NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

The consent was given when the mother had sex. You dodged the entire argument about before the central nervous system developes. At 2 months in a fetus is a living human organism. Yet you say it is ok to destroy it. I find this highly illogical.

I sure hope that was sarcastic.
Yes.

I'm saying that sometimes my drooling cat won't leave me alone.

drooling baby? oh, amen to that! they ought to all be shot!

The consent was given when the mother had sex.
Prove it.

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.

OK, if we're talking partial birth abortions, that is something different. I don't really favor those. I said the mother has the right to expell from her body what she doesn't WANT in her body.

However i also admit that a fetus becomes human once it aquires the central nervous system and conciousness. Thus it has human rights (which does not include the right to exist inside another).

So once those human rights are aquired by its development into humanity, the mother still has the right to expell it, but only in such a way that would give it a chance to survive.

I am, in fact, against partial birth abortions as you describe them. In my opinion, once the fetus has developed a central neverous system etc etc, the mother still has the right to expell it, but only in a way that would give it a chance of continuing life.

drooling baby? oh, amen to that! they ought to all be shot!
He's really cute, though.

http://home.wi.rr.com/knightofbaawa/pictures/kittyinasink.jpg

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.



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.
and at one month as a fetus you were a living organism with human DNA. THAT MAKES IT EVIL TO MURDER YOU.

The consent was given when the mother had sex. You dodged the entire argument about before the central nervous system developes. At 2 months in a fetus is a living human organism. Yet you say it is ok to destroy it. I find this highly illogical.

Actually, sex is NOT a consent. It is just somewthing a couple does to satisfy sexual craving... it is not all about baby-making.

Besides, the being was not there then, ergo he could not have been given consent. At 2 months the fetus is a parasite. If humans, by definition, are not parasites, and if only humans are given rights, the fetus has no rights.

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

How/why does a fetus have rights?

It is a living organism with human DNA. This gives it rights.

The cutoff for debate is not when the doctor "feels" that... it is when people recognize that it has sentient thought.
and in a specific case...which "people" are those?

It is a living organism with human DNA. This gives it rights.
No, that doesn't give it rights.

How/why does a fetus have rights.

you say it is ok to destroy it. I find this highly illogical.

I say the mother has a right to REMOVE it. If it can not possibly survive, it will die. If there is a chance it might survive (3rd trimester) then every effort, EVERY effort should be given to ensure its survival.

I am actually not in favor of partial birth abortions, as you said. This bothers me as the, what is then human, life would have a chance to actually survive if removed and cared for, and not simply killed.

There is the line I have a problem with, an abortion procedure that WILL kill the fetus even at a point when the fetus COULD be viable.

He's really cute, though.

http://home.wi.rr.com/knightofbaawa/pictures/kittyinasink.jpg
I had a cat years and years ago. It died because of a liver problem, and we buried it under an azalea bush underneath our cumberland room window. I always thought it was my fault it died be#cause I fed it 3D doritos when it shouldn't eaten them.

and at one month as a fetus you were a living organism with human DNA. THAT MAKES IT EVIL TO MURDER YOU.

A caterpillar has the same, exactly the same, DNA as a butterfly.

Is a caterpillar a butterfly?

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


You are not very well informed on this issue.
In SOUTH DAKOTA the state legislature ( not a legal case) banned abortions. The Supreme Court, if it overturned Roe v. wade, would merely leave the matter up to the states.

hey, dude I had a pizza lunchable the other day
awesome. :D glad to see you here.

and at one month as a fetus you were a living organism with human DNA. THAT MAKES IT EVIL TO MURDER YOU.

No, it is perfectly fine. We share much DNA with bacteria, yet we can kill them without any moral guilt.

I find the part about it being evil almost insulting, so I can guess that a forum fire might ensue. Please keep this from becoming a forum fire.

You are not very well informed on this issue.
In SOUTH DAKOTA the state legislature ( not a legal case) banned abortions. The Supreme Court, if it overturned Roe v. wade, would merely leave the matter up to the states.
Matters concerning rights should not be up for a vote by anyone, though.

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.

Yeah...its called getting pregnant.

Prove it.

sex has the biological function of creating offspring
the woman has sex
offspring is the result
the baby is in the womb
creating human life to destroy it is wrong.

Yeah...its called getting pregnant.
No, getting pregnant does not do it.

So find me the mechanism whereby a woman loses her ownership of her womb.

I know you can't do it.

You are not very well informed on this issue.
In SOUTH DAKOTA the state legislature ( not a legal case) banned abortions. The Supreme Court, if it overturned Roe v. wade, would merely leave the matter up to the states.

Technically SCOTUS could define a fetus as a "person" for 14th amendment purposes, and thus would make any law allowing for the killing of a fetus unconstitutional.

I HIGHLY doubt this would happen, however simply saying "it would leave it up to the state" is untrue, SCOTUS could make it all unconstitutional.

You are not very well informed on this issue.
In SOUTH DAKOTA the state legislature ( not a legal case) banned abortions. The Supreme Court, if it overturned Roe v. wade, would merely leave the matter up to the states.

OK, fine. South Dakota then. At least I said Dakota...

OK, if we're talking partial birth abortions, that is something different. I don't really favor those. I said the mother has the right to expell from her body what she doesn't WANT in her body.

However i also admit that a fetus becomes human once it aquires the central nervous system and conciousness. Thus it has human rights (which does not include the right to exist inside another).

So once those human rights are aquired by its development into humanity, the mother still has the right to expell it, but only in such a way that would give it a chance to survive.

I am, in fact, against partial birth abortions as you describe them. In my opinion, once the fetus has developed a central neverous system etc etc, the mother still has the right to expell it, but only in a way that would give it a chance of continuing life.

ok, good. That's great, in fact. I agree. But heres the thing...even when a fetus has no central nervous system and sentient qualities, it is still a living organism, that contains human DNA.......yet it is ok to kill it?

sex has the biological function of creating offspring
It can also be done for pleasure. And contraception can be used.


the woman has sex
offspring is the result
the baby is in the womb
creating human life to destroy it is wrong.
Non sequitur.

Technically SCOTUS could define a fetus as a "person" for 14th amendment purposes, and thus would make any law allowing for the killing of a fetus unconstitutional.

I HIGHLY doubt this would happen, however simply saying "it would leave it up to the state" is untrue, SCOTUS could make it all unconstitutional.

Well, then, SCOTUS is an enemy on the front of battling the anti-abortion people.:p

(Sorry, but people are starting to get angry here. Just calm down, everyone.)

sex has the biological function of creating offspring


True only if that were its ONLY function. Sex has multiple functions. Because we consent to one doesn't mean we consent to all.

The purpose of a car is to be driven. It is illegal to drink and drive. By your logic any time I got in a car and was drunk I would be drinking and driving, even if the car wasn't moving.

I can be in the car for purposes other than driving, even if that is the "primary" purpose.. I can have sex for purposes other than procreation, even if procreation is the "primary" purpose of sex. To say otherwise is to say that just because I'm drunk and in a car I must be driving while drunk, because the primary purpose of the car is to be driven.

nonsensical.

Actually, sex is NOT a consent. It is just somewthing a couple does to satisfy sexual craving... it is not all about baby-making.

Besides, the being was not there then, ergo he could not have been given consent. At 2 months the fetus is a parasite. If humans, by definition, are not parasites, and if only humans are given rights, the fetus has no rights.


Well you have fallen for the trap that Pope Paul VI described in Humanae Vitae. He described how the modern culture of mass abortion, birth control, and the disintigration of the family unit would inevitably lead to people viewing sex as a mere fun thing to do rather than a fun thing to do that creates life as a biological function. Why can't the human be a parasite if it is in its own mother's womb? That is madness.

sex has the biological function of creating offspring
the woman has sex
offspring is the result
the baby is in the womb
creating human life to destroy it is wrong.

Not really... Sex CAN create offspring, but if that is not the intent, then abortion is the proper course of action.

A caterpillar has the same, exactly the same, DNA as a butterfly.

Is a caterpillar a butterfly?

yes. There is no magical species change.

True only if that were its ONLY function. Sex has multiple functions. Because we consent to one doesn't mean we consent to all.

The purpose of a car is to be driven. It is illegal to drink and drive. By your logic any time I got in a car and was drunk I would be drinking and driving, even if the car wasn't moving.
Actually, the cops look at it that way (at least they did to a guy i\on another messageboard). Which is really weird, because they don't arrest men for having a penis, which can be used in rape.

even when a fetus has no central nervous system and sentient qualities, it is still a living organism, that contains human DNA.......yet it is ok to kill it?

A butterfly and a caterpillar have the same DNA. To say that which is an organism and contains human DNA must be human is to say that a caterpillar is a butterfly.

It's not, it's a caterpillar. Its genes will express themselves over time, it will alter itself, and become a butterfly.

Just as a fetus' genes will express themselves, and it will develop into a human. your argument posits that two different things can't have the same DNA, this is untrue, as I just point out.

Well you have fallen for the trap that Pope
That might work on catholics, but to non-catholics quoting the pope means two things: jack and shit. And jack left town.

I find the part about it being evil almost insulting, so I can guess that a forum fire might ensue. Please keep this from becoming a forum fire.

I believe that murder is evil. I believe that an abortion is murder because it destroys an organism that has human DNA. I can't see how that insults you.

Well you have fallen for the trap that Pope Paul VI described in Humanae Vitae. He described how the modern culture of mass abortion, birth control, and the disintigration of the family unit would inevitably lead to people viewing sex as a mere fun thing to do rather than a fun thing to do that creates life as a biological function. Why can't the human be a parasite if it is in its own mother's womb? That is madness.

So? People like sex. That is just adrenaline/hormones.

And the human is ALWAYS a parasite in the womb... or at least, I'd hope so...

It is not madness. It is just where the argument goes...

I believe that murder is evil. I believe that an abortion is murder because it destroys an organism that has human DNA.
So's miscarriage.

Matters concerning rights should not be up for a vote by anyone, though.

Not according to the U.S. Constitution.

So find me the mechanism whereby a woman loses her ownership of her womb.

I know you can't do it.

Pregnancy. Her baby has to live in there.

Not according to the U.S. Constitution.
Yes, according to the US Constitution.

I believe that murder is evil. I believe that an abortion is murder because it destroys an organism that has human DNA. I can't see how that insults you.

Because we did not yet agree that abortion WAS murder... that part is in debate. I find that against the spirit of logical debate, and thus, insulting.

ever since he was a child, alfred nobel had wanted to be able to hold in his grasp so that he could crush at any moment he so desired.

my dad says libertarians are conservatives but just want to be able to smoke pot. I don't smoke pot, but I mean, that still cool. So you guys are like libertarians, except you want to kill people too. Wait...never mind. That just makes you liberals. My bad! gosh, that's embarrassing...

Pregnancy. Her baby has to live in there.
So what? How does that mean the woman loses her ownership of her womb?

Stop dancing around the issue, coward.

Pregnancy. Her baby has to live in there.

Not if we take it out. Then it can... do whatever it will do...

I just had a real idea. We need wombs outside of people. then all of this could be done with.

True only if that were its ONLY function. Sex has multiple functions. Because we consent to one doesn't mean we consent to all.

The purpose of a car is to be driven. It is illegal to drink and drive. By your logic any time I got in a car and was drunk I would be drinking and driving, even if the car wasn't moving.

I can be in the car for purposes other than driving, even if that is the "primary" purpose.. I can have sex for purposes other than procreation, even if procreation is the "primary" purpose of sex. To say otherwise is to say that just because I'm drunk and in a car I must be driving while drunk, because the primary purpose of the car is to be driven.

nonsensical.

so consent for sex does not mean consent for the consequences of sex? That seems pretty crazy.

ever since he was a child, alfred nobel had wanted to be able to hold in his grasp so that he could crush at any moment he so desired.

my dad says libertarians are conservatives but just want to be able to smoke pot. I don't smoke pot, but I mean, that still cool. So you guys are like libertarians, except you want to kill people too. Wait...never mind. That just makes you liberals. My bad! gosh, that's embarrassing...

Either you were joking or flaming...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

so consent for sex does not mean consent for the consequences of sex?
That's correct.

so consent for sex does not mean consent for the consequences of sex? That seems pretty crazy.

Well, it is crazy in the good sense.

Actually, abortions cost a good bit of $$$, so there are consequences.:p :p :p

Not really... Sex CAN create offspring, but if that is not the intent, then abortion is the proper course of action.

So you perform a biological function who's point is creation of offspring without intent of the function being performed. Pope Paul VI's humanae Vitae's most dire predictions have come true. and 30 million have been robbed of their lives as a result.

You know, I used to wonder whether abortion was a good thing or a bad thing, but then I read a book where it ties legal abortion to lower crime rates (since the women most likely to go and get abortions are the ones least able to care for the child - which would lead to the child growing up with a greater likelyhood of being a criminal). Now I'm all for legal abortion. (The author does a much better job of explaining the issue - go get the book (Freakenomics) if you want to hear what he had to say.)

A butterfly and a caterpillar have the same DNA. To say that which is an organism and contains human DNA must be human is to say that a caterpillar is a butterfly.

It's not, it's a caterpillar. Its genes will express themselves over time, it will alter itself, and become a butterfly.

Just as a fetus' genes will express themselves, and it will develop into a human. your argument posits that two different things can't have the same DNA, this is untrue, as I just point out.

people do not pupate. Your comparison is bizzare.

So you perform a biological function who's point is creation of offspring
Sex between infertile people has a point of creation of offspring? Really? Wow. I'll bet that's news to them!

Also: mentioning the pope does nothing to help your argument.

So what? How does that mean the woman loses her ownership of her womb?

It doesn't. That is why abortion exists. Also explains "morning-after" pills, but...

Hey, all of you pro-lifers, should morning-after pills be banned too, in your opinion?

That might work on catholics, but to non-catholics quoting the pope means two things: jack and shit. And jack left town.

well, thats why his worst predictions have come true.

Either you were joking or flaming...:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

sorry, I gave you the wrong idea...I meant "Ever since Alfred Nobel was a child, he had wanted to hold nature in his grasp, so that he could crush at any moment he so desired."

well, thats why his worst predictions have come true.
They haven't.

So's miscarriage.
but a miscarriage is not a deliberate murder. Big difference.

people do not pupate. Your comparison is bizzare.

I got the point...

a fetus is not a person. It transforms into one.

so consent for sex does not mean consent for the consequences of sex? That seems pretty crazy.

As I pointed out before, one possible consequence of sex is syphalis. Should I not be treated for it because I took on the responsibility to have it, since that was my concequence?

I think here we're starting to see the real argument come out. I think a lot, a LOT (not necessarily you, but many) of the Christian attackers of abortion don't really believe in abortion is murder, not really.

I think the thing about abortion is it allows just that, sex with not so many concequences. And once we take the concequences out of sex, people might actually start doing it because...they like to, and not avoid it because they're afraid of having a child they don't want.

And that's the problem, once you do that, people would actually start doing things they like to do. And a lot of people have a very hard time dealing with the thought of sex as anything other than dirty and sinful when done for any reason other than making babies.

And if we get rid of birth control and abortion, then people will start being afraid to have sex again. And that, I think, is the real goal. People are really, REALLY bothered by the though of people having sex because they WANT to.

Of course...this doesn't go for gay sex, which is why you see the argument of "AIDS is god's punishment for teh gays" bit.

but a miscarriage is not a deliberate murder. Big difference.
No, there is no difference. They both end in the termination of the pregnancy. The destruction of the fetus. And destruction of the fetus was that ONLY criterion, remember?

So what? How does that mean the woman loses her ownership of her womb?

Stop dancing around the issue, coward.

Once again the petty name calling. How lame. Its only you too. Come on, cut it out, are you 13 or somthing? The fetus owns the womb because it is where a fetus lives, according to God's laws of nature.

That might work on catholics, but to non-catholics quoting the pope means two things: jack and shit. And jack left town.
actually, no he didn't. He didn't want me to tell you this, but he just told you he did so you'd stop calling him.

By the way, "Jack" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. It's insulting no to do so.

As I pointed out before, one possible consequence of sex is syphalis. Should I not be treated for it because I took on the responsibility to have it, since that was my concequence?

I think here we're starting to see the real argument come out. I think a lot, a LOT (not necessarily you, but many) of the Christian attackers of abortion don't really believe in abortion is murder, not really.

I think the thing about abortion is it allows just that, sex with not so many concequences. And once we take the concequences out of sex, people might actually start doing it because...they like to, and not avoid it because they're afraid of having a child they don't want.
I'm going to say something here, and please don't take offense because it's not meant to be:

D'UH!

Of course that's the real argument: the hatred of sex for pleasure.

As I pointed out before, one possible consequence of sex is syphalis. Should I not be treated for it because I took on the responsibility to have it, since that was my concequence?

I think here we're starting to see the real argument come out. I think a lot, a LOT (not necessarily you, but many) of the Christian attackers of abortion don't really believe in abortion is murder, not really.

I think the thing about abortion is it allows just that, sex with not so many concequences. And once we take the concequences out of sex, people might actually start doing it because...they like to, and not avoid it because they're afraid of having a child they don't want.

And that's the problem, once you do that, people would actually start doing things they like to do. And a lot of people have a very hard time dealing with the thought of sex as anything other than dirty and sinful when done for any reason other than making babies.

And if we get rid of birth control and abortion, then people will start being afraid to have sex again. And that, I think, is the real goal. People are really, REALLY bothered by the though of people having sex because they WANT to.

Of course...this doesn't go for gay sex, which is why you see the argument of "AIDS is god's punishment for teh gays" bit.

That does seem to be it, in which case, this whole thing should be blocked by the 1st amendment...

The fetus owns the womb because it is where a fetus lives, according to God's laws of nature.

Yup, there's god again. Tell you what, I'm gonna come over to your house, make a bed, and set up there. You can't kick me out, because that's where I'll live.

actually, no he didn't. He didn't want me to tell you this, but he just told you he did so you'd stop calling him.

By the way, "Jack" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. It's insulting no to do so.
Gimme some sugar, baby.

You know, I used to wonder whether abortion was a good thing or a bad thing, but then I read a book where it ties legal abortion to lower crime rates (since the women most likely to go and get abortions are the ones least able to care for the child - which would lead to the child growing up with a greater likelyhood of being a criminal). Now I'm all for legal abortion. (The author does a much better job of explaining the issue - go get the book (Freakenomics) if you want to hear what he had to say.)

Eugenics. Wonderful. A lot of is has to do with the particularly high rates of black crime and black abortion.

Once again the petty name calling.
No name calling at all.


The fetus owns the womb because it is where a fetus lives, according to God's laws of nature.
There is no god. Try again.

mentioning the pope does nothing to help your argument.

Pope Paul VI was right when in 1965 he predicted that people like you would come about who saw nothing in the wonderous creation of life. Only the fun of sex. The convenience of the destruction of one's own offspring. Only the sin and moral relativism which has creeped into society like fog through a crack in the wall.

It doesn't. That is why abortion exists. Also explains "morning-after" pills, but...

Hey, all of you pro-lifers, should morning-after pills be banned too, in your opinion?
yes

Pope
Irrelevant, and only demonstrates your irrational hatred of sex for pleasure.

Pope Paul VI was right when in 1965 he predicted that people like you would come about who saw nothing in the wonderous creation of life. Only the fun of sex. The convenience of the destruction of one's own offspring. Only the sin and moral relativism which has creeped into society like fog through a crack in the wall.

It is a miracle... we have not "lost" that yet...

I got the point...

a fetus is not a person. It transforms into one.


what species is it?

yes
Should penicillin be banned? How about casts? Should broken bones not be set because that would be avoiding the consequences?

As I pointed out before, one possible consequence of sex is syphalis. Should I not be treated for it because I took on the responsibility to have it, since that was my concequence?

I think here we're starting to see the real argument come out. I think a lot, a LOT (not necessarily you, but many) of the Christian attackers of abortion don't really believe in abortion is murder, not really.

I think the thing about abortion is it allows just that, sex with not so many concequences. And once we take the concequences out of sex, people might actually start doing it because...they like to, and not avoid it because they're afraid of having a child they don't want.

And that's the problem, once you do that, people would actually start doing things they like to do. And a lot of people have a very hard time dealing with the thought of sex as anything other than dirty and sinful when done for any reason other than making babies.

And if we get rid of birth control and abortion, then people will start being afraid to have sex again. And that, I think, is the real goal. People are really, REALLY bothered by the though of people having sex because they WANT to.

Of course...this doesn't go for gay sex, which is why you see the argument of "AIDS is god's punishment for teh gays" bit.
well I put syphellis on a slightly lower protective scale as that of one's own human offspring. I oppose abortion because I think it is murder. Go ahead and kill of syphallis though....that's mighty hard though...heheh. Sex with no consequences can never be because by its very nature sex has consequences. It has nothing to do with what you or I want, it has to do with the way human's come to be. I do not buy into the concept of "gay sex", using another person's body to masturbate yourself is not the same as the intercourse that creates new human life. One is a bit more important to our survival as a race.

No, there is no difference. They both end in the termination of the pregnancy. The destruction of the fetus. And destruction of the fetus was that ONLY criterion, remember?

thats idiotic. You are comparing murder to natural death. One is different than the other.

well I put syphellis on a slightly lower protective scale as that of one's own human offspring.
Yet it would be "avoiding the consequences" to treat it.

Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.


I oppose abortion because I think it is murder. Go ahead and kill of syphallis though....that's mighty hard though...heheh. Sex with no consequences can never be because by its very nature sex has consequences. It has nothing to do with what you or I want, it has to do with the way human's come to be. I do not buy into the concept of "gay sex", using another person's body to masturbate yourself is not the same as the intercourse that creates new human life.
So sex between people who are infertile isn't "real sex", right?

thats idiotic. You are comparing murder
You've yet to demonstrate that abortion is murder. Don't beg the question.


to natural death.
No. I'm comparing one set of "consequences" to another.

Or are you that much of a hypocrite?

I'm going to say something here, and please don't take offense because it's not meant to be:

D'UH!

Of course that's the real argument: the hatred of sex for pleasure.

Once again we come back to Humanae Vitae. Sex for pleasure leads to believing that the only purpose of any result of sex is pleasure...which leads to abortion for convenience. We have seen it happen in the last 40 years. Pope Paul VI was right in his warning.

I just thought in a strict legal sense, abandoning all morals to make a point.

A fetus can live in a womb, thereby a womb is like an apartment. Now, the womb does not "get'' the apartment as a gift, so it becomes either a tenant or a squatter, in legal terms.

Does it pay rent? No.

It is a squatter.

Legally, the owner of a living space can legally have any squatters removed from the living space...

So, it is a perfect legal concept.

Once again we come back to Humanae Vitae.
Once again, that's irrelevant and only demonstrates your irrational hatred of sex for pleasure.

Please stop trying to bring your bronze-age myth into this discussion.

Yup, there's god again. Tell you what, I'm gonna come over to your house, make a bed, and set up there. You can't kick me out, because that's where I'll live.

Well if I was told that you would be making a bed in my house If I had sex with sombody, and then I did, I would be forced to allow you into my house as a responsible person.

I just thought in a strict legal sense, abandoning all morals to make a point.

A fetus can live in a womb, thereby a womb is like an apartment. Now, the womb does not "get'' the apartment as a gift, so it becomes either a tenant or a squatter, in legal terms.

Does it pay rent? No.

It is a squatter.

Legally, the owner of a living space can legally have any squatters removed from the living space...

So, it is a perfect legal concept.
I raised that issue with the fact that there's no such thing as the right to be a parasite, nor the right to exist within the confines of another being--especially one who has rights.

Irrelevant, and only demonstrates your irrational hatred of sex for pleasure.

Well now that God's Bishop of earth is not relavent we are really in a deep hole.

Should penicillin be banned? How about casts? Should broken bones not be set because that would be avoiding the consequences?

no
no
no

Yet it would be "avoiding the consequences" to treat it.

Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.



So sex between people who are infertile isn't "real sex", right?

But treating syphellis, setting casts, and drinking medicine does not kill your own child.

I raised that issue with the fact that there's no such thing as the right to be a parasite, nor the right to exist within the confines of another being--especially one who has rights.

Yes... but that is how it is in legal, rather than biological, terms. The legal terms kind of complete the rationality of abortion.

Pope Paul VI was right when in 1965 he predicted that people like you would come about who saw nothing in the wonderous creation of life. Only the fun of sex. The convenience of the destruction of one's own offspring. Only the sin and moral relativism which has creeped into society like fog through a crack in the wall.

And here we have the argument. Your premise (and his) only functions if you believe that it's wrong to engage in sex for pleasure.

It's not. Not in the slightest. Nothing wrong with anything done for pleasure, as long as it's done in moderation, and harms nobody without their consent.

The problem with the argument is it assumes a premise that is simply untrue. I put it another way. To disallow abortion would create an enviornment that would make basic human pleasure "sinful" and wrong, and people like Pope Paul VI create a society that views basic human interaction as "wrong" and promotes a culture of immorality and perversion of human nature.

Well if I was told that you would be making a bed in my house If I had sex with sombody, and then I did, I would be forced to allow you into my house as a responsible person.
No you wouldn't, and we're still using the dictionary definition of "responsible", right?

Well now that God's
There is no god. Stop trying to foist your bronze-age myth off as fact.

I'm done.

And here we have the argument. Your premise (and his) only functions if you believe that it's wrong to engage in sex for pleasure.

It's not. Not in the slightest. Nothing wrong with anything done for pleasure, as long as it's done in moderation, and harms nobody without their consent.

The problem with the argument is it assumes a premise that is simply untrue. I put it another way. To disallow abortion would create an enviornment that would make basic human pleasure "sinful" and wrong, and people like Pope Paul VI create a society that views basic human interaction as "wrong" and promotes a culture of immorality and perversion of human nature.

That is very true... and everyone knows that the last time the Church dominated our life, it ended with bad results.

My proof? The Inquisition, several counts of persecuting Protestants, Jews, Gypsies, etc., and the Crusades.

But treating syphellis, setting casts, and drinking medicine does not kill your own child.
Nor does abortion.

So you are a hypocrite. You will allow people to get a bone set--avoiding the "consequences", but not abortions. HYPOCRITE!

I'm done.

Alright, then... so you give up, or are you tired of debating?

I'm done.
You never started.

Yes... but that is how it is in legal, rather than biological, terms. The legal terms kind of complete the rationality of abortion.
The terms I put it in are actually both legal and biological.

You never started.

Not in a sense of not using Catholicism as a crutch, anyway...

no
no
no
Hypocrite.

The terms I put it in are actually both legal and biological.

true, but it was still good.

EDIT: Are there any anti-abortionists left to make a counterpoint? Just Curious.

Well if I was told that you would be making a bed in my house If I had sex with sombody, and then I did, I would be forced to allow you into my house as a responsible person.

Told...by whom? Fine, I'm telling you now. Next time you have sex, I'm moving in, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So I ask, told by whom, who told you that you must accept a pregnancy by having sex? The government? nope, seems the exact opposite infact.

The only answer you can give is "god", which invalidates your argument right off the bat.

Told...by whom? Fine, I'm telling you now. Next time you have sex, I'm moving in, and there's nothing you can do about it.

So I ask, told by whom, who told you that you must accept a pregnancy by having sex? The government? nope, seems the exact opposite infact.

The only answer you can give is "god", which invalidates your argument right off the bat.

That is absolutely correct.

EDIT: Are there any new points, or are we just beating a dead horse here?

That is absolutely correct.

EDIT: Are there any new points, or are we just beating a dead horse here?
Necrohippoflagellation! Rah rah rah!

There is no god. Stop trying to foist your bronze-age myth off as fact.

Actually, that had its height in the Middle Ages... and we cannot be sure if it is false or not (not much unlike other myths)...

Necrohippoflagellation! Rah rah rah!
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Actually, that had its height in the Middle Ages...
But had its origins in the bronze age.


and we cannot be sure if it is false or not (not much unlike other myths)...
Actually, given the "definition" of god (especially by the catholic encyclopedia, which our buddy there would use), we can a priori rule out the existence of said god.

So if you cant express your opinion your mother controls your fate? Does that go for age 2?
I had to rush before but basically what I was trying to say, and failed miserably by my choice of words, was that this is a reason why I am against third trimester abortions. By the third trimester the fetus can be born prematurely and survive. It is my opinion that a child carried this long by mother is an act of intent to bring the child to birth. Almost all abortions take place within the first trimester and there is no reason aside from medical why an abortion should take place in the third.

Sorry that I had to rush out before, I know how that looks. I'm posting while I should be working.

I had to rush before but basically what I was trying to say, and failed miserably by my choice of words, was that this is a reason why I am against third trimester abortions. By the third trimester the fetus can be born prematurely and survive. It is my opinion that a child carried this long by mother is an act of intent to bring the child to birth. Almost all abortions take place within the first trimester and there is no reason aside from medical why an abortion should take place in the third.

Sorry that I had to rush out before, I know how that looks. I'm posting while I should be working.

Your argument rests in an improper use of the word "abortion". You do not abort a fetus, you abort a pregnancy.

You can have an abortion, a termination of pregnancy, via c section, in which case the fetus can be placed in incubation, and survive.

An abortion need not necessarily kill the infant, and in fact, a c section is, technically, an abortion.

Your argument rests in an improper use of the word "abortion". You do not abort a fetus, you abort a pregnancy.

You can have an abortion, a termination of pregnancy, via c section, in which case the fetus can be placed in incubation, and survive.

An abortion need not necessarily kill the infant, and in fact, a c section is, technically, an abortion.
My intention was understood? The intentional death of the fetus in the third trimester is, in my opinion, not so good.

I got the point...

a fetus is not a person. It transforms into one.

"transforms?" That's a pretty scientific term. But I agree, and so does my son Optimus Prime. I remember the first time he transformed.

Or is it more of a metamorphosis-type thing? You know, you wake up one morning and you're a giant beetle? I think that happened to someone I know (or maybe I read it in a book)

My intention was understood? The intentional death of the fetus in the third trimester is, in my opinion, not so good.

Sure, fair enough. Agreed. I merely state that it is incorrect to say that a third term ABORTION is necessarily bad. An abortion is a termination of pregnancy, not a killing of the fetus.

You can have an abortion without killing the fetus (in fact, that's what a c section is, by definition).

think that happened to someone I know (or maybe I read it in a book)

OK, I know you're a troll now. Nobody who can reference Kafka like that can be THAT stupid.

Gimme some sugar, baby.

I'm sorry, I lent it to my good friend Jack Squat, who came over the other day to borrow some.

Sure, fair enough. Agreed. I merely state that it is incorrect to say that a third term ABORTION is necessarily bad. An abortion is a termination of pregnancy, not a killing of the fetus.

You can have an abortion without killing the fetus (in fact, that's what a c section is, by definition).

A cursory glance at the definition of abortion might suggest such, indeed. However, read further into the description of the term. The (U.S.) National Institutes of Health website (nlm.nih.gov) describes the decision to terminate a pregnancy as "intensely personal" and recommend "careful counseling before making such a decision" because " woman who chooses to end a pregnancy may feel she cannot share her decision with others." In this context it doesn't sound like they are discussing a possible c-section, but rather the elective procedure to end a pregnancy *before the fetus is viable*.
Euphemistic terms muddle and confuse, but the medically accepted definition of (elective) abortion is such as I have described above. After the fetus reaches viability (that is, transforms and battles Megatron) it is delivery, regardless of whether it is c-section.

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.

abortion is still illegal in my country. we are more strict than iran is on the subject. hoorray for catholic law!:p

my girlfriend is too lazy to get an abortion.

dont want to get preggers, dont have sex. stick to old reliable blow jobs. those who have been raped....sucks to be them.

the bible say "be fruitfull".

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Necro: dead
Hippo: horse
Flagellation: beating

abortion is still illegal in my country. we are more strict than iran is on the subject. hoorray for catholic law!:p

my girlfriend is too lazy to get an abortion.

dont want to get preggers, dont have sex. stick to old reliable blow jobs. those who have been raped....sucks to be them.

the bible say "be fruitfull".

Following the Bible down to the last word is so Middle Ages...

"transforms?" That's a pretty scientific term. But I agree, and so does my son Optimus Prime. I remember the first time he transformed.

Or is it more of a metamorphosis-type thing? You know, you wake up one morning and you're a giant beetle? I think that happened to someone I know (or maybe I read it in a book)

Transforms, develops, changes, metamorphs... all the same thing.

But had its origins in the bronze age.

Iron Age. It was the Iron Age... or Bronze, depending on where you were in the 300s AD (when Modern Christanity started in Rome) or even 1 AD (when Christo himself was born).

Actually, given the "definition" of god (especially by the catholic encyclopedia, which our buddy there would use), we can a priori rule out the existence of said god.

a god- "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Haven't ruled that out yet.

Let me know if you do. And by "do", I mean prove that there is no possible way that God exists.

*****and now for a joke...*****

iGod exists. see for yourself at
http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Why is it that a discussion about abortion inevatably becomes a flamefest on the existence of god?

Abortion is a deeply personal issue, and it is the mark of a tyrannous government that regulates it. The bureaucrats have no business regulating women's fetuses.

Why is it that a discussion about abortion inevatably becomes a flamefest on the existence of god?

Because when you follow the anti-choice crowd's argument towards its logical conclusions, and boil away all the hubris and noise, it always breaks down to "abortion is wrong because if you can have an abortion then you can have sex without concequence, and if there are no concequences to sex then people will start having sex for fun, and having sex for fun is bad, and it's bad because god said so".

Which is why almost all abortion debates end up, in time, discussing god. Given enough time to peel away the subterfuge, almost all anti-choice arguments are based on "god said so".

Abortion is a deeply personal issue, and it is the mark of a tyrannous government that regulates it. The bureaucrats have no business regulating women's fetuses.

*cheers*

Because when you follow the anti-choice crowd's argument towards its logical conclusions, and boil away all the hubris and noise, it always breaks down to "abortion is wrong because if you can have an abortion then you can have sex without concequence, and if there are no concequences to sex then people will start having sex for fun, and having sex for fun is bad, and it's bad because god said so".

Which is why almost all abortion debates end up, in time, discussing god. Given enough time to peel away the subterfuge, almost all anti-choice arguments are based on "god said so".



*cheers*
Not all anti-choice people are jesus or mo freaks. There's some atheists that are against abortion-google it, you'll find their website.

Saying that having sex for fun is immoral is laughably ridiculous. The reason our ancestor primates had sex was for fun, not just to reproduce. You can't deny biology.

Abortion is a deeply personal issue, and it is the mark of a tyrannous government that regulates it. The bureaucrats have no business regulating women's fetuses.

that....actually hits the nail on the head....you've changed :(

that....actually hits the nail on the head....you've changed :(
What do you mean, changed?

Not all anti-choice people are jesus or mo freaks. There's some atheists that are against abortion-google it, you'll find their website.

Some, yes. But the majority of arguments (as I have encountered) have, at least on their foundation, some appeal to religion.

Saying that having sex for fun is immoral is laughably ridiculous. The reason our ancestor primates had sex was for fun, not just to reproduce. You can't deny biology.

I agree, and I find equally rediculous the comments that were quoted by Pope Paul VI which basically sums up to "if you let people have abortions, then people will lose respect for life, and they will then they'll just start having sex willy nilly and we'll be all immoral".

That argument only works if you assume sex for fun is immoral. Those of us who don't hold such a puritan view see nothing particularly wrong with sex without concequence, as sex should be something fun and pleasurable.

What do you mean, changed?

I thought you would of somehow worked Muslims in there somewhere

or at least disagreed with me this is disappointing...and akward

I guess the discussion of abortion is gone, only leaving the discussion of why we discuss abortion...

Iron Age. It was the Iron Age... or Bronze, depending on where you were in the 300s AD (when Modern Christanity started in Rome) or even 1 AD (when Christo himself was born).
I take it back to the origin of the jews.


a god- "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Haven't ruled that out yet.
Given that the supernatural is a begged question, it makes the definition a problem. Thus, a priori rules out the existence of such a thing.

Why is it that a discussion about abortion inevatably becomes a flamefest on the existence of god?
Because a good portion of the arguments against rest on "because god says so".

I guess the discussion of abortion is gone, only leaving the discussion of why we discuss abortion...

oh simple answer we discuss abortion because we care...

and because its just one of those things where you can discuss it all you want till the end of time and still not convince a single person into changing there mind

I thought you would of somehow worked Muslims in there somewhere

or at least disagreed with me this is disappointing...and akward
Oh, I see. I didn't change, though, I've always held the same opinions on abortion.

I guess the discussion of abortion is gone, only leaving the discussion of why we discuss abortion...
:p

oh simple answer we discuss abortion because we care...

and because its just one of those things where you can discuss it all you want till the end of time and still not convince a single person into changing there mind

Besides the theologicality, yes...

And this will never die until we have a way to make babies outside of humans...

And this will never die until we have a way to make babies outside of humans...

no that’s just when the Anti-abortionists strike back think about it a potential mother still doesn’t want to be a mother whether or not she has to carry it

Sure, fair enough. Agreed. I merely state that it is incorrect to say that a third term ABORTION is necessarily bad. An abortion is a termination of pregnancy, not a killing of the fetus.

You can have an abortion without killing the fetus (in fact, that's what a c section is, by definition).
Find me a woman who has had a c-section and refers to it as an abortion and I'll cook you up the loveliest taco you've ever had the pleasure to devour.

Find me a woman who has had a c-section and refers to it as an abortion and I'll cook you up the loveliest taco you've ever had the pleasure to devour.
Actualy I have a heavily pro-choice friend that had a baby (I know gasp you can be FOR choice and yet choose not to terminate:eek: ) that used to say it to piss off another friend of mine :)

Actualy I have a heavily pro-choice friend that had a baby (I know gasp you can be FOR choice and yet choose not to terminate:eek: ) that used to say it to piss off another friend of mine :)
I owe you a taco, sir.

I owe you a taco, sir.
Sounds good to me :)

Why? Do you intend to brainwash them into wanting to undergo pregnancy and childbirth?
Why? To guard the right of all humans to live. Education and support. Adoption is also a good choice.

If such "extensive state programs" would be so successful in eliminating abortions, implement them now, keep it legal, and solve the problem without violating women's rights.
That's a good idea, except abortion should ultimately be outlawed. (or in the case of my country, never legalised)

Why? To guard the right of all humans to live. Education and support. Adoption is also a good choice.


That's a good idea, except abortion should ultimately be outlawed. (or in the case of my country, never legalised)
Abortion will never be outlawed in America... at least, not for long.