NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember arthripodus saying that someone without all functioning parts isn't human.
Again: since when is a dialysis machine alive?

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.

I hope you know they apologized. But yes, I agree, they should've sent in the swiss guard to defeat the axis.

yet, I believe many people here do not support Israel, the same people who were subjected to Hitler's terror.

Prove it.

Why? You don't have any history book at your disposal? Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

You had sex. that was the permission. It is in there because of you.
Account for rape, then. No permission involved with rape.

Why?
You made the claim.

Again: since when is a dialysis machine alive?

do you know what dialysis is? It's a machine that does the work your kidneys would do if you had any. But you don't, so you're not human. feti rely on their mothers to feed them and keep them alive...they're just as human as someone on dialysis, meaning they're not.

I hope you know they apologized. But yes, I agree, they should've sent in the swiss guard to defeat the axis.

yet, I believe many people here do not support Israel, the same people who were subjected to Hitler's terror.
That's because Israel was established by UN fiat and the people who were living there were forceably displaced. That's wrong.

do you know what dialysis is?
Yes. Now how is a dialysis machine alive?

Why? You don't have any history book at your disposal? Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes because all of us keep one in our back pocket ... :rolleyes: people post from more places then in their home, so your snide remark really holds no weight, as any reasonable person would not disparage those that do not carry a history book to work or an internet café or restaurant

You made the claim.

I've implied the claim you you've never comprehended any history book, ever. But only you can prove it.

number one, it was their land first, anyway, and number two, the US displaced the Indians, but I don't think you want to go messing with us now. Israel is like America, except it has more reason to be where it is. So don't insult my people or I'll choke you with my brother's yamalka.

I've implied the claim you you've never comprehended any history book, ever.
You made more claims than that.

Only you can prevent yourself from looking like a complete idiot.

Yes. Now how is a dialysis machine alive?

IT isn't, yet it functions better than your mind on its own...but of course, we always knew robots were the future, as they are used to exterminate our own offspring.

so......you somehow make a Constitutional argument without mentioning the text of the Constitution.
I did not make a Constitutional argument. I stated obvious facts that are part of common knowledge because they are observable around us every day.

Kidney's are not that which makes humans human. A sentient mind is. Should my kidney stop working my sentient mind will not (however, it soon will). Dialysis may keep my kidneys functioning, so that my sentinet mind does not die, but my kidneys are not what make me human (although they help in keeping me alive).

A fetus is not unhuman because it needs the mother to survive. It is unhuman because it is not sentient. Because it is not sentient, and therefore not human, it does not have human rights. Ergo it does not have the right to continue to survive within the pregnant woman should the pregnant woman wish it to be removed.

Yes because all of us keep one in our back pocket ... :rolleyes: people post from more places then in their home, so your snide remark really holds no weight, as any reasonable person would not disparage those that do not carry a history book to work or an internet café or restaurant

Your on the internet and you don't have a history book at your disposal? Perhaps we should invent some sort of electronic data communication source so that we can look up data from almost any place at any time...

Interesting.

Interesting that you've never heard of such a thing.

number one, it was their land first, anyway,
No it wasn't. No, the bible didn't give it to them.


and number two, the US displaced the Indians, but I don't think you want to go messing with us now.
None of the people so displaced are alive, whereas there are people alive in the middle east who were displaced.

Israel as a state has no right to exist. It was done by UN fiat.

I've implied the claim you you've never comprehended any history book, ever. But only you can prove it.
You work up a nice ad-hominim attack while continuing to fail in supporting your argument

IT isn't,
Then why bring it up?

You made more claims than that.

Only you can prevent yourself from looking like a complete idiot.


*pats BAAWAKnights on the head*

How cute.

the state that can draft an army and utilize eminent domain will win over the side that can't muster a collective response.

Stop using that term, it does not mean what you think it does.

Nerdy Individuals'] A. The unborn differs from you and I because it is in another location (the womb), has less intelligence, is younger, is less developed.

Correction: in the early stages of pregnancy where abortion for non-life threatening situations is legal, the fetus has no brain or nervous system - and therefor no intelligence. Nor feelings. Nor dreams. All it has at those stages is a growing number of developing cells, that in time will result in it gaining all those things.

But it does not yet have them. Killing it therefor destroys the possibility that it will become a person, but it does not destroy a person.

Unless you believe in souls that enter the body at fertilisation of course.

Kidney's are not that which makes humans human. A sentient mind is. Should my kidney stop working my sentient mind will not (however, it soon will). Dialysis may keep my kidneys functioning, so that my sentinet mind does not die, but my kidneys are not what make me human (although they help in keeping me alive).

A fetus is not unhuman because it needs the mother to survive. It is unhuman because it is not sentient. Because it is not sentient, and therefore not human, it does not have human rights. Ergo it does not have the right to continue to survive within the pregnant woman should the pregnant woman wish it to be removed.

actually, I remember you saying it needs all its vital organs (actually, by five months, babies can survive outside the womb) in order to be human. My dog has all of them, so he's human...

but according to your argument...
1. mentally retarded people are not human
2. crazy people are not human
3. people with alzheimers are not human
4. You are not human

*pats BAAWAKnights on the head*

How cute.
Thanks for the concession. I appreciate your capitulation.

Your on the internet and you don't have a history book at your disposal? Perhaps we should invent some sort of electronic data communication source so that we can look up data from almost any place at any time...

Interesting.

Interesting that you've never heard of such a thing.
Interesting I thought books were print resources, the dictionary seems to agree with me in this respect.

And in the end you yet fail to support your argument … nice

actually, I remember you saying it needs all its vital organs

Please quote me as saying that.

Stop using that term, it does not mean what you think it does.
It is inconceivable that it means what he thinks it means.

It is inconceivable that it means what he thinks it means.

I used that joke once in this thread already unfortunatly.

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.
The draft was declared unconstitutional and discontinued in the US. Why? Because you can't force someone to serve you, even if you're the government. That's how it works. Your scary fantasy world of a police state that owns the bodies of its citizens does not exist, and so I do not accept it as an argument of why I should not have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.

but I've actually got a better argument. How about...only things that have the aptitude to make moral and humane decisions are considered human? In that case, you'd think I was going to insult, but the truth is that you have the ability to be humane, you just claim that unborn babies are not human, like Hitler claimed the Jews were not human. He was completely humane according to his own mind.

but I've actually got a better argument. How about...only things that have the aptitude to make moral and humane decisions are considered human? In that case, you'd think I was going to insult, but the truth is that you have the ability to be humane, you just claim that unborn babies are not human, like Hitler claimed the Jews were not human. He was completely humane according to his own mind.
I hate to point out a godwin but this one was not even trying

but I've actually got a better argument. How about...only things that have the aptitude to make moral and humane decisions are considered human? In that case, you'd think I was going to insult, but the truth is that you have the ability to be humane, you just claim that unborn babies are not human, like Hitler claimed the Jews were not human. He was completely humane according to his own mind.
I've got a better one: hyperbole doesn't work.

The draft was declared unconstitutional and discontinued in the US. Why? Because you can't force someone to serve you, even if you're the government. That's how it works. Your scary fantasy world of a police state that owns the bodies of its citizens does not exist, and so I do not accept it as an argument of why I should not have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.

No it wasn't. They could re-instate the draft tommorow if they saw fit.

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 would only just dearly love to see a link to this one.

You work up a nice ad-hominim attack while continuing to fail in supporting your argument

It must be frustrating to be you. All you have to do is find a defensive war from aggression of one country that doesn't use the draft to stop another country of equal resources that DOES use the draft, and the non-drafting country has to win.


Sure must be frustrating to be you and try to pretend that the rest of use can't 'predict' the results with any statistical reliability. :rolleyes:

The draft was declared unconstitutional and discontinued in the US.


Actually dear, hate to correct you but...no, no it wasn't.

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.

here. it is. and I might also add that babies have feelings, perhaps more complex in the last trimester, but still think. do you really think there's much of a mental difference in a baby seven months to nine months? And I'm still ticked about what you said about Alzheimer's people.

I would only just dearly love to see a link to this one.


http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

Written by a pope...in the 60s.

Take with appropriate amount of salt.

I would only just dearly love to see a link to this one.
And remember.... You Asked For It

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

For another piece of papal nonsense, I give you the socialist screed Populorum Progresso

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06pp.htm

I have to go. I think I have carpal tunnel. (I'm not a human anymore, but I always like 3rd rock from the sun. Maybe I can become one of those guys.)

It must be frustrating to be you. All you have to do is find a defensive war from aggression of one country that doesn't use the draft to stop another country of equal resources that DOES use the draft, and the non-drafting country has to win.


Sure must be frustrating to be you and try to pretend that the rest of use can't 'predict' the results with any statistical reliability. :rolleyes:
Not frustrating at all actually, it is not me that has failed to support their arguement


And if you want to argue statistical probability and reliability lets go, I have SAS and mini tab ready to go for any data you care to put forth for your argument.

It must be frustrating to be you. All you have to do is find a defensive war from aggression of one country that doesn't use the draft to stop another country of equal resources that DOES use the draft, and the non-drafting country has to win.
The US hasn't used the draft since the early 70s. It was the main force for Desert Storm. We almost really didn't need any other countries to help. And we kicked out the Iraqis.

actually, I remember you saying it needs all its vital organs

It is not a human until it has all the functional parts that make a human a human

Gee...those don't actually seem to be the same things, are they? A human is not defined by having kidneys. Many animals have kidneys. A human is not defined by feeling pain. Many animals feel pain. A human is not defined by having a brain. Many animals have brains. A human is defined by its sentience.

A fetus does not have sentience. Ergo it is not a human. When it has sentience, it will be a human.

Retarded people, crazy people, and people with Alzeihmers all still have sentience.

The draft was declared unconstitutional and discontinued in the US. Why? Because you can't force someone to serve you, even if you're the government. That's how it works. Your scary fantasy world of a police state that owns the bodies of its citizens does not exist, and so I do not accept it as an argument of why I should not have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant.


Really? It was declared Unconstitutional?

Honey, please, try looking up the words you are using before you post them.

Perhaps you think you remember such a supreme court case that outlawed the draft... I'll wait.

I do not know if this question has already been asked and answered in this topic, but since it is a good one...
Can someone please provide me with:

a. Clear criteria to determine if someone has died under which an embryo or early fetus would not be considered dead and my severed left arm would not be classified as a human being ?

b. Solid reasoning as to why being killed conform the definition of dead in a. can be said to harm the fetus ? You will need to show what the fetus loses for this and why that is valuable.

It must be frustrating to be you. All you have to do is find a defensive war from aggression of one country that doesn't use the draft to stop another country of equal resources that DOES use the draft, and the non-drafting country has to win.


Err, okay.

France v. England. 1798-1815. France used the draft, threatened to invade blessed albion. England had an all volunteer force.

Result: England wins.

Gee...those don't actually seem to be the same things, are they? A human is not defined by having kidneys. Many animals have kidneys. A human is not defined by feeling pain. Many animals feel pain. A human is not defined by having a brain. Many animals have brains. A human is defined by its sentience.

A fetus does not have sentience. Ergo it is not a human. When it has sentience, it will be a human.

Retarded people, crazy people, and people with Alzeihmers all still have sentience.


how would you know? are you a fetus? oh yeah...and for you...you can't call a fetus. fetus means "offspring". You wipe mud on that term. You can say "piece of tissue)

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.
No. Your imaginary world notwithstanding.

From law.com:


eminent domain
n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings.
See also: condemn condemnation

See also:

real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.
See also: real property

[/quote]real property
n. 1) all land, structures, firmly attached and integrated equipment (such as light fixtures or a well pump), anything growing on the land, and all "interests" in the property, which may include the right to future ownership (remainder), right to occupy for a period of time (tenancy or life estate), the right to drill for oil, the right to get the property back (a reversion) if it is no longer used for its current purpose (such as use for a hospital, school or city hall), use of airspace (condominium) or an easement across another's property. Real property should be thought of as a group of rights like a bundle of sticks which can be divided. It is distinguished from personal property which is made up of movable items. 2) one of the principal areas of law like contracts, negligence, probate, family law and criminal law.
See also: condominium easement life estate personal property real estate reversion [/quote]

http://dictionary.law.com

fetus means "offspring".

No. It did once mean offspring, in Latin. Latin is a dead language. The word has been appropriated into English to mean something different.

how would you know? are you a fetus? oh yeah...and for you...you can't call a fetus. fetus means "offspring". You wipe mud on that term. You can say "piece of tissue)
At most of the stage it lacks even a nervous system to support thoughts … are you really proposing that a piece of tissue without a functioning brain or nervous system is sentient?

Err, okay.

France v. England. 1798-1815. France used the draft, threatened to invade blessed albion. England had an all volunteer force.

Result: England wins.

'Equivalent resources,' Navy counts as resource.

Sorry, you lose.

actually, killing your dog (or cat) is called animal cruelty, thank you very much. I saw PETA get in trouble for it.
PETA lied to you. If you have your dog killed by a lethal injection administered by a veterinarian, that is perfectly legal, even if there is nothing wrong with the dog. However, if your dog is dying of some terribly painful condition, and you do not have it humanely killed but let it die in agony instead, that could be called animal cruelty.

'Equivalent resources,' Navy counts as resource.

Sorry, you lose.

Find me a war, any war, EVER, where the two sides were entirely equal. Find me JUST ONE where I can not find in some way where one had resources unequal to the other.

Just....one.

Until you can find that, you can make no claims about what happened otherwise.

Find me a war, any war, EVER, where the two sides were entirely equal. Find me JUST ONE where I can not find in some way where one had resources unequal to the other.

Just....one.

Until you can find that, you can make no claims about what happened otherwise.
Ehh he/she is probably going to make us try to disprove a point he failed to support anyways … fun times

'Equivalent resources,' Navy counts as resource.

Sorry, you lose.

WTF, france had a navy also. You lose.

Edit: For that matter, france had considerably greater reasources than england.

A horribly immoral concept, to be sure. Enslavement for the needs of the state. Despicable.
Oh, but perfectly acceptable when it serves his purposes. And when it's applied to women, too, of course. :rolleyes:

Find me a war, any war, EVER, where the two sides were entirely equal. Find me JUST ONE where I can not find in some way where one had resources unequal to the other.

Just....one.

Until you can find that, you can make no claims about what happened otherwise.

Aww, Athais101 is sad, and then mad, that he can't find a war to prove that non-drafting countries can win against equivalent countering countries...

WTF, france had a navy also.
Ehhh don’t bother the poster never correctly supported their proposition to start with right now it is just conjecture don’t worry about trying to disprove the claim

Aww, Athais101 is sad, and then mad, that he can't find a war to prove that non-drafting countries can win against equivalent countering countries...
And PootWaddle is sad cause he also failed to to support his origional claim that it did make a difference.

He must be having trouble with those history books that he claims no one else is able to use

Find me a war, any war, EVER, where the two sides were entirely equal. Find me JUST ONE where I can not find in some way where one had resources unequal to the other.

Just....one.

Until you can find that, you can make no claims about what happened otherwise.

1st punic war, I think.

Aww, Athais101 is sad, and then mad, that he can't find a war to prove that non-drafting countries can win against equivalent countering countries...

And you can't prove that they can't.

Because you can't find a war, any war, engaged in by two totally equivalent countries.

Can you?

I might add that latin is as dead a language as any language can be that has many descendents. Also, I go to a Roman Catholic Church...I use the latin terms correctly. I use that word how it is meant to be used, and the word "offspring" in our language then, if it's how you're using it, might as well be the band. words don't mean what they used to. gender is used incorrectly...it has to do with foreign languages, like spanish and latin, but now it is used to mean "sex", and sex is used to mean "conjugation". Pussy doesn't mean cat anymore. "goodies" refers to boobs. "faggot" now, instead a stick used for burning, is an inappropriate name for a homosexual. do you really want to fit in with these incorrect and offensive new meanings for words? Apparently.

And you can't prove that they can't.

Because you can't find a war, any war, engaged in by two totally equivalent countries.

Can you?
No which is funny as he made the original claim … either way he has lost by default I guess lets just move on

Correction: in the early stages of pregnancy where abortion for non-life threatening situations is legal, the fetus has no brain or nervous system - and therefor no intelligence. Nor feelings. Nor dreams. All it has at those stages is a growing number of developing cells, that in time will result in it gaining all those things.

But it does not yet have them. Killing it therefor destroys the possibility that it will become a person, but it does not destroy a person.

Unless you believe in souls that enter the body at fertilisation of course.
He'd also have to believe that souls can be killed. In fact, I think he'd have to cobble together either a very complicated spiritual cosmology or a very bleak one to support his arguments.

Ehhh don’t bother the poster never correctly supported their proposition to start with right now it is just conjecture don’t worry about trying to disprove the claim

Are you seriously trying to pretend that Great Britain of the Nineteenth century was in any way NOT a country that postulated a belief in the right to Eminent domain over their citizens and their private property? And you think this is a good example of that type of idyllic fantasy government?

I say you are silly.

Teddy Roosevelt built up America's army, making it a world power. He had six children.

Ehhh don’t bother the poster never correctly supported their proposition to start with right now it is just conjecture don’t worry about trying to disprove the claim

It's a perfect counter-example to that twaddle though. I'm sure if I thought about it I could come up with more. Actually, the peloponnesian war might fit too. I don't think athens had mandatory millitary service either.

I hate to point out a godwin but this one was not even trying
It's his second. And BarryGoldwater threw in a Stalin comparison, too, but that's not surprising.

It's his second. And BarryGoldwater threw in a Stalin comparison, too, but that's not surprising.

shut up, Maurice. I know you secretly admire Stalin for his styles.

Are you seriously trying to pretend that Great Britain of the Nineteenth century was in any way NOT a country that postulated a belief in the right to Eminent domain over their citizens and their private property? And you think this is a good example of that type of idyllic fantasy government?

I say you are silly.
Nope I was simply pointing out that as of yet you have failed to show a clear example to support your position. And as such it was silly to try and disprove a point you never sufficiently made

I was trying to save the poster from wasting his or her time

No it wasn't. They could re-instate the draft tommorow if they saw fit.
They could try, but I think the outcome would be the same because the legal and practical arguments that made the military dicontinue it remain the same.

In any event, the idiot I was responding to seemed to think the draft is in effect now.

Jesus christ, abortion debate again?....

PETA lied to you. If you have your dog killed by a lethal injection administered by a veterinarian, that is perfectly legal, even if there is nothing wrong with the dog. However, if your dog is dying of some terribly painful condition, and you do not have it humanely killed but let it die in agony instead, that could be called animal cruelty.

You do realize that "I" is the singular first-person pronoun, also "yo". If I myself killed my dog, it would be animal cruelty. And PETA euthenized over forty animals illegally after claiming to be taking them home as pets and were caught.

It's a perfect counter-example to that twaddle though. I'm sure if I thought about it I could come up with more. Actually, the peloponnesian war might fit too. I don't think athens had mandatory millitary service either.

Then obviously you haven't read anything about the Peloponnesian war then. I suggest you read the "Peloponnesian war" by Thucydides, like I have, it's quite good actually.

Actually dear, hate to correct you but...no, no it wasn't.
All right, I may be wrong about the unconstitutional thing, but is anyone going to tell me that the draft is current in the US now? Because that's what that PootWaddle pootwaddle was trying to claim. And he's wrong. And he's wrong about the draft having anything to do with eminent domain. And he's wrong about eminent domain having anything to do with pregnancy.

Nope I was simply pointing out that as of yet you have failed to show a clear example to support your position. And as such it was silly to try and disprove a point you never sufficiently made

I was trying to save the poster from wasting his or her time

I already claimed ALL of history and my claim, any history you find to the contrary will disprove it. Nice strawman you tried to make there though.

Too bad it failed though.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

Written by a pope...in the 60s.

Take with appropriate amount of salt.
What rot. And why does -- whoever it was who first brought it up; I've lost track already -- think that anyone who is not a Catholic will care about this?

That's a rhetorical question. I realize there's no answer to it.

Are you seriously trying to pretend that Great Britain of the Nineteenth century was in any way NOT a country that postulated a belief in the right to Eminent domain over their citizens and their private property? And you think this is a good example of that type of idyllic fantasy government?

I say you are silly.

Do you not possess history books where you live? England didn't have a draft until 1917. Before that there was no general conscription since the disbandment of the fyrd in 1067. (Though some greater and lesser tenants owed millitary service as part of the feudal system, but that's different).

Anyhoo, England in the 19th century postulated exactly the opposite to what you are claiming. How do you think a limited consitutional monarchy came about?

And remember.... You Asked For It

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

For another piece of papal nonsense, I give you the socialist screed Populorum Progresso

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06pp.htm
My head spins. Do all popes have a problem getting to the point?

(another rhetorical question)

They could try, but I think the outcome would be the same because the legal and practical arguments that made the military dicontinue it remain the same.

In any event, the idiot I was responding to seemed to think the draft is in effect now.

Aww. making up strawmen to attack then are we? Because I didn't say anything of the sort, you must have made up the accusation, you know, sort of out of the blue, like your other 'facts,' made up.

Then obviously you haven't read anything about the Peloponnesian war then. I suggest you read the "Peloponnesian war" by Thucydides, like I have, it's quite good actually.

Are you saying that athens had mandatory service for all citizens, because I demure.

Edit: Anyway, you are dead wrong about England and france, and you know it.

I already claimed ALL of history and my claim, any history you find to the contrary will disprove it. Nice strawman you tried to make there though.

Too bad it failed though.

"all of history" is not an example. The burden of you is to provide PROOF. I say that god just showed up and told me that you're wrong.

There's my proof.

Now prove me wrong.

Do you not possess history books where you live? England didn't have a draft until 1917. Before that there was no general conscription since the disbandment of the fyrd in 1067. (Though some greater and lesser tenants owed millitary service as part of the feudal system, but that's different).

Anyhoo, England in the 19th century postulated exactly the opposite to what you are claiming. How do you think a limited consitutional monarchy came about?

Obviously you are limiting your 'rights' of freedom from servitude to only the select few you want to address. Perchance you will take two seconds to look at the British Empire’s global map and see again how many peoples were forced into servitude in one fashion or another... You really, really need to open you eyes to more than just immediate thing in front of your face...

Really? It was declared Unconstitutional?

Honey, please, try looking up the words you are using before you post them.

Perhaps you think you remember such a supreme court case that outlawed the draft... I'll wait.
I looked it up, I read some articles -- I was mistaken about that. The draft has been discontinued but not outlawed. I concede that the draft is not outlawed.

Now kindly go back to the definitions of "eminent domain" and related terms that I posted and explain what eminent domain has to do with the draft.

The explain what the draft has to do with pregnancy. The draft requires citizens to serve in the armed forces. They get paid for it, by the way. What force are women being required to serve in, and how much do we get paid for it by the government?

"all of history" is not an example. The burden of you is to provide PROOF. I say that god just showed up and told me that you're wrong.

There's my proof.

Now prove me wrong.

In other words, you gave up and don't want to concede out of stubbornness... How banal.

In other words, you gave up and don't want to concede out of stubbornness... How banal.


I didn't give up at ALL. God showed up in my apartment and told me you were wrong. And if god said it, it must be true.

You cite "all of history"? Well I cite god. Certainly god knows history better than you do.

Think god didn't show up at my apartment and tell me you were wrong? Prove he didn't.

Obviously you are limiting your 'rights' of freedom from servitude to only the select few you want to address. Perchance you will take two seconds to look at the British Empire’s global map and see again how many peoples were forced into servitude in one fashion or another... You really, really need to open you eyes to more than just immediate thing in front of your face...

You remember that the slave trade was stopped by the british empire in the 19th century now, don't you? Doesn't sound like what you are talking about.

And none of that has anything to do with England beating France anyway.

Aww. making up strawmen to attack then are we? Because I didn't say anything of the sort, you must have made up the accusation, you know, sort of out of the blue, like your other 'facts,' made up.
That's not a strawman, and I've already admitted the mistake. Of course, you still have not actually addressed any of my arguments, not even the ones that have nothing to do with your little draft digression. So you're not really in a position to judge whether I know what I'm talking about with regard to pregnancy, since one doesn't have to be an expert on military law to know whether one doesn't want to be pregnant, does one?

I looked it up, I read some articles -- I was mistaken about that. The draft has been discontinued but not outlawed. I concede that the draft is not outlawed.

Now kindly go back to the definitions of "eminent domain" and related terms that I posted and explain what eminent domain has to do with the draft.

The explain what the draft has to do with pregnancy. The draft requires citizens to serve in the armed forces. They get paid for it, by the way. What force are women being required to serve in, and how much do we get paid for it by the government?

What are you saying? You didn't know that pregnant poor women qualify for health care, rent help, food stamps or WIC help, and additional services through the government, fed or the state they live in? Didn't you know that if a woman is pregnant they get ‘pregnancy’’ help, more help than if they are not pregnant?

No wonder you are mad, you think pregnant women don’t get any kind of assistance from the government if they need it. Perhaps you should check into it, you might no be so angry about it.

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.
So you believe that life begins right from the moment of conception.

Okay. Glad to have cleared that up. Guess my bizarre rant did do something after all.

fyi, we would all like some cake.

Abortion comes down to two very simple moral questions. The second is meaningless without the first. The first question is this: Is a fetus, at any given stage of pregnancy (as in, the stage at which the abortion would take place) a person? If no, then it has no more rights than a tapeworm, and a woman can rid herself of it at will if she pleases. If she would prefer to allow it to grow to the point where it would be a person (wherever that point may be) then that is her prerogative.

The second question is this: Even if the fetus is a person, should any person have the right to commandeer the body of another person, even to sustain their own life? Let's remove fetuses from this discussion, and go with a random poster on these boards... how about Upwardthrust. Lets say Upwardthrust was with you in a car, and you were having a nice drive, and then suddenly you were involved in a horrible accident. When you awoke, doctors explained to you that they had to attach tubes between you and Upwardthrust in order to keep him alive. Now you must stay within five feet of him at all times, for at least nine months, at the end of which there might be complications. In fact, these complications could be so severe, you might die of them. Upwardthrust is not guaranteed survival in any case. Should you have the right to cut the tubes, and live without upwardthrust using you for life support? This becomes more complicated if we say that you are at the end of this ordeal, and the doctors are predicting significant complications, meaning you have a significant chance of not living through it. It becomes even more complicated if you and upwardthrust had just been walking along when someone ran you over, horribly injuring you also.

Adjusted:
You realize is was YOUR (sides) analogy right? To compare women with ovens (appliances)?
I was making a simple analogy in the hope that both sides could understand it.

However, I see that this has failed. The analogy was obviously not simple enough to be understood.

You do understand the concept of 'analogy', right?
Analogy:
Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

It doesn't mean everything stated within should be held up as truth. It's just a way of using langauge to help understand a concept.

By becoming anal retentive, querulous and persnickety over the simplistic analogy rather than just answering the question can only lead me to believe that you have no answer.

What are you saying? You didn't know that pregnant poor women qualify for health care, rent help, food stamps or WIC help, and additional services through the government, fed or the state they live in? Didn't you know that if a woman is pregnant they get ‘pregnancy’’ help, more help than if they are not pregnant?

No wonder you are mad, you think pregnant women don’t get any kind of assistance from the government if they need it. Perhaps you should check into it, you might no be so angry about it.
That's poor women who want to be pregnant. And that's support for the pregnancy and the resulting child, not the woman. What's in it for me, eh? What do I get for producing and raising this little bag of crap and snot for you? How are you going to make it up to me that you took me out of work for several months, destroyed my figure, made me puke every morning, put me through 9 months of extreme discomfort followed by an indeterminate period of the worst pain imaginable, not to mention putting me at extreme risk for dangerous blood pressure spikes, stroke and diabetes during the pregnancy and accelerating the onset of osteoporosis, arthritis and other old age ailments in my later life? PLUS saddled me with what really amounts to YOUR kid, since you're the one who wanted the little brat? You think it counts as just compensation to tell me that you'll help me be your slave, that you will condescend to feed your brood mare? You have too high an opinion of your argument, son.

That's poor women who want to be pregnant. And that's support for the pregnancy and the resulting child, not the woman. What's in it for me, eh? What do I get for producing and raising this little bag of crap and snot for you? How are you going to make it up to me that you took me out of work for several months, destroyed my figure, made me puke every morning, put me through 9 months of extreme discomfort followed by an indeterminate period of the worst pain imaginable, not to mention putting me at extreme risk for dangerous blood pressure spikes, stroke and diabetes during the pregnancy and accelerating the onset of osteoporosis, arthritis and other old age ailments in my later life? PLUS saddled me with what really amounts to YOUR kid, since you're the one who wanted the little brat? You think it counts as just compensation to tell me that you'll help me be your slave? You have too high an opinion of your argument, son.

Heh, you're fun, I like you =P

Heh, you're fun, I like you =P
I think that speech is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that I think of most people as bags of crap and snot. It's not referring just to babies. ;)

I think that speech is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that I think of most people as bags of crap and snot. It's not referring just to babies. ;)

Though seem to produce both en mass better than the rest of the population, eh?

This thread has got to be the least articulate and factually acurate abortion debate to occur on NSG. Ever. Given the quality of many of our debates, this may well qualify it to be the least articulate and factually accurate abortion debate ever.

I'll summarize and then go, because I really don't want to try and explain to someone that "Brown vs. Board" is not a case about abortion (and given what my skim has revealed, it may well be suggested).

While a fetus does technically have most of the features of life (it can't technically reproduce, which is one of them), it isn't a human being. Taking the life of an animal is no problem at all. So what seperates the men from the apes (as it were)?

Is it:

A) Sentience and knowledge of self, not gained until after a child is born.
B) A fully funcitonal brain and nervous system, not gained until the third trimester.
C) Magical "Human" particles which make us magically special

Some people seem to really thing C is correct. Needless to say, they are incorrect.

Choose: B or A

I'd rather draw the line at B. Just in case.

What are you saying? You didn't know that pregnant poor women qualify for health care, rent help, food stamps or WIC help, and additional services through the government, fed or the state they live in? Didn't you know that if a woman is pregnant they get ‘pregnancy’’ help, more help than if they are not pregnant?

No wonder you are mad, you think pregnant women don’t get any kind of assistance from the government if they need it. Perhaps you should check into it, you might no be so angry about it.

Government help isn't enough. Welfare's barely enough for a family, especially with a newborn. Food stamps are barely enough, especially with a newborn. Government aid is shit in these cases. There's a reason why a couple who has a kid before they're ready usually hits rock bottom.
Besides, why should a couple (or as in a lot of cases, just the single mom) who didn't want a child yet in the first place have to go through all that crap and raise a kid in an environment that would make a social worker cry?

Government help isn't enough. Welfare's barely enough for a family, especially with a newborn. Food stamps are barely enough, especially with a newborn. Government aid is shit in these cases. There's a reason why a couple who has a kid before they're ready usually hits rock bottom.
Besides, why should a couple (or as in a lot of cases, just the single mom) who didn't want a child yet in the first place have to go through all that crap and raise a kid in an environment that would make a social worker cry?

There shouldn't have to be any hungry and unclothed and in need of medical attention children in our respective communities at all, I one hundred percent agree. So instead of claiming that abortion is the cure all of these ailments, why don't we do something about those poor individuals that need the help? In fact, using the argument that these poor starving should need an abortion is actually just us collectively saying, it's simpler for us to kill their problems then it would be to feed their children, and that sir, is NOT a civilized response...

As to the why's and whatnots of disallowing abortion, it appears you missed the analyses from earlier in the thread…

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.

There shouldn't have to be any hungry and unclothed and in need of medical attention children in our respective communities at all, I one hundred percent agree. So instead of claiming that abortion is the cure all of these ailments, why don't we do something about those poor individuals that need the help? In fact, using the argument that these poor starving should need an abortion is actually just us collectively saying, it's simpler for us to kill their problems then it would be to feed their children, and that sir, is NOT a civilized response...
According to what definition? The one you want it to be?

Those who truly support the rights of the individual know that abortion is the right of the woman, and the denial of it annihilates her right of self-ownership. That, m'laddio, is called slavery. Dance around it all you like. Call abortion uncivilized if you want. Trying to support abortion via collectivism and future possibilities is not only enslaving people to the group, but metaphorically enslaving people to the future.

I already claimed ALL of history and my claim, any history you find to the contrary will disprove it. Nice strawman you tried to make there though.

Too bad it failed though.
Ah so you gave up even trying to prove your point … nice but regardless of how you say it you still fail at proving your point.

Like I said maybe it is not us that need to evaluate our abilities to use a history book, because you are working awful hard to get out of actually doing anything to back up your baseless claim

• Appeal To Anonymous Authority:
an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, "Experts agree that ..", "scientists say .." or even "they say ..". This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn't know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.
The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it's a rumor.


In the end your appeal to the authority of “history” is essentially just an appeal to anonymous authority … there is a reason it is a logical fallacy

According to what definition? The one you want it to be?

Those who truly support the rights of the individual know that abortion is the right of the woman, and the denial of it annihilates her right of self-ownership. That, m'laddio, is called slavery. Dance around it all you like. Call abortion uncivilized if you want. Trying to support abortion via collectivism and future possibilities is not only enslaving people to the group, but metaphorically enslaving people to the future.

Those who truly support individual rights don't lift those rights to the detriment of others. Your right to own a gun does not allow you the right to shoot someone else with it, and I propose that weapons of mass destruction can be limited, damn the individuals right to own what they want.

Ah so you gave up even trying to prove your point … nice but regardless of how you say it you still fail at proving your point.

Like I said maybe it is not us that need to evaluate our abilities to use a history book, because you are working awful hard to get out of actually doing anything to back up your baseless claim

In the end your appeal to the authority of “history” is essentially just an appeal to anonymous authority … there is a reason it is a logical fallacy

Looks like you are dancing pretty fast and vigorous there, are you hoping you will mislead someone into thinking you actually have a point there?

As much as you hate it, the simple reality is that Society's government has the power over the individuals in it, how much power is to be determined by the governing body, and if that governing body is the populace in general, then so be it.

The society that has no power over the individual can't incarcerate the criminal nor tax the wealthy nor build infrastructure projects for the good of the community nor defend itself quickly in a time of invasion.

Looks like you are dancing pretty fast and vigorous there, are you hoping you will mislead someone into thinking you actually have a point there?

As much as you hate it, the simple reality is that Society's government has the power over the individuals in it, how much power is to be determined by the governing body, and if that governing body is the populace in general, then so be it.

The society that has no power over the individual can't incarcerate the criminal nor tax the wealthy nor build infrastructure projects for the good of the community nor defend itself quickly in a time of invasion.


There are limits to power. If a government assumes too much, the people who give the government the power can certainly take it away.

There are limits to power. If a government assumes too much, the people who give the government the power can certainly take it away.

Agreed.

Those who truly support individual rights don't lift those rights to the detriment of others.
And what does that have to do with abortion?

And what does that have to do with abortion?

Our offspring are related to more than just one person you know, we are not androgynous creatures after all, we are a collective, we are a society, thus we can and must act like it and recognize our communities with our laws and customs. I already answered the rest of you implied position in the long analyses posted above…

Our offspring are related to more than just one person you know,
So what? What does that have to do with abortion?

And no, you didn't answer my question. Do so now.

Our offspring are related to more than just one person you know, we are not androgynous creatures after all, we are a collective, we are a society, thus we can and must act like it and recognize our communities with our laws and customs. I already answered the rest of you implied position in the long analyses posted above…
Then the fauther is welcome to take it if the mother does not want it

Our offspring are related to more than just one person you know, we are not androgynous creatures after all, we are a collective, we are a society, thus we can and must act like it and recognize our communities with our laws and customs. I already answered the rest of you implied position in the long analyses posted above…

Oh, like the Borg...

So what? What does that have to do with abortion?

And no, you didn't answer my question. Do so now.

Yes I did, but here, I'll help you,…

What I said was; we are not androgynous creatures. And what that means is that it takes more than one of us to reproduce ourselves. WE, as in plural, more than one, are involved with each other when we produce progeny. If you have a child, it affects more than just you, it affects the community around you. Perhaps the father, perhaps the four grandparents, perhaps siblings, perhaps the general taxpayers etc., many people are affected by the creation or loss of progeny. This happens because we are social creatures, we are not each our own separate islands, we are not androgynous creatures.

See, I did answer your question.

Yes I did,
No, you provided nothing to show what you were saying has anything to do with abortion. That something can affect others doesn't have anything to do with abortion.

Now then--stop dancing around the issue.

Those who truly support individual rights don't lift those rights to the detriment of others.
So, you, obviously, do not believe in individual rights because you are proposing to lift (I suppose you mean promote) the rights of a fetus to the detriment of my rights.

You have not responded to my earlier question: Do you apply this slavery to the state principle to everyone, or just to women? Does the state own the fetus and does it have the right to force the fetus to serve its purposes -- such as stem cell research?

Your right to own a gun does not allow you the right to shoot someone else with it, and I propose that weapons of mass destruction can be limited, damn the individuals right to own what they want.
So now you've moved from comparing women's bodies to real estate to comparing women's bodies to weapons? Tell me, exactly how much do you hate women?

So, you, obviously, do not believe in individual rights because you are proposing to lift (I suppose you mean promote) the rights of a fetus to the detriment of my rights.

You have not responded to my earlier question: Do you apply this slavery to the state principle to everyone, or just to women? Does the state own the fetus and does it have the right to force the fetus to serve its purposes -- such as stem cell research?

So now you've moved from comparing women's bodies to real estate to comparing women's bodies to weapons? Tell me, exactly how much do you hate women?

Are you a professional scarecrow maker, I mean really, with the way you pump out one strawman after another, I'm quite impressed. Perhaps you just practice a lot.

But you don't seem to object to being called a kitchen appliance :confused:

Are you a professional scarecrow maker, I mean really, with the way you pump out one strawman after another, I'm quite impressed. Perhaps you just practice a lot.
What strawman? I am exploring your statements here. You say the fetus counts as a person. You say the government owns the persons under its governance. You say that because the government owns the persons under its governance, the government has a right to take control over a woman's body in order to force her to gestate a fetus, even if she doesn't want to.

So I am asking you: If the fetus is a person, and if the government owns the persons under its governance, does the government own the fetus? And if the government owns the fetus does it have the same right to take and use the fetus's body, as it has to take and use the woman's body?

What's the matter, PootW? Have you never bothered to think about that little twist? I'm surprised because, to the extent that fetuses being used for stem cell research is a strawman argument, it is one that was created by the anti-choice movement and is used regularly to attack stem cell research -- you know, that "creating life only to destroy it" tag line.

So, I challenge you to reconcile this. How can you make all persons slaves of the state without creating the very horror-story scenario that your own side made up and then decried?

Clearly there are only two ways out for you. Either you admit that you are blindly bullshitting and drop the argument, or you admit that you think women are property and cattle and should be treated as such, and that's why the slavery scenario applies only to them.

Trust me, you will recover your credibility faster if you choose the first option.

<snip>
But you don't seem to object to being called a kitchen appliance :confused:
BTW, what I object to is hypocrisy -- your hypocrisy. The oven simile was just that, a simile. You were the one who attacked Arthais for using it and claimed that he was maliciously objectifying women. You then immediately, and with a very smug and dismissive tone, went on to make me a slave of the state under some bogus claim of eminent domain -- a real estate law -- and carried on at length about how my body is the state's property. And now you are comparing a woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy or not to WMDs and automatic weapons in the hands of murderers. The oven analogy is by far the least hostile of the lot, but apparently, you prefer hostile comparisons to friendly ones.

The rights or humanity of the fetus are, to my mind, a strawman argumnet.

I think of it this way:
Let's say we knew for sure that the fetus is sentient and intelligent. Let us even say it is a middle aged, wealthy, white, heterosexual male who enjoys every right guaranteed by western civilisation. Now, if this person is inside me, do I have the right to expel this person from my body?

Yes. I do.

What if I knew that person would die? Would it still be my right?

Yes. It would.

What if it was the POTUS?

Too bad. It's my body.

What strawman? I am exploring your statements here. You say the fetus counts as a person. You say the government owns the persons under its governance. You say that because the government owns the persons under its governance, the government has a right to take control over a woman's body in order to force her to gestate a fetus, even if she doesn't want to.
*snip*

You didn't even get past the first paragraph without making up strawmen.

Here, I'll show you. When did I say the fetus counts a person? I did not, I said via the dictionary you used that the dictionary says a baby is a child and a child is a child born or unborn. I didn't say it, your dictionary did.

Additionally, I did not say the government owns the person it governs. I said government rules by the rules of the governing body, and that governing body may even be the general populace.

I DID say that the government has the power we give them and sometimes that is to force us as individuals to do things we may not like, and that includes up to even death via conscription into military service, as an example of extreme servitude.

And thus, you don't actually address stuff I've said, instead, you create quick strawmen to attack and pretend like you've accomplished something when you knock them down.

You didn't even get past the first paragraph without making up strawmen.

Here, I'll show you. When did I say the fetus counts a person? I did not, I said via the dictionary you used that the dictionary says a baby is a child and a child is a child born or unborn. I didn't say it, your dictionary did.
So are you saying that a fetus is not a person? Then how do you justify giving it rights that trump mine?

Additionally, I did not say the government owns the person it governs. I said government rules by the rules of the governing body, and that governing body may even be the general populace.

I DID say that the government has the power we give them and sometimes that is to force us as individuals to do things we may not like, and that includes up to even death via conscription into military service, as an example of extreme servitude.
Sorry, but bullshit. It is a distinction without a difference. You give the government the right to take and use the bodies of individuals against their will -- through the draft and, according to your fantasy, to prevent abortion. To claim that the government is merely the agent of the will of the majority is (A) irrelevant -- it doesn't matter why the government is enslaving me; (B) not valid -- "just following orders" has never worked as a defense; (C) not connected to fact -- you have yet to prove that the majority of Americans think the way you do and see themselves in the same master-slave relationship to their own government that you seem to believe in.

And thus, you don't actually address stuff I've said, instead, you create quick strawmen to attack and pretend like you've accomplished something when you knock them down.
So you claim, but you can only get away with that if we allow you to redefine your own statements after the fact. I am confident that other readers are able to see precisely how I have addressed your statements and how you have failed to respond.

*snip*

You're the one trying to redefine my statements. Not me.

You can rally against the machine all you want, you can deny reality all you want, the governments do have power over us from time to time by our own accord. But if you want to pretend that this suddenly turns us all into slaves of the machine in your Matrix reality, then fine. Here's your tin hat, try not to cut yourself.

You're the one trying to redefine my statements. Not me.

You can rally against the machine all you want, you can deny reality all you want, the governments do have power over us from time to time by our own accord. But if you want to pretend that this suddenly turns us all into slaves of the machine in your Matrix reality, then fine. Here's your tin hat, try not to cut yourself.
But like stated governments only have the rights its people CHOOSE to grant it … why should we grant them the right to essentially turn a woman into a slave?

You're the one trying to redefine my statements. Not me.
No, I'm not. You speak, and I repeat back what I hear. If there's a discrepancy, then you have an opportunity to clarify.

You can rally against the machine all you want, you can deny reality all you want, the governments do have power over us from time to time by our own accord. But if you want to pretend that this suddenly turns us all into slaves of the machine in your Matrix reality, then fine. Here's your tin hat, try not to cut yourself.
The government does not have the kind of power you are trying to claim it does. This is nothing but your personal fantasy for how you can justify forcing women to carry pregnancies against their will. It has already been shown to you how eminent domain and the draft do not apply to this issue. It has already been shown to you how self-ownership negates any outside party's claim to a right to force me to do something. Except for the draft and taxation, the power of the government to control what individuals do is negative -- telling you what you cannot do, not telling you what you must do. We don't even require people to vote in this country. Only the military draft can require individuals to put themselves at risk for the sake of others or the state. There is no draft for pregnancies, and you can't make us think there is just by insisting. Only taxation can require individuals to contribute to supporting the government. There is no such thing as a baby tax that must be paid in babies.

...
Except for the draft and taxation, the power of the government to control what individuals do is negative -- telling you what you cannot do, not telling you what you must do...

You mean something along the lines of, "Doctors: You can NOT perform an abortion ( a negative) unless it is related to a life saving emergency of the mother patient."

See, your problem could be solved.

You mean something along the lines of, "Doctors: You can NOT perform an abortion ( a negative) unless it is related to a life saving emergency of the mother patient."

See, your problem could be solved.
You are such an ass. I have posted numerous direct questions about your proposed approach to problems, and you have consistently failed to answer any one of them, preferring instead to attack me personally. Now, you come up with another of your glib, dismissive bullshit rejoinders that utterly fail to respond to the issue. What you propose here is nothing but a dishonest and disingenous sidestep -- just like everything else you've been saying here.

A law that tells doctors they may NOT perform abortions is defacto the same as a law that tells me that I MUST carry a pregnancy. Now explain WHY I must carry an unwanted pregnancy. Explain what interest of the state is served by forcing me into baby slavery. Some bullshit mistiness about "a culture of life"? Then I expect to see that same government paying to feed, clothe, care for, educate and employ all those babies as they grow up. I expect to see that same government eradicating poverty and ensuring full universal health care for everyone at the same time it eradicates abortion. I expect to see that same government ban guns at the same time as it bans abortion, and disband its own military, and foreswear all forms of war, and abolish the death penalty, and institute mandatory vegetarianism. Are you prepared to do all that? No? Then you're a hypocrite and a liar.

Plus, you fail yet again to show how you intend to compensate me for forcing me to carry a pregnancy I don't want. How much will the government pay me for my service to it? Will the government put me through college? Will it put the children I did want and already have through college? Will it pay off the mortgage on my house? What? What do I get for providing this service to the state since the state is the one that wants this baby so much?

And you completely ignore all questions about what the social and legal status of women would be under your fantasy system. Do women have the right to control their bodies or not? Answer it, once and for all. If I have the right to control my body, then all your laws trying to block my access to medical procedures that would allow me to do that are bogus and doomed to be repealed. If do not have the right to control my body, then explain to the world how I am not, then, a slave to the state.

If women are not to be permitted to abort unwanted pregnancies, but are not slaves to the state or their husbands or whatever, then your government, which you empower to control us this way, must provide means for us to avoid getting sucked into this pregnancy trap. That means that your government must provide free birth control to ALL women starting from puberty.

However, there's still a problem with that, because if the contraceptives fail and a woman becomes pregnant, it will necessarily be an unwanted pregnancy (obviously, if she wanted to be pregnant, she would not have used the contraceptive). Therefore, you're right back to accounting for how you will pay me off for forcing me to undergo this unwanted, inconvenient, dangerous, and damaging condition.

Answer the damned questions, you hypocritical coward.

You mean something along the lines of, "Doctors: You can NOT perform an abortion ( a negative) unless it is related to a life saving emergency of the mother patient."

See, your problem could be solved.
Oh, and two more objections to your bullshit idea, based on your "life of the mother" exception:

1) If your opposition to legal abortion is the right to life of the fetus, and if you think the fetus's right to life trumps all other rights of women, then how do you justify letting me kill the fetus under any circumstances? If the fetus has the right to use my body to create its own life, how do you justify not letting it kill me? Back in the day, masters were allowed to kill their slaves, since they owned the slaves' bodies. If the fetus is allowed to own and use my body, why should it matter if that usage kills me, since essentially you have made me the fetus's slave? According to your view, during the pregnancy, it would be the fetus that matters, not the woman, since the fetus is the owner of the body. Surely your laws should require doctors to keep a pregnancy going as long as possible in order to maximize the chances that the fetus will reach the stage of viability, enough to be delivered prematurely with a chance of survival. If that kills the woman, that's too bad, but at least there was no abortion and the fetus's right to life was not impinged, right?

2) I notice you offer no exception for rape, incest or molestation of a minor. So you would force a victim of a sex crime to bear a pregnancy that was forced on her by her attacker/abuser? Charming. Oh, of course, unless the pregnancy would kill her. What if the pregnancy drives her commit suicide? Does that justify an abortion in your opinion? Then what is to stop doctors from simply declaring that their patients are suffering from such extreme depression and psychological distress as to be at risk of suicide if the pregnancy continues and using that diagnosis to permit abortions of unwanted pregnancies? If you want to close that loophole, you're going to have to allow the risk of suicide to continue, and in that case, if it is better to that a woman kill herself than allow her to abort a pregnancy, how do you justify letting doctors abort the pregnancy to save the woman's life from other dangerous conditions?

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.

Probably it does revolve around what the fetus is, but it's not whether it's a living being. Our society factory-farms and slaughters many, many living beings simply for our own dietary luxury. We produce drugs to kill hordes of invasive, microscopic living beings. I'm aware that you appended "deserving of rights" onto the end but since that's the entirety of the issue, that's like saying if we can figure out whether it's a dog then we can determine if it's a dog.

I'm frankly quite bored of this argument, and nobody ever changes their mind about it anyway, but here's another take on it. You compare a fetus to an extrauterine human being. Think about this: it is inside your body (well, perhaps not you, as I don't know your sex, but someone's body), it requires nutrients that you provide, it contributes nothing, biologically, to the relationship except hormones that perpetuate its presence, and it often causes adverse effects such as nausea, incontinence, and later back pain. If this organism was any species other than human, we'd call it a parasite and try to get rid of it.

Now that's probably not going to convince anyone, because a fetus isn't a parasite, but neither is it an ordinary human. My point is when you get into comparisons like that, you can always draw the line either way. So I'll simply repeat the best pro-choice argument I have heard so far: the abortion itself does not kill the fetus. It is the lack of nutrients and thermal insulation provided by the uterus that eventually kills it. So basically if you outlaw abortion, you are requiring women to donate their uterus to the fetus. Nowhere that I am aware of requires anyone by law to donate an organ, even to someone in their family, even if they know they will die without it.

Anyway, I doubt I've convinced anyone - if so, yay me - but I hope at least I've introduced some new, perhaps vaguely original perspectives. Like I said I'm bored of the argument, so feel free to discuss my post, but I probably won't be back to this thread.

nay to you
Probably it does revolve around what the fetus is, but it's not whether it's a living being. Our society factory-farms and slaughters many, many living beings simply for our own dietary luxury. We produce drugs to kill hordes of invasive, microscopic living beings.

Is he seriously comparing a fetus to an infectious bacteria or a cow??

It is the lack of nutrients and thermal insulation provided by the uterus that eventually kills it. So basically if you outlaw abortion, you are requiring women to donate their uterus to the fetus. Nowhere that I am aware of requires anyone by law to donate an organ, even to someone in their family, even if they know they will die without it.

and aids isnt what kills the person, yet everyone recognizes that aids is deadly bc it attacks the immune system. that is a ridiculous spin, abortion kills the fetus any way you spin it

in conclusion that was the worst formed pro choice argument since the "there will still be abortions even if u outlaw them" argument

Is he seriously comparing a fetus to an infectious bacteria or a cow??

If the fetus is not a person, it has no more rights than other non human organisms like cows. The fact that a fetus may, one day, become a human is irrelevant to the fact that it IS NOT.

everyone acknoledges babys as humans, yet they too depend on another life for everything, even more things then a fetus, (like diaper changes) babies, like fetus's, arnt inteligent yet either, so with pro choice reasoning we should be able to kill off babies too then right???

everyone acknoledges babys as humans, yet they too depend on another life for everything, even more things then a fetus, (like diaper changes) babies, like fetus's, arnt inteligent yet either, so with pro choice reasoning we should be able to kill off babies too then right???

A baby has a functioning nervous system and self conciousness. A fetus does not.

Try to keep up.

Probably it does revolve around what the fetus is, but it's not whether it's a living being. Our society factory-farms and slaughters many, many living beings simply for our own dietary luxury. We produce drugs to kill hordes of invasive, microscopic living beings. I'm aware that you appended "deserving of rights" onto the end but since that's the entirety of the issue, that's like saying if we can figure out whether it's a dog then we can determine if it's a dog.

I'm frankly quite bored of this argument, and nobody ever changes their mind about it anyway, but here's another take on it. You compare a fetus to an extrauterine human being. Think about this: it is inside your body (well, perhaps not you, as I don't know your sex, but someone's body), it requires nutrients that you provide, it contributes nothing, biologically, to the relationship except hormones that perpetuate its presence, and it often causes adverse effects such as nausea, incontinence, and later back pain. If this organism was any species other than human, we'd call it a parasite and try to get rid of it.

Now that's probably not going to convince anyone, because a fetus isn't a parasite, but neither is it an ordinary human. My point is when you get into comparisons like that, you can always draw the line either way. So I'll simply repeat the best pro-choice argument I have heard so far: the abortion itself does not kill the fetus. It is the lack of nutrients and thermal insulation provided by the uterus that eventually kills it. So basically if you outlaw abortion, you are requiring women to donate their uterus to the fetus. Nowhere that I am aware of requires anyone by law to donate an organ, even to someone in their family, even if they know they will die without it.

Anyway, I doubt I've convinced anyone - if so, yay me - but I hope at least I've introduced some new, perhaps vaguely original perspectives. Like I said I'm bored of the argument, so feel free to discuss my post, but I probably won't be back to this thread.

Wow that is the best pro choice arguement I have ever heard too.

Like I said previously, it’s probably best if those who think abortion is a civilized behavior should not only be allowed to get abortions, but they should be encouraged to get abortions.

For the betterment of the species, thinning out from the herd the shortsighted and self-focused individuals would be a good thing for the rest of the population. Perhaps their self-destructive behaviors are evolutions way of eliminating their ‘brokenness’ and rooting out their anti social behaviors from the rest of the human beings, simply let themselves thin out their own numbers.

Like I said previously, it’s probably best if those who think abortion is a civilized behavior should not only be allowed to get abortions, but they should be encouraged to get abortions.

For the betterment of the species, thinning out from the herd the shortsighted and self-focused individuals would be a good thing for the rest of the population. Perhaps their self-destructive behaviors are evolutions way of eliminating their ‘brokenness’ and rooting out their anti social behaviors from the rest of the human beings, simply let themselves thin out their own numbers.

Personally I think society would best benefit by taking everyone like you who would would so happily restrict the rights of others, put em on an island where you can all be as "civilized" as you like talking about community while at the same time denying individual rights, build a wall on that island, and make sure none of you, ever, get off.

That would make society a WHOLE lot better.

You are such an ass. I have posted numerous direct questions about your proposed approach to problems, and you have consistently failed to answer any one of them, preferring instead to attack me personally...

*…*
Answer the damned questions, you hypocritical coward.

* I snipped out the paranoid schizophrenia justifications for pro-abortion extremism via your doomsday like apocalyptical predictions and irrational demands, justified only via the methodology found in the practices of an unstable mind...

Then I found that there weren’t any actual questions left that I hadn’t already answered in the analysis post that you have ignored since the second page of this thread…

So please continue with your name calling and scarecrow strawmen building antics and pretending like people opposed to abortion on demand are simply a slippery slope to the enslavement of all women kind everywhere.

You haven’t cut yourself on that tin hat have you? I find myself questioning my decision to give you one, perhaps you shouldn’t be playing with sharp objects?

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.

In all reality... **Prepares to hide**... abortion, IMVHO, is the removal of a tumor. **Hides**

Wow that is the best pro choice arguement I have ever heard too.

I agree... mine is good too (seeing as it is very similar, comparing the fetus instead to a tumor (tumors, in rare cases, have grown embryo-esque features.))

everyone acknoledges babys as humans, yet they too depend on another life for everything, even more things then a fetus, (like diaper changes) babies, like fetus's, arnt inteligent yet either, so with pro choice reasoning we should be able to kill off babies too then right???
Only if you don't bother to think!!! (hint: multiple punctuation marks are the sign of a AO Hellite).

A baby is born. It's an actualized, autonomous being that is not within the confines of another being. By homesteading itself apart from another being, it has rights.

in conclusion that was the worst formed pro choice argument since the "there will still be abortions even if u outlaw them" argument
Actually, they are both excellent arguments and you do not truly care about human life if you dismiss them so easily.

Wow that is the best pro choice arguement I have ever heard too.

No. It's an awful one. Along the same lines of logic, we can abolish laws requiring that parents feed and shelter their children instead of tossing them on the street.

Furthermore, while superficially compelling, the argument that the mother should not be compelled to donate her uterus, even if the fetus has moral equivalence to other human beings, is ultimately not very convincing to me. What does the mother lose? Complete sovereignty over her body, comfort, etc. What does the fetus lose? Its life. We might not want to impose harsh conditions on the mother, but what about the fetus? What we impose upon the mother by preventing abortion is not comparable to what abortion imposes on the fetus. Why does the mother's claim to the comforts of not being pregnant supersede the claim of the fetus to its very life? The fetus, after all, does not have a choice in the matter; it is not as if it can find another source of nourishment.

The notion that it matters whether abortion is "passive" or "active" killing also rests on dubious ground. Why should it matter? Whether "passive" or "active," we are imposing conditions on the fetus that we know will result in its death in order to achieve equivalent objectives. There is a difference between someone stabbed to death and someone starved to death, but does it matter to the dead person?

I am pro-choice, but I am pro-choice because I don't think the fetus has rights equivalent to those of adult human beings.

No. It's an awful one. Along the same lines of logic, we can abolish laws requiring that parents feed and shelter their children instead of tossing them on the street.

Furthermore, while superficially compelling, the argument that the mother should not be compelled to donate her uterus, even if the fetus has moral equivalence to other human beings, is ultimately not very convincing to me. What does the mother lose? Complete sovereignty over her body, comfort, etc. What does the fetus lose? Its life. We might not want to impose harsh conditions on the mother, but what about the fetus? What we impose upon the mother by preventing abortion is not comparable to what abortion imposes on the fetus. Why does the mother's claim to the comforts of not being pregnant supersede the claim of the fetus to its very life? The fetus, after all, does not have a choice in the matter; it is not as if it can find another source of nourishment.

The notion that it matters whether abortion is "passive" or "active" killing also rests on dubious ground. Why should it matter? Whether "passive" or "active," we are imposing conditions on the fetus that we know will result in its death in order to achieve equivalent objectives. There is a difference between someone stabbed to death and someone starved to death, but does it matter to the dead person?

I am pro-choice, but I am pro-choice because I don't think the fetus has rights equivalent to those of adult human beings.

It was a pretty good argument, IMO... and pro-choice, I am.

And to point out a flaw in YOUR agrument.:

By the logic of your logic, it should be OK for someone to assimilate/possess my body and use it how they want. And everyone knows that is bad.

By the logic of your logic, it should be OK for someone to assimilate/possess my body and use it how they want. And everyone knows that is bad.

Is that what I said? No. The fetus's claim is not based on the fetus's desire to live. It is based on the fact that the fetus deserves to live - like every other being worthy of equal moral consideration to post-birth human beings.

In other words, if I want to make you my slave because I want to make money off your labor and buy a new yacht, that is immoral of me. Your claim to freedom outweighs my claim to an unnecessary and extravagant luxury. If, however, the choice is between you suffering discomfort and a temporary loss of bodily sovereignty and me suffering death, it is not immoral to protect my life at your lesser expense - unless I am a being unworthy of equal moral consideration to you, as a fetus is.

Is that what I said? No. The fetus's claim is not based on the fetus's desire to live. It is based on the fact that the fetus deserves to live - like every other being worthy of equal moral consideration to post-birth human beings.

In other words, if I want to make you my slave because I want to make money off your labor and buy a new yacht, that is immoral of me. Your claim to freedom outweighs my claim to an unnecessary and extravagant luxury. If, however, the choice is between you suffering discomfort and a temporary loss of bodily sovereignty and me suffering death, it is not immoral to protect my life at your lesser expense - unless I am a being unworthy of equal moral consideration to you, as a fetus is.

My response DID go a little far...

How about something that has to possess something to live (as most possessing things I have heard of do it)?

Your arguments almost sound anti-choice (the terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are bad terms, IMO).

How about something that has to possess something to live (as most possessing things I have heard of do it)?

I think we should guarantee every human being the opportunity to garner the material goods necessary for his or her life, yes, and I think a society that fails to do so is one that is in need of reform.

Your arguments almost sound anti-choice (the terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" are bad terms, IMO).

That's because in this context I am arguing against a pro-choice argument. I am not at all opposed to abortion rights.

I think we should guarantee every human being the opportunity to garner the material goods necessary for his or her life, yes, and I think a society that fails to do so is one that is in need of reform.

So would the example be good or bad, in your opinion? and why?

That's because in this context I am arguing against a pro-choice argument. I am not at all opposed to abortion rights.

So you support abortion in what cases? and why?

If, however, the choice is between you suffering discomfort and a temporary loss of bodily sovereignty and me suffering death, it is not immoral to protect my life at your lesser expense

Let's say I am in a car accident, and suffer severe loss of blood, I will die in a matter of minutes unless I am given a transfusion RIGHT NOW.

You are the only person nearby with the proper blood type. You are the ONLY person who can be reached in time to save my life. Without your blood, I will die.

What you are saying is that it would be perfectly moral and right to force you down, strap you to a chair, and drain a (non fatal) amount of your blood from you, without any consent on your part what so ever?

Let's say I am in a car accident, and suffer severe loss of blood, I will die in a matter of minutes unless I am given a transfusion RIGHT NOW.

You are the only person nearby with the proper blood type. You are the ONLY person who can be reached in time to save my life. Without your blood, I will die.

What you are saying is that it would be perfectly moral and right to force you down, strap you to a chair, and drain a (non fatal) amount of your blood from you, without any consent on your part what so ever?

Absolutely.

So would the example be good or bad, in your opinion? and why?

What example?

So you support abortion in what cases? and why?

All, because the fetus has the moral value of, say, a chicken. It lacks the rationality and higher awareness necessary for a being to merit full moral consideration.

What example?

The one about the paasite possessor.

All, because the fetus has the moral value of, say, a chicken. It lacks the rationality and higher awareness necessary for a being to merit full moral consideration.

Oh. OK then...

Let's say I am in a car accident, and suffer severe loss of blood, I will die in a matter of minutes unless I am given a transfusion RIGHT NOW.

You are the only person nearby with the proper blood type. You are the ONLY person who can be reached in time to save my life. Without your blood, I will die.

What you are saying is that it would be perfectly moral and right to force you down, strap you to a chair, and drain a (non fatal) amount of your blood from you, without any consent on your part what so ever?

It is OK on your part, but the blood giver should not be forced to donate by law, m'kay?

The one about the paasite possessor.

I still am not sure what you're talking about; could you quote the relevant post, please?

It is OK on your part, but the blood giver should not be forced to donate by law, m'kay?

Exactly.

Absolutely.
I think you'd best stay away from the civilized people. Civilized people don't accost others and drain them of some blood to save others, no matter if the other person needs it.

It is OK on your part, but the blood giver should not be forced to donate by law, m'kay?

Why not? We do not demand that a murderer consent to the law against murder before punishing her for it.

Absolutely.

I fundamentally and totally disagree with that. My body is sovereign, as is yours. What it does, and how it is used, is up to me, and ME ALONE. No one, not you, not the fetus, not the law, should ever, EVER be able to force me into sacrificing my bodily integrity.

It's not about a "little inconvenience" on my part, it is about the violation of my most fundamental right, the choice to decide my OWN destiny.

Why not? We do not demand that a murderer consent to the law against murder before punishing her for it.
Because murder is a violation of property rights. And taking blood from someone else without consent is a violation of property rights as well.

Why not? We do not demand that a murderer consent to the law against murder before punishing her for it.

Because your freedom to chose your destiny ends outside the sphere of your own body. You don't have a say or right to decide what happens to those outside your body, but you have the ultimite say in what goes on inside it.

I fundamentally and totally disagree with that. My body is sovereign, as is yours. What it does, and how it is used, is up to me, and ME ALONE. No one, not you, not the fetus, not the law, should ever, EVER be able to force me into sacrificing my bodily integrity.

Why?

It's not about a "little inconvenience" on my part, it is about the violation of my most fundamental right, the choice to decide my OWN destiny.

And what about the right of the person who needs the blood transfusion to decide her own destiny? What of her right to control her own body - something denied to someone dead? What about her right to life, upon which all other forms of freedom are necessarily based? Why should we remove her from consideration?

Your capability to decide your own destiny is important, but so is the capability for everyone else to decide their own destinies.

Because your freedom to chose your destiny ends outside the sphere of your own body. You don't have a say or right to decide what happens to those outside your body, but you have the ultimite say in what goes on inside it.

right... that explanation works for the whole topic.

And what about the right of the person who needs the blood transfusion to decide her own destiny?
That does not include violating the rights of others.

Because your freedom to chose your destiny ends outside the sphere of your own body.

No, it doesn't. If I'm in need of a blood transfusion and I can't get one because nobody is willing to provide me with one, I have no control over my own destiny even though no one is violating my bodily integrity. I have been denied the most basic freedom - the capability to live - for the sake of the convenience of others.

You don't have a say or right to decide what happens to those outside your body, but you have the ultimite say in what goes on inside it.

Doesn't applying the status of inviolability to my body affect others? Doesn't it affect the person who needs a blood transfusion? Doesn't it, when applied to a pregnant woman, affect the fetus? Is it not unfair to them to apply this restriction? Why don't they have a say? After all, it is not as if we are talking about victimless acts here. We are talking about people being denied the basic needs of life because of the decisions of others.

Why?



And what about the right of the person who needs the blood transfusion to decide her own destiny? What of her right to control her own body - something denied to someone dead? What about her right to life, upon which all other forms of freedom are necessarily based? Why should we remove her from consideration?

Your capability to decide your own destiny is important, but so is the capability for everyone else to decide their own destinies.

Their ability to decide their own destiny ends when it involves those outside the sphere of their own body, simple. Your only right is to decide what happens to you within the limits placed upon us by fate, chance, and destiny. You have no right to life if the exercise of your right forces a violation of my own. Do I have some moralistic obligation? OK sure. But that should never be codified in law.

Simply put, as cruel as it may sound, I am not responsible for your life. I am responsible only for my own. I can not act in a way that would violate the integrity of YOUR body, which exists outside the sphere of my own, I can dictate only what happens in mine.

The right to life and the right to autonomy are twins. Life is meaningless without the freedom to exercise it as you see fit.

I want all of you pro-abortion folks to tell me when you think life begins.

No, it doesn't. If I'm in need of a blood transfusion and I can't get one because nobody is willing to provide me with one, I have no control over my own destiny even though no one is violating my bodily integrity.
That's like saying that your control over your destiny is gone because no one wants to play chess with you.

I want all of you pro-abortion folks to tell me when you think life begins.
That is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't. If I'm in need of a blood transfusion and I can't get one because nobody is willing to provide me with one, I have no control over my own destiny even though no one is violating my bodily integrity. I have been denied the most basic freedom - the capability to live - for the sake of the convenience of others.

The difference, the fundamental and absolute difference is, that it would be THE STATE taking my blood, it would be the validity of the government violating my right.

The state is not violating your right to life. Nobody is killing you. Your right to life is being infringed upon by nature, the universe, fate, or god, as you wish. But not the state. The government should never force me to give up my rights of bodily integrity, even if that means I get to sit and watch you die.

By the same token the state should never kill you either, but this isn't the state killing you. This is if you require me to survive, and I remain passive, then you're shit out of luck.


Doesn't applying the status of inviolability to my body affect others? Doesn't it affect the person who needs a blood transfusion? Doesn't it, when applied to a pregnant woman, affect the fetus? Is it not unfair to them to apply this restriction? Why don't they have a say? After all, it is not as if we are talking about victimless acts here. We are talking about people being denied the basic needs of life because of the decisions of others.

You are taking about people being denied the basic right of self determination by the decisions of others. Yes it affects people, and well that's just too damned bad for them. The state should never force me to violate my bodily integrity. If nature takes away your right to life, take it up with nature.

But the STATE should not do so, ever.

That is irrelevant.
No, it is very relavent. We don't do abortions in the 5th trimester ( you know, when its a baby in a crib, hehehe), so when do you think life begins? If you cant answer that you have no foundations for your argument. I know you can't answer this question, by the way.

The difference, the fundamental and absolute difference is, that it would be THE STATE taking my blood, it would be the validity of the government violating my right.

The state is not violating your right to life. Nobody is killing you. Your right to life is being infringed upon by nature, the universe, fate, or god, as you wish. But not the state. The government should never force me to give up my rights of bodily integrity, even if that means I get to sit and watch you die.

By the same token the state should never kill you either, but this isn't the state killing you. This is if you require me to survive, and I remain passive, then you're shit out of luck.





You are taking about people being denied the basic right of self determination by the decisions of others. Yes it affects people, and well that's just too damned bad for them. The state should never force me to violate my bodily integrity. If nature takes away your right to life, take it up with nature.

But the STATE should not do so, ever.
so when does human life begin in your opinion?

No, it is very relavent.
No, it's entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is the right of self-ownership (and rights in general).

I know you won't be able to explain why a fetus has rights. But give it a shot.

No, it is very relavent. We don't do abortions in the 5th trimester ( you know, when its a baby in a crib, hehehe), so when do you think life begins? If you cant answer that you have no foundations for your argument. I know you can't answer this question, by the way.

Legally, life begins when "the miracle" happens (and I hope you know what I mean).

Of course, abortion usually does not hapen at that point. Usually happens before the mom begins to feel the effects.

Their ability to decide their own destiny ends when it involves those outside the sphere of their own body, simple. Your only right is to decide what happens to you within the limits placed upon us by fate, chance, and destiny.

So it only exists when it's convenient, and doesn't when it isn't? Either I should be given the capability to control my own destiny or I shouldn't be. If I should be, I think I should be given meaningful control over my circumstances; otherwise, I am not really free at all. What "freedom" do I have in circumstances under which I am certain to die? If I can't even control that basic element of my existence, I am not free by any reasonable definition of the word.

You have no right to life if the exercise of your right forces a violation of my own.

Your right to life is not being violated.

Do I have some moralistic obligation? OK sure. But that should never be codified in law.

The role of law is to codify social obligations. When moral obligations fall into that category, they should be codified.

Simply put, as cruel as it may sound, I am not responsible for your life. I am responsible only for my own. I can not act in a way that would violate the integrity of YOUR body, which exists outside the sphere of my own, I can dictate only what happens in mine.

When I'm in need of a blood transfusion, or starving to death, or dying on the side of the road, I could care less about the "integrity of my body." Far more important to me is my continued existence as a living being. A moral system that diminishes the value of that life to a triviality relevant only when it touches on this morally artificial notion of "bodily integrity" is a moral system unworthy of the name.

The right to life and the right to autonomy are twins. Life is meaningless without the freedom to exercise it as you see fit.

I agree. That's why the person in need of a blood transfusion should be guaranteed the autonomy to choose whether to live or die, rather than to have it forced on him by health and social circumstances.

What is relevant is the right of self-ownership (and rights in general).

Yeah, the rights of a mother of her body, right? (I haven't been following the discussion, but I'm guessing your point is that a mother has control over what is in her body, right? Good. I agree.)

so when does human life begin in your opinion?

That is not relevant to this line of inquiry. My contention was, even if the fetus was alive, the mother, because the fetus exists in HER body, has the right to have it taken OUT of her body.

Even if viable, even if it was the definition of "human life", as long as it remains in her body, she has the right to get it taken OUT of her body.

I know this is hard to believe, but I'm capable of having more than one argument. In case you missed them, here you go:

1) a fetus, for most of its development, lacks key characteristics of "human" and is thus not a human, and therefore does not have human rights, including the human right to life

2) even were it human life, the mother has the right to decide her own bodily integrity and self determination, and if in the exercise of her bodily integrity the fetus (even if it has developed to the point of being "human"), well so be it. The government should never interfere in what I do within the sphere of my own body, even if it results in the death of another person. It's my damned body.

That is not relevant to this line of inquiry. My contention was, even if the fetus was alive, the mother, because the fetus exists in HER body, has the right to have it taken OUT of her body.

Even if viable, even if it was the definition of "human life", as long as it remains in her body, she has the right to get it taken OUT of her body.

I know this is hard to believe, but I'm capable of having more than one argument. In case you missed them, here you go:

1) a fetus, for most of its development, lacks key characteristics of "human" and is thus not a human, and therefore does not have human rights, including the human right to life

2) even were it human life, the mother has the right to decide her own bodily integrity and self determination, and if in the exercise of her bodily integrity the fetus (even if it has developed to the point of being "human"), well so be it. The government should never interfere in what I do within the sphere of my own body, even if it results in the death of another person. It's my damned body.

Of course, bailing one week before the baby could live outside of you isn't cool...

No, it's entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is the right of self-ownership (and rights in general).

I know you won't be able to explain why a fetus has rights. But give it a shot.

I can do that for you once you tell me when you think life begins, I must know that to continue. You cant tell me though. You dont know.

Legally, life begins when "the miracle" happens (and I hope you know what I mean).

Of course, abortion usually does not hapen at that point. Usually happens before the mom begins to feel the effects.
I have no clue what you mean.

I can do that for you once you tell me when you think life begins, I must know that to continue.
No, you don't need to know that. It is clear that you're a coward. You have no idea how or why it is that a fetus has rights--but apparently it does. You just believe--without any real reason to--that a fetus has rights.

Well I need you to demonstrate that a fetus has rights.

So it only exists when it's convenient, and doesn't when it isn't? Either I should be given the capability to control my own destiny or I shouldn't be. If I should be, I think I should be given meaningful control over my circumstances; otherwise, I am not really free at all. What "freedom" do I have in circumstances under which I am certain to die? If I can't even control that basic element of my existence, I am not free by any reasonable definition of the word.



Your right to life is not being violated.



The role of law is to codify social obligations. When moral obligations fall into that category, they should be codified.



When I'm in need of a blood transfusion, or starving to death, or dying on the side of the road, I could care less about the "integrity of my body." Far more important to me is my continued existence as a living being. A moral system that diminishes the value of that life to a triviality relevant only when it touches on this morally artificial notion of "bodily integrity" is a moral system unworthy of the name.



I agree. That's why the person in need of a blood transfusion should be guaranteed the autonomy to choose whether to live or die, rather than to have it forced on him by health and social circumstances.

Your entire argument can be reduced to idiocy by the utterance of one nonsensical statement.

I chose to live forever.

You only have the right in so far as neither the state, nor proviate actors, act in such a way to either try to kill you, or bring about your death through their recklessness/negligence.

I am not REQUIRED to help you, ever. I am not required to bring about the execution of your rights. I am merely required not to violate them. I don't have to do a thing to help you. Because it is my right not to.

That is not relevant to this line of inquiry. My contention was, even if the fetus was alive, the mother, because the fetus exists in HER body, has the right to have it taken OUT of her body.

Even if viable, even if it was the definition of "human life", as long as it remains in her body, she has the right to get it taken OUT of her body.

I know this is hard to believe, but I'm capable of having more than one argument. In case you missed them, here you go:

1) a fetus, for most of its development, lacks key characteristics of "human" and is thus not a human, and therefore does not have human rights, including the human right to life

2) even were it human life, the mother has the right to decide her own bodily integrity and self determination, and if in the exercise of her bodily integrity the fetus (even if it has developed to the point of being "human"), well so be it. The government should never interfere in what I do within the sphere of my own body, even if it results in the death of another person. It's my damned body.

I got those points already. so when does life begin? You really have no idea what you think. You can't answer the simple question.

No, you don't need to know that. It is clear that you're a coward. You have no idea how or why it is that a fetus has rights--but apparently it does. You just believe--without any real reason to--that a fetus has rights.

Well I need you to demonstrate that a fetus has rights.

It has rights because it is alive and it is human.. You do not believe that. You do not think it is alive. So, again, I ask, when does life begin?

None of you have a clue. When does life begin?

Of course, bailing one week before the baby could live outside of you isn't cool...

Well, I could argue that if we're talking "one week from birth", at month 8, week 3, then an abortion can be performed by simple C section, at which point the doctors involved would have the obligation to keep the human (and it would be human at this point) life alive.

The mother has the right to expell it from her at any time, but if it's capable of living outside, then upon its exit, it aquires its own rights, which the doctors, by nature of being doctors, must aid.

If we're talking "one week before viability", yeah it may be a crummy thing to do but..eh, them's the breaks.

The difference, the fundamental and absolute difference is, that it would be THE STATE taking my blood, it would be the validity of the government violating my right.

The state is not violating your right to life. Nobody is killing you. Your right to life is being infringed upon by nature, the universe, fate, or god, as you wish. But not the state. The government should never force me to give up my rights of bodily integrity, even if that means I get to sit and watch you die.

By the same token the state should never kill you either, but this isn't the state killing you. This is if you require me to survive, and I remain passive, then you're shit out of luck.

No, that is not a "fundamental and absolute" difference at all. It is an irrelevant one. Either way, the person being denied the capability to live - whoever or whatever causes this denial - is denied the most basic freedom any being can have, the freedom to choose whether to live or die. That is wrong.

It doesn't matter whether a human murderer or nature decides to kill her; it is still not her making the decision, it is still not her controlling her own life and destiny. It is someone or something else.

You are taking about people being denied the basic right of self determination by the decisions of others.

Which people? The ones denied the blood transfusions by the "decisions of others," or the ones forced to give blood transfusions by the "decisions of others"? Which is the bigger loss of freedom - the one that concerns a human being's very life, or the one that concerns a comparatively minor violation of her bodily integrity?

Yes it affects people, and well that's just too damned bad for them. The state should never force me to violate my bodily integrity. If nature takes away your right to life, take it up with nature.

"If the bullet that punctured your lung when I started shooting randomly caused your death, take it up with nature. I have the right to control my own destiny, and that right extends to free use of my possessions, as long as I don't deliberately try to deny anyone else their bodily integrity."

It has rights because it is alive and it is human.. You do not believe that. You do not think it is alive. So, again, I ask, when does life begin?
It doesn't matter when life begins.

It has rights because it is alive and it is human..
Ok, it is alive and is human. How does that give it rights? So I ask again: how/why does a fetus have rights?

The term "pro life" makes me crack up. If conservatives had it their way everyone who disagreed with them would be dead. How very "pro life" of them :rolleyes:

None of you have a clue. When does life begin?
Irrelevant. How/why does a fetus have rights.

Well, I could argue that if we're talking "one week from birth", at month 8, week 3, then an abortion can be performed by simple C section, at which point the doctors involved would have the obligation to keep the human (and it would be human at this point) life alive.

The mother has the right to expell it from her at any time, but if it's capable of living outside, then upon its exit, it aquires its own rights, which the doctors, by nature of being doctors, must aid.

If we're talking "one week before viability", yeah it may be a crummy thing to do but..eh, them's the breaks.

so when is viability. And when does the life begin? When is it human?

so when is viability. And when does the life begin? When is it human?
The moment it starts to develop in the female's body it is human. This is irrelevant.

None of you have a clue. When does life begin?

Be more specific. Life or human life? Those are two different things.

It doesn't matter when life begins.
well clearly it does since it is ok to abort the fetus before it is alive but not after....when does it become alive is the central question here. So when is it?

well clearly it does since it is ok to abort the fetus before it is alive but not after....when does it become alive is the central question here. So when is it?
When does it stop needing to be dependant on the female is the relevant question.

Ok, it is alive and is human. How does that give it rights? So I ask again: how/why does a fetus have rights?
BAAWAK nights wins the prize. Here is your answer. It has rights because it is alive and is human, just like you and me. You answered my question your self. Well done.

So it only exists when it's convenient, and doesn't when it isn't? Either I should be given the capability to control my own destiny or I shouldn't be. If I should be, I think I should be given meaningful control over my circumstances; otherwise, I am not really free at all. What "freedom" do I have in circumstances under which I am certain to die? If I can't even control that basic element of my existence, I am not free by any reasonable definition of the word.

You have your rights until they violate another's

Your right to life is not being violated.

You are still violating A right.

The role of law is to codify social obligations. When moral obligations fall into that category, they should be codified.

No, law is meant to protect me from having my rights violated, not to appease the moral police. However, in practice,...

When I'm in need of a blood transfusion, or starving to death, or dying on the side of the road, I could care less about the "integrity of my body." Far more important to me is my continued existence as a living being. A moral system that diminishes the value of that life to a triviality relevant only when it touches on this morally artificial notion of "bodily integrity" is a moral system unworthy of the name.

Well, that is just how things go...

I agree. That's why the person in need of a blood transfusion should be guaranteed the autonomy to choose whether to live or die, rather than to have it forced on him by health and social circumstances.

That is your opinion. The state, however, would not agree with you...

That is just reality

well clearly it does since it is ok to abort the fetus before it is alive but not after....when does it become alive is the central question here. So when is it?
No, the central question is if a fetus has rights or not.

so when is viability.

I don't feel like doing your homework for you. Look up the word, it's pretty self evident. A fetus is viable when it is capable of surviving outside the mother. Now it may have a hard time at it, which is why it's nice to have doctors who are legally bound to follow their oaths, and certainly try hard to find out when that is.

Viability exists in a case by case basis, although typically around month 6-7 in the pregnancy. But again, case by case. Let the doctors try to keep it alive. That's what doctors do.

The moment it starts to develop in the female's body it is human. This is irrelevant.

so if it is human and alive....it has the same rights as you and me because it is a person, by the answer that you just gave. Desperate measures has passed the pro-life test.

BAAWAK nights wins the prize. Here is your answer. It has rights because it is alive and is human, just like you and me.
That doesn't answer the question. How/why does a fetus have rights?

so if it is human and alive....it has the same rights as you and me because it is a person, by the answer that you just gave. Desperate measures has passed the pro-life test.
Human and alive but not seperate from the female whose rights trump the rights of the fetus. That is it. The story ends there.

Be more specific. Life or human life? Those are two different things.
Base assumption: if a fetus has life it is human life, because the fetus is merely another word for an unborn human being.

when does its life begin?

When does it stop needing to be dependant on the female is the relevant question.
not really. If it is a living human yet dependent on the mother it would be immoral to kill it. We dont go around killing dependent retards or old people. When life begins is the onlt question we should be asking and answering here.

No, the central question is if a fetus has rights or not.
well it has the same human rights as me or you if it is alive.....and you said it was alive...so it must have those guarentees.

That doesn't answer the question. How/why does a fetus have rights?
It is alive and it is a person so therefore it has rights. Simple.

Your entire argument can be reduced to idiocy by the utterance of one nonsensical statement.

I chose to live forever.

What about it?

You only have the right in so far as neither the state, nor proviate actors, act in such a way to either try to kill you, or bring about your death through their recklessness/negligence.

In other words, I don't have the right to actual freedom; I have the right to a distorted and arbitrary notion of freedom resting on the conception of "bodily integrity." It doesn't matter if I actually have no freedom in my life, as long as nobody's actively trying to kill me, enslave me, or require me to give a blood transfusion.

Why? Why draw the line there and not elsewhere? If you truly value human freedom as you claim to, how does this arrangement actually maximize human freedom, when it clearly denies capabilities as basic as that of life to people?

I am not REQUIRED to help you, ever. I am not required to bring about the execution of your rights. I am merely required not to violate them. I don't have to do a thing to help you. Because it is my right not to.

So I only kind of have right to life? A right to life sometimes, but not other times? A right to life when it's convenient, but not when it isn't?

not really. If it is a living human yet dependent on the mother it would be immoral to kill it.
Your statement implies that a fetus has rights. Prove it.

Base assumption: if a fetus has life it is human life

Incorrect assumption. A fetus is not a human any more than a caterpillar is a butterfly. A fetus is a life that might become human life, just as a caterpillar is a life that might one day become the butterfly

because the fetus is merely another word for an unborn human being.

Only in a dead language. What a word meant in latin is of no concequence to what it means now in English.

Human and alive but not seperate from the female whose rights trump the rights of the fetus. That is it. The story ends there.

ah, but it is its own organism, and a living one at that. The fact that it needs to be in its mother for this stage of life is no more moral to kill it then killing a person who must be in a nursing home.

It is alive and it is a person so therefore it has rights.
Restating your premise doesn't do anything.

How/why does a fetus have rights.

well it has the same human rights as me or you if it is alive.....and you said it was alive...so it must have those guarentees.
You're making an assumption. I disagree with what you suggest gives a living human rights. We give rights to people. A fetus may be a living human but a fetus is not a person.

ah, but it is its own organism, and a living one at that. The fact that it needs to be in its mother for this stage of life is no more moral to kill it then killing a person who must be in a nursing home.
False analogy. A person in a nursing home is not within the confines of a being who has rights of her own.

Now unless you can demonstrate that a fetus has rights AND that there is such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being, I suggest you shut the fuck up.

So I only kind of have right to life? A right to life sometimes, but not other times? A right to life when it's convenient, but not when it isn't?

Your right to live does not mean you have a fundamental and undeniable right to stay alive. It means you have the right to prevent the state, or individual people, from killing you.

You do not have the right for your life not to be taken by nature, fate, and/or god. Your right to life only extends as far as one does not act to take that life from you.

You do not have the right simply to never die.

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.


sorry, you're saying that men are superior, and as such, they get to decide what happens when they irresponsibly impregnate a who doesnt want a child? That some jerk whose girlfriend/wife doesn't want kids hasn't used sufficient protection to prevent unwanted pregancy?

Having said that, I'm not for abortion as a means of birth control. She also chose to have unprotected sex, but in cases where the woman's life is in significantly more danger than usual or rape, abortion ought to be legalized.

I don't feel like doing your homework for you. Look up the word, it's pretty self evident. A fetus is viable when it is capable of surviving outside the mother. Now it may have a hard time at it, which is why it's nice to have doctors who are legally bound to follow their oaths, and certainly try hard to find out when that is.

Viability exists in a case by case basis, although typically around month 6-7 in the pregnancy. But again, case by case. Let the doctors try to keep it alive. That's what doctors do.
But it is obvious that life begins well before viablility so you have not answered the question.

ah, but it is its own organism, and a living one at that. The fact that it needs to be in its mother for this stage of life is no more moral to kill it then killing a person who must be in a nursing home.
Killing a person who is living in a nursing home who expressed a desire to be killed when this person was able to express the desire is perfectly moral. A mother has the right to decide the outcome of an unborn baby who has no capability of expressing an opinion.

Your statement implies that a fetus has rights. Prove it.
You said that the fetus was alive. It is a human if it is alive. Therefore it has human rights. Simple.

ah, but it is its own organism, and a living one at that.

Once again, so is a cow.

The fact that it needs to be in its mother for this stage of life is no more moral to kill it then killing a person who must be in a nursing home.

A nursing home is not a person. "A nursing home" does not have the right to bodily autonomy. A person does.

Incorrect assumption. A fetus is not a human any more than a caterpillar is a butterfly. A fetus is a life that might become human life, just as a caterpillar is a life that might one day become the butterfly


So when does the human life begin?

But it is obvious that life begins well before viablility so you have not answered the question.

I've answered the question many times. A fetus is alive, certainly, same as the caterpillar. Saying that a fetus is a human life is an innaccurate as saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly.

Restating your premise doesn't do anything.

How/why does a fetus have rights.
BECAUSE IT IS A PERSON.

You said that the fetus was alive. It is a human if it is alive. Therefore it has human rights.
Non sequitur.

BECAUSE IT IS A PERSON.
Human, not a person. Different words mean different things.

So when does the human life begin?

Alright, now we are getting to the point of the question. Human life begins at the point where the fetus has developed a central nervous system and a brain capable of sentience and conciousness.

BECAUSE IT IS A PERSON.
No, it's not a person. It's a fetus.

How/why does a fetus have rights.

(I can see that you've never really thought this out. It's so much fun watching you go rabid-foaming as we don't buy into your mystical bullshit.)

You're making an assumption. I disagree with what you suggest gives a living human rights. We give rights to people. A fetus may be a living human but a fetus is not a person.

So it is ok to kill a living human out of convenience?

So it is ok to kill a living human out of convenience?
IF the person being killed expressed a desire for euthanasia and it is under reasonable circumstances. A-OK.

An abortion is OK because the fetus has no desires or means to express them. The mother does have desires and a means to express them.

So it is ok to kill a living human out of convenience?
Hello boys and girls. Can you say "strawman"?

So it is ok to kill a living human out of convenience?

If that living human is somehow surviving within my body without my permission then it is certainly ok to remove it for convenience.

If it then dies...it dies. Not to say that the doctors shouldn't try like hell to keep it alive outside my body...but if that's impossible, well that's just the fault of nature. My body is my own. A woman's uterus is her own. No life has the right to exist inside the body of another without permission. If removing it kills it...well again, that's nature. Take that up with god.

Your right to live does not mean you have a fundamental and undeniable right to stay alive. It means you have the right to prevent the state, or individual people, from killing you.

You do not have the right for your life not to be taken by nature, fate, and/or god. Your right to life only extends as far as one does not act to take that life from you.

You do not have the right simply to never die.

You've said this again and again. I've tried giving you the reasons why I reject this formulation, but all you do is repeat it. Could you please explain why this distinction you're making isn't arbitrary, even though, looking at it from the perspective of the victim, it seems to be?

Now unless you can demonstrate that a fetus has rights AND that there is such a thing as the right to exist within the confines of another being, I suggest you shut the fuck up.

Now you see I have been very polite, and look at you. We see which side has class right here. Am I correct in stating that you believe that even if a fetus is considered a living human being it has no civil rights because it is inside its own mother?

Your right to live does not mean you have a fundamental and undeniable right to stay alive. It means you have the right to prevent the state, or individual people, from killing you.individual people like your own mother perhaps?

You do not have the right for your life not to be taken by nature, fate, and/or god. Your right to life only extends as far as one does not act to take that life from you.

You do not have the right simply to never die.
food for thought in bold.

Now you see I have been very polite,
Actually, you haven't.


and look at you. We see which side has class right here.
Yes: I do.


Am I correct in stating that you believe that even if a fetus is considered a living human being it has no civil rights because it is inside its own mother?
Am I correct in stating that you believe that a woman no longer owns her womb when she is pregnant? That, somehow, magically, mystically, the fetus owns the womb?

Am I correct in stating that you believe that even if a fetus is considered a living human being it has no civil rights because it is inside its own mother?

You are incorrect. A fetus, once it has reached the point to be considered human, has the full range of basic human rights.

All of them, every last one of them.

However no human right exists to allow for a human being to live without consent in the body of another human being.

If the fetus has developed to the point where we can consider it human, ok, it has human rights. But no human has the right to live inside the body of another. So it is not a violation of its rights to remove it.

At which point, if it dies, then it dies.

Killing a person who is living in a nursing home who expressed a desire to be killed when this person was able to express the desire is perfectly moral. A mother has the right to decide the outcome of an unborn baby who has no capability of expressing an opinion.

So if you cant express your opinion your mother controls your fate? Does that go for age 2?

So if you cant express your opinion your mother controls your fate? Does that go for age 2?
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-children.pdf

I've answered the question many times. A fetus is alive, certainly, same as the caterpillar. Saying that a fetus is a human life is an innaccurate as saying that a caterpillar is a butterfly.


so a fetus is life. You admit that abortion kills the fetus. It is a death. The fetus is an organism. You have killed an organism. What species organism is it?

So if you cant express your opinion your mother controls your fate? Does that go for age 2?
I fucked that response up. I admit. I was rushing.

I'll clear that up later when I have more time.

individual people like your own mother perhaps?

If my mother, during her pregnancy, had decided that the fetus that I developed from was no longer welcome in her womb she would have had the right to have that fetus removed.

food for thought in bold.

I am fully capable of understanding and contimplating the ramifications of my standpoint, unlike you perhaps. You are not going to change my mind on abortion rights by claiming "OMG think about it, your mother could have aborted her pregnancy!"

Yes, yes she could have. That would have been her right to do so. And had she done so I doubt I would have complained, as I would have never been.

hey, guys, arthritis, mAURICE, I've just changed my mind. We should kill babies, because when they're on one's lap they make it hard to type.bb

Alright, now we are getting to the point of the question. Human life begins at the point where the fetus has developed a central nervous system and a brain capable of sentience and conciousness.

So that is whenever a doctor feels that this has occured. Is it ok to have an abortion after this has occured?

hey, guys, arthritis, mAURICE, I've just changed my mind. We should kill babies, because when they're on one's lap they make it hard to type.bb
Same goes for cats. Very difficult to type when they decide to be loveycat.

No, it's not a person. It's a fetus.

How/why does a fetus have rights.

(I can see that you've never really thought this out. It's so much fun watching you go rabid-foaming as we don't buy into your mystical bullshit.)

Once again, the insults...I have insulted no person on this page, yet this kind of commenting is constantly sent to me. When does a fetus become a person?

Once again, the insults..
No insults at all. And you have insulted everyone's intellect.

How/why does a fetus have rights?

So that is whenever a doctor feels that this has occured. Is it ok to have an abortion after this has occured?

The cutoff for debate is not when the doctor "feels" that... it is when people recognize that it has sentient thought.

If that living human is somehow surviving within my body without my permission then it is certainly ok to remove it for convenience.

If it then dies...it dies. Not to say that the doctors shouldn't try like hell to keep it alive outside my body...but if that's impossible, well that's just the fault of nature. My body is my own. A woman's uterus is her own. No life has the right to exist inside the body of another without permission. If removing it kills it...well again, that's nature. Take that up with god.

ah, but that would be a partial birth abortion. 0% survival rate on that one. I asked if it was ok to abort after it has a central nervous system and is sentient. Your answer ...apparently...is yes. I asked about abortion not c sections. They crush the skull on the way out.

Same goes for cats. Very difficult to type when they decide to be loveycat.

so are you saying we should kill cats? sadistic pervert.

[QUOTE=BAAWAKnights



Am I correct in stating that you believe that a woman no longer owns her womb when she is pregnant? That, somehow, magically, mystically, the fetus owns the womb?[/QUOTE]

Nothing mystical about it. It is a living human being. From conception.

No insults at all. And you have insulted everyone's intellect.

How/why does a fetus have rights?

I see no insults...

And I have not seen a legal case (besides North Dakota) where a fetus has been ruled to have rights.

If the Supreme Court makes abortion illegal, I will be angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.:p

ah, but that would be a partial birth abortion. 0% survival rate on that one. I asked if it was ok to abort after it has a central nervous system and is sentient. Your answer ...apparently...is yes. I asked about abortion not c sections. They crush the skull on the way out.

hey, dude I had a pizza lunchable the other day

Nothing mystical about it. It is a living human being. From conception.
It's a human fetus. Existing within the confines of a being. Who has rights. Ergo, there must be some magical, mystical process whereby the woman no longer owns her womb.

so are you saying we should kill cats? sadistic pervert.
I'm saying that sometimes my drooling cat won't leave me alone.

It's a human fetus. Existing within the confines of a being. Who has rights. Ergo, there must be some magical, mystical process whereby the woman no longer owns her womb.

I sure hope that was sarcastic.