontaneously miscarry at any moment, for any reason or no discernable reason. In fact, the odds of giving birth after having sex are actually pretty long for humans, compared to other animals. There are a hell of a lot more eggs fertilized than babies born, even with no abortion in the picture.

(B) None of the above is relevant, given that I will not permit anyone, including a fetus, to use my body for its purposes against my will. Get around that one, friend.

Jesus said to treat the least among us as you would treat him. I live by the standard that I treat others as I would wish to be treated. I am thankful that Jesus was not ripped from his womb, and that I am here instead of ripped apart and thrown out as medical waste before I got the chance to be born. Do onto others as you would have done to you....think about it.
I don't worship your god, and I decline to be controlled by what you say are his rules.

Surprise surprise, didn't (read=couldn't) answer the question.

Let me put it to you another, simply way:
Tell me, when do you consider a cake a cake?
Which one of the following would you choose, and why?
Are couple of eggs, some milk, flour and chocolate sitting in my kitchen a cake?
What if I mixed them all together and left the mixture sitting in a bowl on the table - would you call that a cake?
If I put the bowl into a hot oven. Is it now a cake?
30 minutes later, while it's still all runny inside, would you now say, "Yum, chocolate cake! Let's have a piece!"?
What about 59 minutes after first insertion - just 1 minute before one would take it out normally. Is it now a cake?


This analogy is correct. The fetus is like the cake, the fetus is like the cake that is already IN the oven.

You want to take the cake out of the oven and throw it away and pretend like the oven wasn't already cooking when the baker comes back and says, what the hell did you do with my cake?

Surprise surprise, didn't (read=couldn't) answer the question.

Let me put it to you another, simply way:
Tell me, when do you consider a cake a cake?
Which one of the following would you choose, and why?
Are couple of eggs, some milk, flour and chocolate sitting in my kitchen a cake?
What if I mixed them all together and left the mixture sitting in a bowl on the table - would you call that a cake?
If I put the bowl into a hot oven. Is it now a cake?
30 minutes later, while it's still all runny inside, would you now say, "Yum, chocolate cake! Let's have a piece!"?
What about 59 minutes after first insertion - just 1 minute before one would take it out normally. Is it now a cake?


Idiotic. A cake is made from ingredients which come together. A human being has human DNA and is a living thing from the moment that it is concieved. Your bizzare side rant is not doing anything for me. I would like some cake though.

True, however your use of the term is wrong.



If we are debating abortion, it is useful to use the term correctly. You can not debate something if you don't define it right. You do not abort a fetus you abort a pregnancy. Use the term right or don't use it at all.



It is not human life. It may, one day, become human life. Just as having sex at any point may, one day, become human life. To say that we should not commit an act that will stop the potential for human life in the future is to say we should never do anything that can not result in pregnancy. A fetus is not human. It has no rights of humanity. It may, one day, become human. But it's not yet.



you sound just like hitler. Almost all humans admit killing humans is wrong, so if they want to kill someone, they claim they're not human. So the baby is not human...therefore, you can kill it.

anti-choice as in denying the right to "choose" to have an abortion and destroy your own offspring. . Talk about a poor choice of words. If I am anti-choice than I guess I have no choice but to continue to oppose abortion. I have no other choice. because ...I am anti-choice.
That's correct, you are denying me the right to choose to have an abortion. Or are you saying that you don't want to prevent me from choosing to have an abortion? Are you in favor of letting women choose to abort their pregnancies, then?

This analogy is correct. The fetus is like the cake, the fetus is like the cake that is already IN the oven.

The minute you put the ingredients into an oven it becomes a cake? the VERY SECOND you do? Really? Remind me never to eat anything you bake.

You want to take the cake out of the oven and throw it away and pretend like the oven wasn't already cooking

It was cooking, it wasn't a cake yet though. It might have later become one, but it wasn't yet.

when the baker comes back and says, what the hell did you do with my cake?

So women are given abortions without their knowledge or consent? You realize that's the ONLY way to interpret that analogy, right?

I don't have to choose anything, you choose it for me...
Sweetheart, if I chose for you, you wouldn't be posting here because I would choose for you not to bother me with your opinions. Yet here you are. I don't choose anything for you. You can do whatever you like. Except make me do what you want me to do, that is. That is the only choice I deny you.

Idiotic. A cake is made from ingredients which come together. A human being has human DNA and is a living thing from the moment that it is concieved.

A cake is made by putting the ingredients together and allowing it to bake. When it is done baking, it is a cake. Until it is done baking, it is not a cake.

A human life is made by putting the ingredients (sperm and egg) together and allowing it to gestate. Until it has gestated, it is not a human life.

THe analogy is quite solid. A sperm and egg together is no more a human life than a bunch of ingredients freshly placed into the oven is a cake.

The minute you put the ingredients into an oven it becomes a cake? the VERY SECOND you do? Really? Remind me never to eat anything you bake.

It was cooking, it wasn't a cake yet though. It might have later become one, but it wasn't yet.

So women are given abortions without their knowledge or consent? You realize that's the ONLY way to interpret that analogy, right?

You realize is was YOUR analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?

(B) None of the above is relevant, given that I will not permit anyone, including a fetus, to use my body for its purposes against my will. Get around that one, friend.


I don't worship your god, and I decline to be controlled by what you say are his rules.

sadly, the basic christian, jewish, and muslim rules seem to be the moral basis for our society. so you're out of luck. also american indians...they believe all life is sacred.

You realize is was YOUR analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?

I suggest you look back, or at least aquire the ability to tell one name for another.

And reading comprehension as well. You said what happens when the baker comes back and asks what the hell you did with what he was baking. The only way you could compare that to abortion is if the baker (the woman who was carrying the fetus) questions what happened to the thing (fetus) in her oven (womb).

And the only way that works is if someone gave a woman an abortion without her knowledge or consent. Otherwise the baker knows damn well what happened to it, she threw it out herself.

sadly, the basic christian, jewish, and muslim rules seem to be the moral basis for our society. so you're out of luck. also american indians...they believe all life is sacred.

Which is way abortion is, in fact, illegal in the United States.

Wait...crap.

You realize is was YOUR analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?

thus, the saying, "looks like this one had less time to cook." or, "when will I pop one out?" ("Not until the eighth grade" was the answer)

I'm gonna bake a cake shaped like a fetus.

child
Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(-&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(-&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT

Nope, sorry, looks like you are over-reaching to try and win a point. A baby is a child which is an offspring, born or unborn. Just because YOU object to the mother's whom call the entity in their wombs 'Babies' does not in fact mean that the english language in dictionaries or popular use agree with you. Obviously, as has been shown, they do not agree with you.

You lose the point.
I concede nothing, but if you want to claim this one, go ahead. In fact, let's take it even further and for the sake of this one point, let's say the fetus -- no, not even the fetus -- let's say the embryo is a person just as fully endowed with legal rights as you and I (since embryo is the stage at which most abortions are performed).

Now tell me, what legal right does the embryo have to force me to allow it to gestate in my body against my will?

Do you have a right to use my body against my will for any purpose? Can I be forced to give up my organs for donation against my will, even if it would save your life? No, I cannot be forced to do that. I am under no obligation to give you anything, not what you want, not even what you need. Can I be forced to have sex with a man against my will? No, I cannot be forced to do that, and if a man tries, he will be guilty of a crime. Even if all he wants is a baby, rather than sexual gratification, he still has no right to force me to carry one for him.

And so, if no other persons have any right to use my body for their purposes, even to save their lives, then what right would a fetus have to use my body to save its life? None. No right at all, if I am not willing.

Deal with it.

I suggest you look back, or at least aquire the ability to tell one name for another.

Adjusted:
You realize is was YOUR (sides) analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?

Which is way abortion is, in fact, illegal in the United States.

Wait...crap.

let's see...basic rules...

do not kill...do not steal...do not commit adultery (this is not illegal, but frowned upon by society)...do not swear (frowned upon)...obey your parents...do not lie...

yeah, it all checks in...you do realize that many are against abortion, right? I hope you realize Roe v. Wade wasn't a choice of the people.

I concede nothing, but if you want to claim this one, go ahead. In fact, let's take it even further and for the sake of this one point, let's say the fetus -- no, not even the fetus -- let's say the embryo is a person just as fully endowed with legal rights as you and I (since embryo is the stage at which most abortions are performed).

Now tell me, what legal right does the embryo have to force me to allow it to gestate in my body against my will?
...

Eminent domain.

Adjusted:
You realize is was YOUR (sides) analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?

That statement was made directly to your comment of "what happens when the baker comes back" question. The woman isn't the oven, she's the baker. The oven's the womb.

To ask what happens when the baker comes back is to question what happens when the woman realizes she had an abortion.

How would the woman NOT realize she had an abortion unless it was done without knowledge or consent? When the hell does THAT ever happen?

True, however your use of the term is wrong.
fetus...describing the unborn baby is wrong? lol

It is not human life. has human DNA and is made up of a complete set of cells which compromise a full body... It may, one day, become human life. which makes it ethical to destroy? wow.Just as having sex at any point may, one day, become human life.but sex does not by nature involve human life's destruction. abortion does. To say that we should not commit an act that will stop the potential for human life in the future is to say we should never do anything that can not result in pregnancy. I already refuted this boring and nonsensical bog bildge. You must not have read it ...:p A fetus is not human.I guess it has horse DNA It has no rights of humanity. It may, one day, become human. But it's not yet.



Well, different than destroying it for medical reasons yes. That is however irrelevant. Her body, after all.
ah, but if the fetus is a parasite than it is not her body...you just burned your own point.



Without questioning your fact of % there, which is questionable, I again say...point?
how would you feel if your mom thought you would be too inconvenient and decided to have you ripped apart and thrown away? The point is you would like a say in the matter.


Quite right. Fortunatly for me a fetus is no more human life than the cow is. The difference is that the fetus may, someday, become human life. But it isn't yet.only one has human DNA and exhibits every qualification for life at the same time....(sigh)



Considerably more than you. It would certainly seem that the freedom to make choices regarding ones own body would well be fined as an aspect of "liberty". Are you familiar with the 14th amendment?
but the fetus is be definition its own body ( as it is offspring) and not a part of the mother's body. I am a Constitution buff and have been for years, I dont know how you think you know me but you dont thank God. Ever heard of the right to due process before denial of life? Could that apply to abortion? Good grief.
Ocassionally. They tend to be interesting men now and again. I missed the memo where someone proved god was the pope though. In fact not even the catholic church has ever claimed that the pope WAS god, and they got rid of papal infallability a long time ago. The pope's a man, nothing more.
well how about the old testament passage where God is described as having seen and loved you as you were being "knitted in your mother's womb", btw Jesus told St. Peter to create the Catholic church and told him that what it decides is what is bound in heaven and what is bound in heaven is what is bound in the church. When the Pope condemns abortion it might do us well to listen.


A single cell of my body has human dna. That single cell meets the qualifications of life. Is my one singular cell a human life? now you are comparing a single cell to a full complete structure of a human being. Not a piece of one. If you cannot see the difference you are insane. No, it's a cell. Take two cells, is it human life NOW? No, it's two cells. Three? Nope, three cells. The cells that make up my hand are all of them, each and every one of them, alive. They all contain human DNA (mine). Is my hand a human life? Is an amputation murder? Human life is defined as a collection of living cells, with human dna,fetus has the last two of your qualifacations with a functional brain that is sentient.a severely retarded person or a stroke victem in a coma is not human life...wow...lets kill them too A collection of cells, though they may be alive, and may well contain human dna, is not sentient. Ergo it is not human life.
a piece of a person is not human life. Human offspring is. Your crazy analogy is the same as saying that a new car is not a car because a windshield wiper is not a car.



It became human at the point where the collection of cells that formed its brain developed sentience, and the ability to survive outside of the womb.
so it is ok to destroy is the hour or day before that happens? bet ur glad that did not happen to you.


parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from
the host without benefiting or killing the host

A fetus lives in the womb of the pregnant woman, which obtains nourishment through the umbillical cord, does not kill the woman, but provides no biological benefit.
so it isnt her body after all.
What part of that definition or description is incorrect. A fetus is, in a very literal sense, a parasite.
gah part II:(

Eminent domain.

So...we should force Mexicans to have our babies?

That statement was made directly to your comment of "what happens when the baker comes back" question. The woman isn't the oven, she's the baker. The oven's the womb.

To ask what happens when the baker comes back is to question what happens when the woman realizes she had an abortion.

How would the woman NOT realize she had an abortion unless it was done without knowledge or consent? When the hell does THAT ever happen?

Like what? Now you are saying the womb is NOT a part of the woman?

Silly, give it up. Obviously your side says the woman IS the oven or else she doesn't need an abortion... The baker doesn't have the cake taken out of him.

This analogy is correct. The fetus is like the cake, the fetus is like the cake that is already IN the oven.

You want to take the cake out of the oven and throw it away and pretend like the oven wasn't already cooking when the baker comes back and says, what the hell did you do with my cake?
What is the baker doing putting his cake in my oven? Why can't I say, who the hell put this unwanted cake in my oven? and throw it out? In fact, as the owner of the oven, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so.

I don't care what you guys say, but I was never a parasite. Maybe you guys are, because you keep saying other people are. I'll tell you what else are parasites...hagfish. And lampreys. They're the only jawless fish. And Hookworms. Those are parasites. oh yeah...and a parasite harms its host. Feti don't harm their mothers while they are in the womb.

let's see...basic rules...

do not kill

Self defense is a valid legal justification. Additonally the Code of Hammurabbi outlawed murder, and that predated christianity by thousands of years. So did the Romans, we draw our law from those sources as well, none of which were influenced by christianity, as they predate it.

...do not steal...

See above.

do not commit adultery (this is not illegal, but frowned upon by society)

The fact that in many places it is not illegal does not bode well for your argument that our law is derived from christianity.

...do not swear (frowned upon)

By that argument the 1st amendment is a very unchristian law as it pretty much allows exactly what religion discourages, the right for me to say what i please.

you do realize that many are against abortion, right? I hope you realize Roe v. Wade wasn't a choice of the people.

That's nice. However we are not a pure democracy. The will of the people does not overwrite the constitution. Never does.

Oh fuck, here we go again...

*commits sepuku*

What is the baker doing putting his cake in my oven? Why can't I say, who the hell put this unwanted cake in my oven? and throw it out? In fact, as the owner of the oven, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so.

I was just trying to make you a cake, I thought you'd like it :(

So...we should force Mexicans to have our babies?

You need a history book, dictionary and thesaurus, then come back and participate intelligently.

Same difference, except that by being less specific, they become even more irrelevant.
human life as a term is not relavent to you or to Stalin. Makes sense.

I don't care.which is the problem. You wouldnt care if you got aborted either. Just a choice after all.

More bullshit. We are discussing the right to make a choice, and you know it.
does'nt that standard apply to any thread. If you are pro-death penalty why not call yourself pro-choice. If you are against the Bush tax cuts call yourself anti-choice. It is a fallacy and a way of getting around the point.

Lots of things are graphic and violent. Lots of decisions are unpleasant, but they have to be made anyway. That's life. That's why they say it's a bitch.
do to others would you would have done to you.

(A) The argument from potential is meaningless because you cannot predict the future.yes I can While often, embryos become fetuses and fetuses get born and become babies, this is not always the case. yes, it is merely the natural progression of the biological function...:p In fact, the majority of concepti never even make it to embryo stage. Embryos and early stage fetuses can spontaneously miscarry at any moment, for any reason or no discernable reason. In fact, the odds of giving birth after having sex are actually pretty long for humans, compared to other animals. There are a hell of a lot more eggs fertilized than babies born, even with no abortion in the picture.all of which occurs naturally, the same as a stoke victim is a seperate thing from a murder. The existance of strokes does not justify murder.

(B) None of the above is relevant, given that I will not permit anyone, including a fetus, to use my body for its purposes against my will. Get around that one, friend.
a fetus is not your body. It is by definition an entirely new person. There is nothing to "get around".

I don't worship your god, and I decline to be controlled by what you say are his rules.yup, and if people had there would be no AIDS, no death penalty, and no Iraq war. all well.
gah part III:(

I don't care what you guys say, but I was never a parasite.

I question whether you are not actually one now.

and a parasite harms its host.

Incorrect definition.

Feti don't harm their mothers while they are in the womb.

Ever see stretchmarks? Don't think that's the result of damaged tissue?

What is the baker doing putting his cake in my oven? Why can't I say, who the hell put this unwanted cake in my oven? and throw it out? In fact, as the owner of the oven, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so.

I'm surprised that this analogy took so long to take flight. It's probably going to last forever now. Bakers will be prized as lovers for their virility. Women will be guaged as mothers by the size of their stove. Betty Crocker will be the new fertility goddess. Mankind will not procreate, Mankind will shake'n'bake.

A cake is made by putting the ingredients together and allowing it to bake. When it is done baking, it is a cake. Until it is done baking, it is not a cake.

A human life is made by putting the ingredients (sperm and egg) together and allowing it to gestate. Until it has gestated, it is not a human life.

THe analogy is quite solid. A sperm and egg together is no more a human life than a bunch of ingredients freshly placed into the oven is a cake.

Ok, so lets roll with your analogy. Lets say we value a cake as much as we value human life that is your own offspring . WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TURN OFF THE OVEN?

facts:

a fetus will likely be born if you do not abort it
most abortions are not done for the mother's health
abortion denies the fetus its life
a fetus has human DNA and meets all qualifications of being life

The slaughter of the unborn is nothing short of a blight on the human race. A disgusting sacrifice of convenience and pleasure which was made mandatory by activist judges. There have been 30 million abortions since Roe v. wade was decided, in America. If it was up to me those 30 million people would have had the opportunity to live, love, see the world, participate in our lives, and be able to experience the gifts that God intended for them. The vile holocaust of abortion seems to be off the charts of the very people who should be concerned with the civil rights and human rights of the unborn.
Fact: the woman has the right of self-ownership
Fact: there is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.
Fact: there is no such thing as the right to be a parasite
Fact: it's none of anyone else's business except the woman's regarding abortion.
Fact: denial of abortion rights is the enslavement of women.

sadly, the basic christian, jewish, and muslim rules seem to be the moral basis for our society. so you're out of luck. also american indians...they believe all life is sacred.
No, I'm not out of luck because abortion is legal in most supposedly christian/jewish-rules-dominated countries, including the one I live in. And I'm not an American Indian.

What is the baker doing putting his cake in my oven? Why can't I say, who the hell put this unwanted cake in my oven? and throw it out? In fact, as the owner of the oven, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so.

Eminent domain honey, for the good of the plural and because your choices affect more than just you, we are unable to allow you to choose that option at this time...

See, that wasn't that hard to do.

You need a history book, dictionary and thesaurus, then come back and participate intelligently.

I have a cinnamon roll, a bottle of root beer and a nagging reluctance to go to bed. That will have to do.

I suggest you look back, or at least aquire the ability to tell one name for another.

And reading comprehension as well. You said what happens when the baker comes back and asks what the hell you did with what he was baking. The only way you could compare that to abortion is if the baker (the woman who was carrying the fetus) questions what happened to the thing (fetus) in her oven (womb).

And the only way that works is if someone gave a woman an abortion without her knowledge or consent. Otherwise the baker knows damn well what happened to it, she threw it out herself.

Using your analogy the cake is human offspring. I see no ethical reason for the baker to be allowed to destroy such a creation. How vile.

What is the baker doing putting his cake in my oven? Why can't I say, who the hell put this unwanted cake in my oven? and throw it out? In fact, as the owner of the oven, I'd be perfectly within my rights to do so.
this is getting dumb.

Self defense is a valid legal justification. Additonally the Code of Hammurabbi outlawed murder, and that predated christianity by thousands of years. So did the Romans, we draw our law from those sources as well, none of which were influenced by christianity, as they predate it.



See above.



The fact that in many places it is not illegal does not bode well for your argument that our law is derived from christianity.



By that argument the 1st amendment is a very unchristian law as it pretty much allows exactly what religion discourages, the right for me to say what i please.



That's nice. However we are not a pure democracy. The will of the people does not overwrite the constitution. Never does.
ah but that is the problem. The text of the Constitution, if anything, outlaws abortion. It says that no person shall be denied life without due process. Activist judges have brought on the holocaust of abortion, not the text of our Constitution.

yes, it is merely the natural progression of the biological function...

If your argument is "a fetus that will become life is the same as human life because becomming human life is part of its biological function" is part of your argument then you MUST, logically, support abortion.

Every living thing, EVERY living thing, dies. Death is a natural, and final, part of the progression of its biological function.


The existance of strokes does not justify murder.

Bullshit response. The existance of strokes demonstrates that not all humans die as a result of murder. Likewise not all fetuses die as a result of abortion. Many do, in fact.

a fetus is not your body. It is by definition an entirely new person.

No, it is by definition an entirely new LIFE. Just not human life. A life using a hosts body without permission in fact. Thus that NON human life, which is a functional parasite, has no right to continue using the hosts body without its permission.

and if people had there would be no AIDS

OMFG, you're one of those "AIDS is god's punishment against teh gays" people aren't you? Everything makes SO much sense now.

I question whether you are not actually one now.



Incorrect definition.



Ever see stretchmarks? Don't think that's the result of damaged tissue?

If the fetus is a parasite than it is ok to kill it because it is the mother's body. Does anybody else see how illogical that statement is? Anybody? And yes, stretchmarks are a good reason to allow abortions. Just like how the lack of a ban on swearing makes the U.S. Constitution anti-Christian. You people are nuts.

Ok, so lets roll with your analogy. Lets say we value a cake as much as we value human life that is your own offspring . WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TURN OFF THE OVEN?


Because as much as I may value human life, I value equally the right to use my oven as I, and ONLY I, see fit. And if someone puts a cake in MY oven, I'm taking it the hell OUT. Of course...I lack a womb so the analogy breaks there but...eh.

Again may I point out that a fetus is no more human life then the very real, and non metaphorical unbaked cake is?

If the fetus is a parasite than it is ok to kill it because it is the mother's body. Does anybody else see how illogical that statement is?

Absolutly and perfectly logical. If something is using MY body without MY permission then I have every right to get it the fuck OUT of my body.

Self defense is a valid legal justification. Additonally the Code of Hammurabbi outlawed murder, and that predated christianity by thousands of years. So did the Romans, we draw our law from those sources as well, none of which were influenced by christianity, as they predate it.



You have reading comprehension problems, I'm sorry to say. but I'm cool with that.
you never said you had problems with romans or babylonians or sumerians. You had problems with the jewish and christian god. I was telling you that you shouldn't, because the constitution was also written by christians.

See above.



The fact that in many places it is not illegal does not bode well for your argument that our law is derived from christianity.



By that argument the 1st amendment is a very unchristian law as it pretty much allows exactly what religion discourages, the right for me to say what i please.



do you even know anything about christians? obviously, you don't. my religion says nothing against freedom of speech, press, and all those other ones. do you know the priest at my church? because you obviously don't. He is a very good man and effeminate, which is not a crime, according to the church. so you can shut your freakin' piehole.

That's nice. However we are not a pure democracy. The will of the people does not overwrite the constitution. Never does.
Pure democracy? we are a republic, actually...a democratic republic. that constitutional law was written before... without the public's say...(I don't want to curse your name...that's for bullies and inarticulate people.)

Fact: the woman has the right of self-ownership
Fact: there is no such thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being.
Fact: there is no such thing as the right to be a parasite
Fact: it's none of anyone else's business except the woman's regarding abortion.
Fact: denial of abortion rights is the enslavement of women.

well being that the fetus is by definition not part of the woman but a seperate organism fact number one is pointless.
fact number 2 is pointless because it has never been decided in a court of law.

fact number 3 is pointless because of the point I made in response to fact number 1.

fact number 4: not a fact but an opinion.
fact number 5: yet another opinion....and a silly one at that. Yes, all women in America were slaves until Harry Blackmun liberated them in 1973. Lets put him on the penny.

ah but that is the problem. The text of the Constitution, if anything, outlaws abortion. It says that no person shall be denied life without due process.

Please tell me where in the constitution it defines a fetus as a person.

Wait, it doesn't?

Oh well, guess it doesn't get the rights of personhood then.

Absolutly and perfectly logical. If something is using MY body without MY permission then I have every right to get it the fuck OUT of my body.

try using that on your crabs...they seem to be bothering you.

try using that on your crabs...they seem to be bothering you.

Got some experience dealing with crabs, eh?

But seriously, that wasn't very gentlemanly. You'd never get anywhere near an oven with that attitude.

oh, yeah, arthritis...AIDs would not have come about if people had not been having sex all willy-nilly...did you hear about the terrible syphilus people had in the 18th century because of prostitutes?

let's see...basic rules...

do not kill...do not steal...do not commit adultery (this is not illegal, but frowned upon by society)...do not swear (frowned upon)...obey your parents...do not lie...
Basic rules for whom? Where?

Soldiers kill -- it's their job -- nobody blames them for it as long as they follow the rules of war.

Many people consider it perfectly all right to steal; other disagree with them.

Whose society frowns on adultery? Thousands of people engage in it, and hundreds of thousands stamp and yell for old anti-adultery laws to be repealed whenever some puritan attorney general tries to enforce one.

Swearing? I'm a New Yorker, pal. Swearing is our traditional language. So far from being frowned on, it's considered friendly where I come from.

Obey your parents? You're kidding, right? What if parents decide their daughter should get an abortion? Should she obey them?

Do not lie -- ha ha, has anyone told our politicians that?

yeah, it all checks in...you do realize that many are against abortion, right? I hope you realize Roe v. Wade wasn't a choice of the people.
(A) Rights are not matters for majority rule. If they were, the US might still have slavery, or at least racial segregation.

(B) Most polls over the past 20 years show that the majority of Americans want to keep Roe v Wade and abortion just as it is, actually.

:( If your argument is "a fetus that will become life is the same as human life because becomming human life is part of its biological function" is part of your argument then you MUST, logically, support abortion.

Every living thing, EVERY living thing, dies. Death is a natural, and final, part of the progression of its biological function.
but the deliberate destruction of life is not natural. I cant wait until I see you respond to my next..comment..



Bullshit response. The existance of strokes demonstrates that not all humans die as a result of murder. Likewise not all fetuses die as a result of abortion. Many do, in fact.
ah, here it is, you again making the silly claim that since we all die murder is ok...wow


No, it is by definition an entirely new LIFE.as in not part of the woman's body... Just not human life. A life using a hosts body without permissionI thought the sex was the permission, babies tend to be the result of the biological function of sex, after all in fact. Thus that NON human lifethat happens to have human DNA and a complete set of instructions for a human being, along with requisite parts, which is a functional parasite, has no right to continue using the hosts body without its permission.the permission was the sex, and I love how you admit you were a parasite that could be destroyed...or was that not you wiggling your fingers and toes in the sonogram?...



OMFG, you're one of those "AIDS is god's punishment against teh gays" people aren't you? Everything makes SO much sense now.well if they had lived a life of absinance aids wouldnt have had much of a chance would it. Certainly millions would have lived intead of facing death. I put the blame where it lies.
gah part IV:(

Muravyets,

I'm sorry I put my cake in your oven. I was just trying to be nice :(

well being that the fetus is by definition not part of the woman
By definition, a fetus IS part of the woman, given that it is connected via the umbillical cord.

You get an F in biology.

Also, you say that #1 is pointless. I guess that means you believe women are slaves. Just baby machines, right? Barefoot and in the kitchen where they belong.


fact number 2 is pointless because it has never been decided in a court of law.
Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be decided in a court of law. In fact: rights do not get decided in a court of law.

So--is there such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being? You clearly seem to think so. So I suggest you let someone latch on to one of your kidneys--surgically attached. Let's see what you say then.


fact number 3 is pointless because of the point I made in response to fact number 1.
So women really have no rights, huh? Just slaves.


fact number 4: not a fact but an opinion.
False. It's a fact. It's just like it's none of your business if someone visits a prostitute or takes drugs. It. Isn't. Your. Life.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that it IS your life. Which I know you can't do.


fact number 5: yet another opinion
It's a fact.

Tell me: if a woman does not have the right of self-ownership, then who owns her?

Because as much as I may value human life, I value equally the right to use my oven as I, and ONLY I, see fit. And if someone puts a cake in MY oven, I'm taking it the hell OUT. Of course...I lack a womb so the analogy breaks there but...eh.

Again may I point out that a fetus is no more human life then the very real, and non metaphorical unbaked cake is?

But by definiton the fetus is not a part of the woman. It is its own seperate organism. Now I am not a person who will post pictures of abortion. But I will post a picture of a normal fetus that is not aborted and is developing well..

http://www.aclife.org/images/development/11w-01.jpg

those are the feet. No more life than an unbaked cake? You be the judge.

Absolutly and perfectly logical. If something is using MY body without MY permission then I have every right to get it the fuck OUT of my body.
You had sex. that was the permission. It is in there because of you.

Food for thought perhaps?:

Those who think the abortion choice is a rationale choice should get abortions. It’s the right thing for them to do.

FYI: Abortion is likely just simply Evolution’s litmus test for thinning out the weak from the herd. Those who think the abortion choice is rationale will be culled from the herd, they will not pass on their genes. The genes of those that think abortion is NOT a rationale choice should generate the descendants of the human race so that they continue to have descendents themselves, it’s the evolutional way, after all. Broken individuals become self destructive individuals, they need to be culled from species for the good of the herd and one way or another evolution will find a way to do it. Even if it involves them thinking their doing it of their own accord.

now, my problem with this is that evolution is a natural process, whereas, abortion isn't. unless it's like...it will weed out the unwanted. I have a better idea...why don't we just get rid of blind and deaf people, like ol' mother nature used to do herself, until we started getting them hearing aids and eye surgery? We really have ruined the course of nature, what with our computers, and condoms, and chemo-therapy...

Please tell me where in the constitution it defines a fetus as a person.

Wait, it doesn't?

Oh well, guess it doesn't get the rights of personhood then.

Pointless. It says that no person shall be denied life. You deny a person to have life when an abortion is carried out. If the fetus is not aborted it lives a full life as a person. When aborted that life is denied without due process.

I thought the sex was the permission

Then you were wrong. Sex was permission to have sex. Nothing more.


and a complete set of instructions for a human being, along with requisite parts

It does not have all the requisite parts, it does not have a mind capable of sentience.


and I love how you admit you were a parasite that could be destroyed...or was that not you wiggling your fingers and toes in the sonogram?..

Nope, wasn't me. It was the fetus from which I developed. Not me.

now, my problem with this is that evolution is a natural process, whereas, abortion isn't. unless it's like...it will weed out the unwanted.
And here we go with the hyperbole to eugenics.

Got some experience dealing with crabs, eh?

But seriously, that wasn't very gentlemanly. You'd never get anywhere near an oven with that attitude.

I think you mean "ladylike". So you're one of those sexist, male-chauvinistic jerks who think the unidentified third person is "he". Pig. You just assume I'm a boy because I use large words, huh?

P. S. I like seafood crabs, and if you mean experience dealing with those, I can peel them open with my bare hands.

P. P. S. I was born from a vagina so you can shut your freaking mouth

Pointless. It says that no person shall be denied life.
Miscarriages deny life. You must now assent to jailing women who have miscarriages or be a hypocrite.

You had sex. that was the permission. It is in there because of you.

Damn those women who get raped because it's their fault...

That's one fallacy in your argument. The other is simply as I said. Giving permission for sex is simply giving permission for sex. It is impossible to give a fetus permission to exust before it itself existed, and you were aware of your existance.

(A) Rights are not matters for majority rule. If they were, the US might still have slavery, or at least racial segregation.

(B) Most polls over the past 20 years show that the majority of Americans want to keep Roe v Wade and abortion just as it is, actually.
so......you somehow make a Constitutional argument without mentioning the text of the Constitution.

Eminent domain.
So you do think that a woman's body is an object that can be treated as property? Weren't you the one criticizing Artais for using an oven analogy? Yet here you are applying real estate law to my body, as if it were a parcel of land.

By the way, eminent domain ONLY applies to government takings. No private person can claim eminent domain. So if you're going to apply eminent domain to my body, then you are saying that the government has the right to take over my body for its purposes. Is that what you want to be saying? Do you want to make me chattel owned by the government? If the government has the right to loan out my uterus for others to gestate in, does it also have the right to forcibly take organs out of my body for transplants? Does it have the right to kill me, if it thinks it can make better use of the space I take up? What if the government decides I shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? Would you allow the government to claim eminent domain to force me to have an abortion?

Tell me, do you think ALL people should be subject to eminent domain over their bodies? In that case, since fetuses are people, according to you, would you approve of a government plan to force women to have babies just so the government can take the babies to be raised as laborers or an army? How about forcing women to get pregnant and get abortions to produce materials for stem cell research?

Eminent domain applied to human bodies would allow all of that.

Fortunately, eminent domain ONLY applies to real property, i.e. land and buildings.

You had sex. that was the permission.
Prove it. Prove that sex is permission for pregnancy. Especially if the couple uses contraception.

I wanna watch you squirm.

Pointless. It says that no person shall be denied life. You deny a person to have life when an abortion is carried out.


No, you deny a fetus life. A fetus is not a person. Since the constitution does not define a fetus as a person, you can not assume that the 14th amendment includes a fetus in the concept of "person".

The constitution says "no person". I contend that the constitution does not define a fetus as a person, therefore the 14th does not apply to a fetus. You must demonstrate that it does, you can not do so, so your claim that it is unconstitutional fails.

I wasn't joking. You guys really killed it...the magic is dead. You seriously don't think babies are amazing? I mean, seriously, they have all their fingers and toes, which is more than some people involved in firecracker accidents...and since we only care about those with more parts, we should ostracize people who mess with fireworks. But you really don't find it amazing how babies go from being so tiny and red to talking in three years? I might as well stop believing in unicorns, if this is really how people of the world are.

so......you somehow make a Constitutional argument without mentioning the text of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant rights; it sets up and delimits the scope of the Federal Government. And within Amendments is contained the idea that not every right that we have is listed in the Amendments. That what is listed are just some of them--the tip of the iceberg. Those which we want first and foremost to keep the Federal Government from infringing upon.

You'd know that if you studied the Constitution.

Eminent domain.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

hint: it has to do only with real property.

I was just trying to make you a cake, I thought you'd like it :(
It's the thought that counts, dear. :) *takes unfinished cake out of oven and throws it away*

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!

So you do think that a woman's body is an object that can be treated as property? Weren't you the one criticizing Artais for using an oven analogy? Yet here you are applying real estate law to my body, as if it were a parcel of land.


I think both of you should shut your freaking pieholes...a woman's body is property. It's her own property. a baby, while it is her child, is her property, yet she has no right to kill it. I mean, I'm not allowed to kill my dog.

But anyway, my body is my own so stop trying to make me get teen pregnant and get an abortion.

By definition, a fetus IS part of the woman, given that it is connected via the umbillical cord.

so then it is not a parasite.

Also, you say that #1 is pointless. I guess that means you believe women are slaves. Just baby machines, right? Barefoot and in the kitchen where they belong.
no I support the right of every person to live a full life so long as they do not harm others.

Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be decided in a court of law. In fact: rights do not get decided in a court of law.
my response is to quote you " rights do not get decided in a court of law.

lol
So--is there such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being? You clearly seem to think so. So I suggest you let someone latch on to one of your kidneys--surgically attached. Let's see what you say then.
well.....by having sex and gettting pregnant the woman makes that decision....doesnt she.


So women really have no rights, huh? Just slaves.
where did I say that women have "no rights"? You are being a foolish troll. You better watch your back.


False. It's a fact. It's just like it's none of your business if someone visits a prostitute or takes drugs. It. Isn't. Your. Life.
a fact is
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that it IS your life. Which I know you can't do.



It's a fact.





fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
opinion: A belief or conclusion

your blabbering about women being slaves is nothing but unpopular feminist opining. Look, 15 million women have been killed by abortion since Roe. What ever happened to their control over their bodies? They were ripped apart before they were even born.

But by definiton the fetus is not a part of the woman. It is its own seperate organism. Now I am not a person who will post pictures of abortion. But I will post a picture of a normal fetus that is not aborted and is developing well..

http://www.aclife.org/images/development/11w-01.jpg

those are the feet. No more life than an unbaked cake? You be the judge.

That's nice. It looks like a human.

So does a shaved chimp. A shaved chimp is not a human. Nor is the object in that picture.

No one claimed a fetus has NO life. It has life, it is technically alive. It is simply not human life however.

Because it is not human life it does not have human rights. Ergo it has no inherent right to survival, no more so than a cow.

So you do think that a woman's body is an object that can be treated as property? Weren't you the one criticizing Artais for using an oven analogy? Yet here you are applying real estate law to my body, as if it were a parcel of land.

By the way, eminent domain ONLY applies to government takings. No private person can claim eminent domain. So if you're going to apply eminent domain to my body, then you are saying that the government has the right to take over my body for its purposes. Is that what you want to be saying? Do you want to make me chattel owned by the government? If the government has the right to loan out my uterus for others to gestate in, does it also have the right to forcibly take organs out of my body for transplants? Does it have the right to kill me, if it thinks it can make better use of the space I take up? What if the government decides I shouldn't be allowed to reproduce? Would you allow the government to claim eminent domain to force me to have an abortion?

Tell me, do you think ALL people should be subject to eminent domain over their bodies? In that case, since fetuses are people, according to you, would you approve of a government plan to force women to have babies just so the government can take the babies to be raised as laborers or an army? How about forcing women to get pregnant and get abortions to produce materials for stem cell research?

Eminent domain applied to human bodies would allow all of that.

Fortunately, eminent domain ONLY applies to real property, i.e. land and buildings.

Oh you are so silly sometimes, you have such a 'selective' memory of the real world around you, it’s almost cute in it’s own naïve way. Or it would be if I believed you were so naïve, except that you are not. You pretend ignorance to try and make a point in a debate…

Have you never heard of the draft? Forced servitude that could result in your very death, for the sake of the state's needs?

Which country do you think doesn't have forced servitude during times of need? Your body, their property. That’s how it works.

Oh you are so silly sometimes, you have such a 'selective' memory of the real world around you, it’s almost cute in it’s own naïve way. Or it would be if I believed you were so naïve, except that you are not. You pretend ignorance to try and make a point in a debate…

Have you never heard of the draft? Forced servitude that could result in your very death, for the sake of the state's needs?

Which country do you think doesn't have forced servitude during times of need? Your body, their property. That’s how it works.
That is not clasified under eminant domain either


Either way I think the draft is as wrong as forcing a woman to use her body in a way that she does not cocent to

Miscarriages deny life. You must now assent to jailing women who have miscarriages or be a hypocrite.

Miscarriages are not on purpose. Destuction of life on purpose is immoral. Natural death is ....not immoral..it is a natural occurance. Your insulting and petty argument does not withstand even half-hearted examination. You must be joking if you seriously equate natural death with intentional destruction of life. :p

Destuction of life on purpose is immoral.

You are a vegan then, I take it?

Wait, shit, plants are life...

Breatharian?

parasites harm their host. that is the definition of a parasite. You can see how much nutrition feti steal from their mothers because the mothers are so skinny. wait...

Miscarriages are not on purpose. Destuction of life on purpose is immoral. Natural death is ....not immoral..it is a natural occurance. Your insulting and petty argument does not withstand even half-hearted examination. You must be joking if you seriously equate natural death with intentional destruction of life. :p
Some are caused by lifestyle choices? Should all females that don’t do everything absolutely right be charged with manslaughter if they then have a miscarriage ?

What about the people who know they have a medical condition that could lead to a good chance of a miscarriage … should they be charged as well for putting the fetus into known danger?

parasites harm their host. that is the definition of a parasite.

Incorrect.

parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from
the host without benefiting or killing the host

[QUOTE=Arthais101

Giving permission for sex is simply giving permission for sex. It is impossible to give a fetus permission to exust before it itself existed, and you were aware of your existance.[/QUOTE]

Because sex has no consequences at all right? Ever heard of Humanae Vitae? It predicted that the modern culture of death would breed individuals such as yourself who forget the basic function of sex. Then again, why would you have read Humanae Vitae, you don't even know when you think human life begins.

I think both of you should shut your freaking pieholes...a woman's body is property. It's her own property. a baby, while it is her child, is her property, yet she has no right to kill it. I mean, I'm not allowed to kill my dog.

But anyway, my body is my own so stop trying to make me get teen pregnant and get an abortion.

You can kill your dog. Nobody's stopping you.

parasites harm their host. that is the definition of a parasite. You can see how much nutrition feti steal from their mothers because the mothers are so skinny. wait...
Um I dont know what dictionary you are using but mine says this

par·a·site Audio pronunciation of "parasite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
2. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.


A fetus most deffinatly fits deffinition 1

The Constitution does not grant rights; it sets up and delimits the scope of the Federal Government. And within Amendments is contained the idea that not every right that we have is listed in the Amendments. That what is listed are just some of them--the tip of the iceberg. Those which we want first and foremost to keep the Federal Government from infringing upon.

You'd know that if you studied the Constitution.

such as the right not to be denied life without due process?

Incorrect.

parasite
n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another
animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from
the host without benefiting or killing the host

excuse me, have you ever had a simple biology host? a parasite harms the host, but does not kill it, because if the host dies, then it dies.

That is not clasified under eminant domain either


Either way I think the draft is as wrong as forcing a woman to use her body in a way that she does not cocent to


You can think it's as wrong as you like... Doesn't change anything though. I can think that gravity should fall upwards, but it's not going to make it happen.

Eminent domain, is, in essence, what the state needs for the common (plural) good, it will do what it will do. How much power eminent domain has in each government is up to the standards of that governing body (if it be the populace than so be it), but that is the 'fact' of living on this planet as a human being, and it has always been so.

Your imaginary world notwithstanding.

Because sex has no consequences at all right?

Sex always has potential concequences. For instance, I can get syphalis, in theory. Thereofre by your logic I should not be allowed to get treatment for such a thing, because I by having sex I accept having syphalis?

Fuck that, if I get a (treatable) STD, I'm treating it. I do not give consent to breed a spirokete in me if I happen to get one during sex. A woman does not give consent to the fetus if one happens to develop during sex.

You can kill your dog. Nobody's stopping you.

actually, killing your dog (or cat) is called animal cruelty, thank you very much. I saw PETA get in trouble for it.

That's nice. It looks like a human.

So does a shaved chimp. A shaved chimp is not a human. Nor is the object in that picture.

No one claimed a fetus has NO life. It has life, it is technically alive. It is simply not human life however.

Because it is not human life it does not have human rights. Ergo it has no inherent right to survival, no more so than a cow.
say, doesnt the fetus have human DNA whereas a chimp does not? Thats a big DUH if you ask me. So you admit a fetus is a life. I got you to say it. Good. Now onto the human part>>>>>>what species' DNA does it have? Answer the question. What species' DNA does it have?

By definition, a fetus IS part of the woman, given that it is connected via the umbillical cord.
so then it is not a parasite.
Yes it is. Just because it's part of her does not mean it's not a parasite.


Also, you say that #1 is pointless. I guess that means you believe women are slaves. Just baby machines, right? Barefoot and in the kitchen where they belong.
no I support the right of every person to live a full life so long as they do not harm others.
That's a nice dodge. Now address the point.


Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be decided in a court of law. In fact: rights do not get decided in a court of law.
my response is to quote you " rights do not get decided in a court of law.
What a nice dodge. Now address the point, coward.


So--is there such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being? You clearly seem to think so. So I suggest you let someone latch on to one of your kidneys--surgically attached. Let's see what you say then.
well.....by having sex and gettting pregnant the woman makes that decision....doesnt she.
No, she does not. Whatever gives you the idiotic notion that she does?


So women really have no rights, huh? Just slaves.
where did I say that women have "no rights"?
You clearly believe they do not, you foolish troll. You clearly believe that a woman does not have the right of self-ownership. All rights stem from that, you foolish troll. You had better watch your back, foolish troll. Or else someone will demand that you actually provide the evidence for your claims, foolish troll. And then you will have to run away like the foolish troll that you are.


False. It's a fact. It's just like it's none of your business if someone visits a prostitute or takes drugs. It. Isn't. Your. Life.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that it IS your life. Which I know you can't do.
a fact is


fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
And it is a fact that my life is not your life. It is also a fact that a woman's life is not your life.

Unless, of course, you're claiming to be everyone at all times. Is that what you're claiming?


your blabbering about women being slaves is nothing but unpopular feminist opining.
No, it's quite correct reasoning. You deny the woman the right of self-ownership when you say she cannot remove something from her body that she does not want there. You are replacing her free will with your edicts. You are denying her the right to control her body. That, m'laddio, is slavery. Like it or not.

[quote]Originally Posted by Muravyets
Same difference, except that by being less specific, they become even more irrelevant.
human life as a term is not relavent to you or to Stalin. Makes sense.
Hm, close to a Godwin (though Crumpet beat you to it), and not an argument.

I don't care.which is the problem. You wouldnt care if you got aborted either. Just a choice after all.
You're right, I wouldn't care if I got aborted because, you know, how would I know?

More bullshit. We are discussing the right to make a choice, and you know it.
does'nt that standard apply to any thread. If you are pro-death penalty why not call yourself pro-choice. If you are against the Bush tax cuts call yourself anti-choice. It is a fallacy and a way of getting around the point.
This is just you attempting to redefine the terms of the debate, but those terms were set long ago by people other than us. My side calls itself pro-choice. Therefore, our opponents are anti-choice, since they oppose what we are fighting for, which is allowing women to make the choice. Your side calls itself pro-life, therefore your opponents are -- what? That's where your problem starts, because there is no opposite to your term that doesn't sound either incredibly hostile or nutty. So the only people who carry on about the terms not being fair are your side. My side's terms are sufficiently neutral and descriptive that nobody -- but you -- complains about our use of them.

Lots of things are graphic and violent. Lots of decisions are unpleasant, but they have to be made anyway. That's life. That's why they say it's a bitch.
do to others would you would have done to you.
Point?

(A) The argument from potential is meaningless because you cannot predict the future.yes I can While often, embryos become fetuses and fetuses get born and become babies, this is not always the case. yes, it is merely the natural progression of the biological function... In fact, the majority of concepti never even make it to embryo stage. Embryos and early stage fetuses can spontaneously miscarry at any moment, for any reason or no discernable reason. In fact, the odds of giving birth after having sex are actually pretty long for humans, compared to other animals. There are a hell of a lot more eggs fertilized than babies born, even with no abortion in the picture.all of which occurs naturally, the same as a stoke victim is a seperate thing from a murder. The existance of strokes does not justify murder.
Abortion is not murder. It will not be murder in the US until your side succeeds in getting it declared such. You have not won yet. I will do all I can to see that you don't. But be the future as it may. Abortion is not murder in the reality we live in today.

(B) None of the above is relevant, given that I will not permit anyone, including a fetus, to use my body for its purposes against my will. Get around that one, friend.
a fetus is not your body. It is by definition an entirely new person. There is nothing to "get around".
Apparently, you are trying to get around answering my question at all. I will not permit this "entirely new person" to use my body against my will. Respond to that.

I don't worship your god, and I decline to be controlled by what you say are his rules.yup, and if people had there would be no AIDS, no death penalty, and no Iraq war. all well.
Are you implying that I should be forced to practice your religion as well as pop out babies for your sentimental pleasure? Take three guesses what my reaction will be.

You are a vegan then, I take it?

Wait, shit, plants are life...

Breatharian?

ah.....I forgot to put the disclaimer that I was talking about.....people.....I am not pulling the stupid shit that everyone else is...with cows, chimps, cakes, and so on.......we are talking about PEOPLE.

excuse me, have you ever had a simple biology host? a parasite harms the host, but does not kill it, because if the host dies, then it dies.
Wrong again ... it does not CONTRIBUTE to the survival

That is not the same as harm

such as the right not to be denied life without due process?
Prove that a fetus has rights. Don't beg the question, m'laddio.

Oh, while you're at it, prove that a woman no longer has the right of self-ownership when she's pregnant. That IS what you're claiming.

Ever heard of Humanae Vitae?

I don't give a damn about a letter espousing a faith that I do not share written by the head of that faith. I do not believe catholicism is true, ergo I do not by default believe what the pope says is true either.

Especially something written 40 years ago. And if the catholic church really cared about the "holocaust" of abortion, maybe they should have actually tried to do something about the ACTUAL holocaust in world war 2.

But what's it matter if millions of jews die, people are actually exercising control over their OWN BODIES PEOPLE! Can't you see that this is the work of satan?

you people are so coldhearted. kill my dog? why would I want to do that?

Some are caused by lifestyle choices? Should all females that don’t do everything absolutely right be charged with manslaughter if they then have a miscarriage ?

What about the people who know they have a medical condition that could lead to a good chance of a miscarriage … should they be charged as well for putting the fetus into known danger?

1) In many cases.
2) perhaps.

we are talking about PEOPLE.

Yup. And a fetus isn't a person, no matter how much a dead pope wanted to say it was.

actually, killing your dog (or cat) is called animal cruelty, thank you very much. I saw PETA get in trouble for it.

Bollocks. Take your dog to the vet tommorow and ask for it to be put down because you can't look after it anymore. The vet will do it. Happens all the time.

You just can't throw it under a bus or anything.

Eminent domain honey, for the good of the plural and because your choices affect more than just you, we are unable to allow you to choose that option at this time...

See, that wasn't that hard to do.
I already responded to this, and it was just as easy to knock down.

Oh you are so silly sometimes, you have such a 'selective' memory of the real world around you, it’s almost cute in it’s own naïve way. Or it would be if I believed you were so naïve, except that you are not. You pretend ignorance to try and make a point in a debate…

Have you never heard of the draft? Forced servitude that could result in your very death, for the sake of the state's needs?
A horribly immoral concept, to be sure. Enslavement for the needs of the state. Despicable.

You can kill your dog. Nobody's stopping you.
dog equals baby. Welcome to the new left.

you people are so coldhearted. kill my dog? why would I want to do that?
I don’t know maybe he gets hurt

Or he starts to get senile and bites some kid … that’s when a responsible pet owner makes sure his pet does not harm someone

this is getting dumb.
What's the matter? Don't have a good come back?

Um I dont know what dictionary you are using but mine says this



A fetus most deffinatly fits deffinition 1

so if the fetus is a parasite you just proved that it is not part of the mother's body.

Because sex has no consequences at all right? Ever heard of Humanae Vitae?
Ever read Populorum Progresso? That's a socialist manifesto.

1) In many cases.
2) perhaps.
So what is the acceptable level or risk? what if they have a 50/50 chance ... what about a 75% chanse?

Sex always has potential concequences. For instance, I can get syphalis, in theory. Thereofre by your logic I should not be allowed to get treatment for such a thing, because I by having sex I accept having syphalis?

Fuck that, if I get a (treatable) STD, I'm treating it. I do not give consent to breed a spirokete in me if I happen to get one during sex. A woman does not give consent to the fetus if one happens to develop during sex.
You should be allowed treatment. Read humanae vitae. I am off to bed.

so if the fetus is a parasite you just proved that it is not part of the mother's body.
False. A fetus is an endobiological parasite.

say, doesnt the fetus have human DNA whereas a chimp does not? Thats a big DUH if you ask me. So you admit a fetus is a life. I got you to say it. Good. Now onto the human part>>>>>>what species' DNA does it have? Answer the question. What species' DNA does it have?

My hand has human dna, is my hand a human? no.

It is not a human until it has all the functional parts that make a human a human, it lacks a brain capable of sentience. Ergo...it aint human.

Bollocks. Take your dog to the vet tommorow and ask for it to be put down because you can't look after it anymore. The vet will do it. Happens all the time.

You just can't throw it under a bus or anything.

actually, he has cataracts. That's a better reason to kill him...we all know that.

so if the fetus is a parasite you just proved that it is not part of the mother's body.
Yup and like other parasites we are alowed to remove them, like a tape worm or any other parasite

so a person on dialysis isn't a person?

If the fetus is a parasite than it is ok to kill it because it is the mother's body. <snip>
If the fetus is a parasite, then the statement is perfectly logical. You'd kill a tapeworm, wouldn't you? So IF the fetus is a parasite, then it may be treated like all other parasites.

Miscarriages are not on purpose.
Irrelevant. Miscarriages deny life. Denial of life was the only criterion. You are thus a hypocrite.

so a person on dialysis isn't a person?
Since when is a dialysis machine alive?

A horribly immoral concept, to be sure. Enslavement for the needs of the state. Despicable.

And any state that agrees with you will shortly be disposed of by enemies of the state with the opposing point of view. Two states of equivalent resources put to the test, the state that can draft an army and utilize eminent domain will win over the side that can't muster a collective response.

You shall be issued a "History book" to help you learn this lesson.

You should be allowed treatment. Read humanae vitae.

I have read it. I do not care what a dead pope said in the 60s. I am not catholic, I do not believe in the tenants of catholicism, what the dead pope happens to say about how abortion violates the tenants of catholicism and promotes, in a catholic viewpoint, what is an unacceptable culture is irrelevant to me, as I am not catholic, christian, or any form of religious.

I...do....not...care...what...a...pope...said.

The whole papal system lost a LOT of credibility for me when they talked about the culture of death of abortion yet did NOTHING to denounce the holocaust they knew allllllll about.

Since when is a dialysis machine alive?

I remember arthripodus saying that someone without all functioning parts isn't human.

And any state that agrees with you will shortly be disposed of by enemies of the state with the opposing point of view.
Prove it.