NationStates Jolt Archive

And? If you can demonstrate to me someone in whom the handicapping is so complete that it is not possible to determine if they are 'a human life', I'll agree with you.

There is a disorder in which a 'baby' is born entirely without a brain. The top of the neural 'tube' never completes... the 'brain' is either almost entirely, or actually entirely missing, and the head is left open.

The body can theoretically function. But, I wouldn't say it was a person. What do you think we should do with such a body?

Even if I agree that a case like that might justify termination, it doesn't invalidate the philosophy behind my point. if a mature human is so severely handicapped as to be potentially un-definable as a human being any longer, that carries with it a whole slew of rammifications including euthansaia. A fetus, on the other hand, is not handicapped in any way and yet is being defined as something non-human.

You were once such a fetus. So was I. So is every single person reading this thread. Were you not human at the time? Doesn't matter since you have become one since then.


I'm not dumping a responsibility on anyone - quite the opposite. The minute you take a step inside the uterus, you claim that responsibility for yourself. And yet - the pro-life movement neatly sidesteps the true ramifications of their actions - as evidenced by the fact that there are still children today, in orphanages.

You have no jurisdiction in MY body, or the body of any other person. If you choose to FORCE your jurisdiction over the CONTENTS of my body, you damn well better be prepared to accept responsibility for those contents.

I disagree. If my finances are in such dire straits that I decide to murder my parents to benefit from the insurance money, would you support my actions? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't because my actions are not justified by my needs to meet my financial responsibilities. Does that, in some way, obligate you to pay my bills for me so that I don't need to kill them? Of course not, that's rediculous.

By the same token, I can be against abortion, which I view as a murder, without being responsible for whatever issues arise in the mother's life as a result.

And that's the core. You see the fetus as not being a life, I do. We can wrap that up in as many philosophical layers as there are fish in the sea but that won't change the basic core issue.

Well, concievably you coould remove a lobe of the liver and it would regrow into a whole one...

Ok, well, let's take another organ as example. How about they share a stomach?

at birth, if not a bit later.

Are you being serious, or just joking?

Because if you were being serious, I would point out that you've just advocated infanticide in some cases, and I'd challenge you to define for me the physiological difference between a baby born 5 minutes ago, and one that will be born in one week, in such a way that taking its life is acceptable.

If you were joking, that was poor taste, at best.

Ok, well, let's take another organ as example. How about they share a stomach?

*shrug* Sure, why not.

Ok, well, let's take another organ as example. How about they share a stomach?

I'd suggest that if one's point is on such unstable ground that they need to resort to analogies involving something as extraordinary as a set of conjoined twins, then perhaps the foundation of the argument needs to be re-examined.

at birth, if not a bit later.

Biblically, the assertion has always (until VERY recent history) been that 'life' begins at birth.

The logic was, it is the 'breath of life' that animates the first flesh, so it is breath that is the marker of life.

Other cultures in Biblical times were sometimes more extreme: the Egyptians did not name children individually until they reached the age of majority... theoretically, life to the Egyptians, equated to adulthood.

Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

the kidney arguement is silly. cause i still need my kidney. blood would be a better analogy.

Where does one draw the line between the point at which the fetus is human and when it hasn't yet reached that pinnacle?

Made this point on another thread recently - First an embryo is not the same as a foetus - A foetus is getting to the stage where abortion becomes unequivocably unacceptable. Second, the mother doesn't just provide food, oxygen, warmth, etc to the the embryo, it also provides a whole bunch of hormones, chemicals etc which turn it into a human being. Saying that an embryo is human is therefore no more valid than saying a sperm is human - apart from basic human needs, it needs many other things which would allow it to turn into a human.

And before someone says "But a sperm or egg doesn't have all it's chromosomes yet, so it could be a different person" let me say that with hormones introduced prenataly you can influence physical charactaristics, mental charactaristics - hell with radiation you can even change the DNA.

The burning building analogy isn't going to prove anything. It creates a scenario so extraordinary as to be completely non-applicable to this thought process. May as well ask what the person would do if they had to either have an abortion or let the world be blown up by aliens.

your proposed scenario has an obvious answer - but that's because the fetus in question dies in either case. so even if abortion was a terrible ethical failing, the situation necessitates it anyway. even the anti-abortion zealot chooses the abortion.

on the other hand, my scenario presents a real moral dilemma, because the only thing that is at stake is a person's real moral sense of what constitutes a person. they wouldn't have to feel good about leaving the 5 year old to die, but if someone really did think blastocysts were persons then they would be morally obligated to save the petri dish.

Is that supposed to be a point?
Yours wasn't a point either. I was just saying that it wasn't hitting the nail on the head unless he was aiming for an entirely different nail than the one that was the point of the thread.

the kidney arguement is silly. cause i still need my kidney.

you've got two

Even if I agree that a case like that might justify termination, it doesn't invalidate the philosophy behind my point. if a mature human is so severely handicapped as to be potentially un-definable as a human being any longer, that carries with it a whole slew of rammifications including euthansaia. A fetus, on the other hand, is not handicapped in any way and yet is being defined as something non-human.

You were once such a fetus. So was I. So is every single person reading this thread. Were you not human at the time? Doesn't matter since you have become one since then.


When I was a foetus, my tissue was human, and arguably 'living tissue'... but that is not the same as being 'a human life'. A liver is human tissue and is living, but it is not 'a human life'. The placenta is living, human tissue, but is not 'a human life'.

Your argument, then, relies on potential - and I do not accept that as logical, because it only works if you plead special exception.

(Example: almost everything you eat will end up in your excrement, and yet, you won't eat feces, despite the fact that all your food is 'potential feces').



I disagree. If my finances are in such dire straits that I decide to murder my parents to benefit from the insurance money, would you support my actions? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't because my actions are not justified by my needs to meet my financial responsibilities. Does that, in some way, obligate you to pay my bills for me so that I don't need to kill them? Of course not, that's rediculous.

By the same token, I can be against abortion, which I view as a murder, without being responsible for whatever issues arise in the mother's life as a result.

And that's the core. You see the fetus as not being a life, I do. We can wrap that up in as many philosophical layers as there are fish in the sea but that won't change the basic core issue.

But your argument doesn't work.

If the govrnment steps in to remove a child from an abusive family, can they just abandon the child once it is away from that family?

No - because our actions carry consequences.

The fact that the pro-life lobby wants the action, but isn't willing to deal with the consequences, does nothing to endear their platform to me.

Biblically, the assertion has always (until VERY recent history) been that 'life' begins at birth.

The logic was, it is the 'breath of life' that animates the first flesh, so it is breath that is the marker of life.

Other cultures in Biblical times were sometimes more extreme: the Egyptians did not name children individually until they reached the age of majority... theoretically, life to the Egyptians, equated to adulthood.

Aren't those who support abortion supposed to reject the Bible as a source?

I'd suggest that if one's point is on such unstable ground that they need to resort to analogies involving something as extraordinary as a set of conjoined twins, then perhaps the foundation of the argument needs to be re-examined.

And, on a similar note, if someone's argument for the basis of law, has to rely on something as desperate as what they think MIGHT happen, perhaps the foundation of that argument is fatally flawed?

You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.

Last I checked, if something is non-sentient, it is incapable of making decisions and can't claim bodily autonomy.

Yours wasn't a point either. I was just saying that it wasn't hitting the nail on the head unless he was aiming for an entirely different nail than the one that was the point of the thread.

I was asserting my agreement. That suffices as a point.

The problem is that people are trying way too hard to make this a black & white picture. Is a blastocyst a fully functional human being? Of course it isn't. But it's a human blastocyst, and that means something.


perfect.

A fetus, on the other hand, is not handicapped in any way and yet is being defined as something non-human.
Well, that really depends on what stage of fetal development we're talking about here. If we're talking second trimester fetus then no, it's not a human being. Third trimester, past the 20 week mark, it can preform stimulus response as an organism... well, that's a little different.
Not that fetuses are really the major issue with abortion anyways. 90% of abortions occur to embryos, no fetus is involved.

You were once such a fetus. So was I. So is every single person reading this thread. Were you not human at the time? Doesn't matter since you have become one since then.
I would say that I was a potential human at that time and I have since realized my potential.

I disagree. If my finances are in such dire straits that I decide to murder my parents to benefit from the insurance money, would you support my actions? Of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't because my actions are not justified by my needs to meet my financial responsibilities. Does that, in some way, obligate you to pay my bills for me so that I don't need to kill them? Of course not, that's rediculous.

By the same token, I can be against abortion, which I view as a murder, without being responsible for whatever issues arise in the mother's life as a result.
Except that your comparison isn't valid. You're comparing taking the well-established lives of other individuals with terminating the potential for a person to come into being.

And that's the core. You see the fetus as not being a life, I do. We can wrap that up in as many philosophical layers as there are fish in the sea but that won't change the basic core issue.
Yes, that woudl be the issue. However, since you are incapable of proving that a fetus is a life, you don't get to force your opinions on others.

I was asserting my agreement. That suffices as a point.
It's no more a point than what I said.

Aren't those who support abortion supposed to reject the Bible as a source?
Why should they? It supports abortion rights in so many cases.

Aren't those who support abortion supposed to reject the Bible as a source?

Who 'supports' abortion?

Very few people are pro-abortion. Most people identified as 'pro-choice' would also identify themselves as personally 'anti-abortion', but believe their right to impose their views is limited to their own life.

Also - I could find biblical verses that support the murder of infants, and the acceptability of abortion... scriptural support is not limited to one side of the 'pro/anti-choice' debate.

SUE HULBERT, 44, had an abortion in May 2000 and is only now recovering from the depression and psychosis that followed, culminating in an overdose.


The mother of two and her partner had planned to have a baby, but as soon as she discovered she was pregnant her relationship started to crumble and she was convinced she would not be able to cope on her own.

She was offered no counselling, but her distress over the abortion was so obvious on the day of the operation that doctors advised her to think about her decision for an hour before going ahead.

“To this day I still don’t know why I did it. I woke up crying and knew I had done the wrong thing and sunk into a depression almost straight away,” she said.

Two months later she visited her GP and was prescribed antidepressants. She also contacted the charity British Victims of Abortion, a counselling service.

But the exercise physiology lecturer, was plagued by nightmares and hallucinations, and was falling into debt. She took an overdose in December 2001, which forced her to tell her friends and family what had been going on, and she was finally offered psychiatric help.

“I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence,” she said.

When I was a foetus, my tissue was human, and arguably 'living tissue'... but that is not the same as being 'a human life'. A liver is human tissue and is living, but it is not 'a human life'. The placenta is living, human tissue, but is not 'a human life'.

Your argument, then, relies on potential - and I do not accept that as logical, because it only works if you plead special exception.

(Example: almost everything you eat will end up in your excrement, and yet, you won't eat feces, despite the fact that all your food is 'potential feces').


No, my argument isn't one of potential. In fact, I'm specifically avoiding doing so if I possibly can.

A liver is living tissue, yes, but does not constitute a complete entity during any phase of its existence. It is a component.

A fetus is a complete entity. It is not like any single organ in the body. The root question is, is it moral/ethical to end the existence of that entity?

In fact, it's the pro-abortion argument that relies most heavily on the potentiality of a fetus, since avoiding the consequences of the eventual live birth is the whole point.


But your argument doesn't work.

If the govrnment steps in to remove a child from an abusive family, can they just abandon the child once it is away from that family?

No - because our actions carry consequences.

The fact that the pro-life lobby wants the action, but isn't willing to deal with the consequences, does nothing to endear their platform to me.

That analogy doesn't work either. If a pro-life group successfully prevents an abortion, the mother still has the option of utilizing the very same Government sponsored programs as in your example.

SUE HULBERT, 44, had an abortion in May 2000 and is only now recovering from the depression and psychosis that followed, culminating in an overdose.


The mother of two and her partner had planned to have a baby, but as soon as she discovered she was pregnant her relationship started to crumble and she was convinced she would not be able to cope on her own.

She was offered no counselling, but her distress over the abortion was so obvious on the day of the operation that doctors advised her to think about her decision for an hour before going ahead.

“To this day I still don’t know why I did it. I woke up crying and knew I had done the wrong thing and sunk into a depression almost straight away,” she said.

Two months later she visited her GP and was prescribed antidepressants. She also contacted the charity British Victims of Abortion, a counselling service.

But the exercise physiology lecturer, was plagued by nightmares and hallucinations, and was falling into debt. She took an overdose in December 2001, which forced her to tell her friends and family what had been going on, and she was finally offered psychiatric help.

“I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence,” she said.

Woudl you like me to pull out an article describing post partum depression too?

Perhaps the one where the woman cut the arms and legs off her infant? Or the one where a woman drowned her four children? Depression doesn't just happen with abortions, I'm willing to bet that it happens less frequently with abortions than with births.

SUE HULBERT, 44, had an abortion in May 2000 and is only now recovering from the depression and psychosis that followed, culminating in an overdose.


The mother of two and her partner had planned to have a baby, but as soon as she discovered she was pregnant her relationship started to crumble and she was convinced she would not be able to cope on her own.

She was offered no counselling, but her distress over the abortion was so obvious on the day of the operation that doctors advised her to think about her decision for an hour before going ahead.

“To this day I still don’t know why I did it. I woke up crying and knew I had done the wrong thing and sunk into a depression almost straight away,” she said.

Two months later she visited her GP and was prescribed antidepressants. She also contacted the charity British Victims of Abortion, a counselling service.

But the exercise physiology lecturer, was plagued by nightmares and hallucinations, and was falling into debt. She took an overdose in December 2001, which forced her to tell her friends and family what had been going on, and she was finally offered psychiatric help.

“I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence,” she said.

So one woman made a decision she regrets. Big deal. There are hundreds of women perfectly happy with their decision to abort, and suffering no ill effects. Should we ban drinking, smoking, and sex because they might be regretted down the road?

Biblically, the assertion has always (until VERY recent history) been that 'life' begins at birth.

The logic was, it is the 'breath of life' that animates the first flesh, so it is breath that is the marker of life.

Other cultures in Biblical times were sometimes more extreme: the Egyptians did not name children individually until they reached the age of majority... theoretically, life to the Egyptians, equated to adulthood.

yeah - cross-culturally 'birth or a bit after' has been the common standpoint. the 'bit after' part i restrict down a bit since our life expectancy at birth has shot up so much recently (before it was mainly cause most infants would die anyways). and i don't see anything wrong with euthanizing infants who are discovered to have horrific birth defects that went undetected prior to birth or other such cases. seems like the ethical thing to do, actually.

SUE HULBERT, 44, had an abortion in May 2000 and is only now recovering from the depression and psychosis that followed, culminating in an overdose.


The mother of two and her partner had planned to have a baby, but as soon as she discovered she was pregnant her relationship started to crumble and she was convinced she would not be able to cope on her own.

She was offered no counselling, but her distress over the abortion was so obvious on the day of the operation that doctors advised her to think about her decision for an hour before going ahead.

“To this day I still don’t know why I did it. I woke up crying and knew I had done the wrong thing and sunk into a depression almost straight away,” she said.

Two months later she visited her GP and was prescribed antidepressants. She also contacted the charity British Victims of Abortion, a counselling service.

But the exercise physiology lecturer, was plagued by nightmares and hallucinations, and was falling into debt. She took an overdose in December 2001, which forced her to tell her friends and family what had been going on, and she was finally offered psychiatric help.

“I had never suffered from any mental illness before and I had never been depressed and, really, I am the last person who you would expect to react like this. But I was haunted by my abortion and it robbed me of all my confidence,” she said.

I'm not going to use names, I'll substitue similar ones.

I went to college with Danielle. Danielle's friend Mary found out she was pregnant. She didn't think she could handle it, so she planned to have an abortion.

Her family found out, and with her church, coerced her into not having the abortion.

Eventually, a liitle boy I shall call Darren was born.

Darren is 9, now. If he is still alive. I haven't seen him since he was 4, when his mother hanged herself.

She was right - she really couldn't handle it.

Who 'supports' abortion?

Very few people are pro-abortion. Most people identified as 'pro-choice' would also identify themselves as personally 'anti-abortion', but believe their right to impose their views is limited to their own life..

Fair enough.


Also - I could find biblical verses that support the murder of infants, and the acceptability of abortion... scriptural support is not limited to one side of the 'pro/anti-choice' debate.

I know about the killing of babies but I would appreciate it if you could cite where abortion, as such, is sanctioned.

I'm not going to use names, I'll substitue similar ones.

I went to college with Danielle. Danielle's friend Mary found out she was pregnant. She didn't think she could handle it, so she planned to have an abortion.

Her family found out, and with her church, coerced her into not having the abortion.

Eventually, a liitle boy I shall call Darren was born.

Darren is 9, now. If he is still alive. I haven't seen him since he was 4, when his mother hanged herself.

She was right - she really couldn't handle it.

Then Darren should have been given up for adoption.

Then Darren should have been given up for adoption.
Yes, it's so easy for you to sit there and say what other people should do with their lives, isn't it?

yeah - cross-culturally 'birth or a bit after' has been the common standpoint. the 'bit after' part i restrict down a bit since our life expectancy at birth has shot up so much recently (before it was mainly cause most infants would die anyways). and i don't see anything wrong with euthanizing infants who are discovered to have horrific birth defects that went undetected prior to birth or other such cases. seems like the ethical thing to do, actually.

The scary part is defining how horrific it would have to be. I would hate to make a decision like that.

so does anyone want to say that in the burning building they would save the petri dish before the kindergartener? come on, step right up and defend the personhood of blastocyst-americans!

Fair enough.



I know about the killing of babies but I would appreciate it if you could cite where abortion, as such, is sanctioned.


I think the actual point is the Bible's SILENCE about abortion. We have had the herbs and tools to terminate pregnancy for AGES now, and only recently have people gotten so up in arms about it.

Feel free to call it biased, but check this one out- http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Yes, it's so easy for you to sit there and say what other people should do with their lives, isn't it?

That's like saying I'm out of line for condemning someone for murder.

I've been there, you see. So I know what I'm talking about. Have you?

so does anyone want to say that in the burning building they would save the petri dish before the kindergartener? come on, step right up and defend the personhood of blastocyst-americans!

Nobody is answering because it's an utterly rediculous hypothetical.

No, my argument isn't one of potential. In fact, I'm specifically avoiding doing so if I possibly can.

A liver is living tissue, yes, but does not constitute a complete entity during any phase of its existence. It is a component.

A fetus is a complete entity. It is not like any single organ in the body. The root question is, is it moral/ethical to end the existence of that entity?


Tapeworms are separate entities living within our bodies. I don't hear you crying for protection for tapeworms... So - separate isn't the issue.

A chimera has more than one 'unique' DNA arrangement in one body. I don't hear you crying that chimeras should be devolved into their 'component' parts... so - unique DNA isn't the issue.

Feces contain 'human' DNA. I don't hear you crying for 'autonomy for shit'... so 'human' DNA isn't the issue.

You create an argument based on NO logical consistency.


In fact, it's the pro-abortion argument that relies most heavily on the potentiality of a fetus, since avoiding the consequences of the eventual live birth is the whole point.


No - the biggest single argument for pro-choice, is that a parasitic entity is in MY body and I don't want it there.


That analogy doesn't work either. If a pro-life group successfully prevents an abortion, the mother still has the option of utilizing the very same Government sponsored programs as in your example.

Ignoring the fact that this little rightwing party uses it's power to compell a woman to pass an object the size of a football, through a body cavity the size of a lemon... which you gleefully do not consider a worthy element to consider...

Why SHOULD we be relying on the state? It was those who wish to set their domains within the vaginas of other people that can't keep their fingers out of other people's pies - let them foot the bill.

I think the actual point is the Bible's SILENCE about abortion. We have had the herbs and tools to terminate pregnancy for AGES now, and only recently have people gotten so up in arms about it.

Feel free to call it biased, but check this one out- http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

Biblical silence on the issue can't be interpreted as sanction.

Isaiah 49

"...Does a mother forget her baby? Or a woman the child within her womb?..."

that's child, not fetus, friends.

Should we ban drinking, smoking, and sex because they might be regretted down the road?

the most annoying thing about pro-choicers, is they you guys compare situations that are not simular.
abortion stops another life.
drinking and smoking are only dangerous to the person who choses to do so.
suicide(is what you are kind of suggesting) and murder are not the same thing.

I know about the killing of babies but I would appreciate it if you could cite where abortion, as such, is sanctioned.

Since you appear to have (wrongly) decided I am 'pro-abortion', and have claimed that the 'pro-abortion' crowd has no dealings with the bible... I'm wondering why I should be doing your homework?

Nobody is answering because it's an utterly rediculous hypothetical.

there has never been a fire at a medical facility?

the fact that a situation is unlikely does not mean that your moral statements wouldn't apply in that situation. in fact, such thought experiments are one of the best ways to test the implications our ethical theories, as they help flush out nuances that might otherwise be missed.

Then Darren should have been given up for adoption.

Showed your true colours.

Waah waah Darren.

And yet, not a tear shed for Mary, after you caused her death.

I've been there, you see. So I know what I'm talking about. Have you?

You were aborted?

Biblical silence on the issue can't be interpreted as sanction.

Isaiah 49

"...Does a mother forget her baby? Or a woman the child within her womb?..."

that's child, not fetus, friends.

That's translation, friend. Do you know ANYONE who can read Aramaic? Sanskrit? Ancient Greek?(forgive me if I've got some spelling errors today, folks.) How do you know what that really means?

To be honest, how does anyone know what any of the Bible really means? On that point, should we really be using it in an argument?


(Sorry -- getting a little stoner-philosophical today...)

That's like saying I'm out of line for condemning someone for murder.

I've been there, you see. So I know what I'm talking about. Have you?
No, I'm saying that you're out of line for saying what an obviously emotionally disturbed woman should have done without having any sort of training in psychology or the treatment of depression and with very little information on the specific case. Perhaps giving the baby up for adoption would have made her condition worse and she would have commited suicide a month after giving him up instead of holding off for four years. Perhaps she would have taken others down with her. You don't know that adopting away the kid would have helped anything. Chances are if she hadn't been pressured into keeping an unwanted child she would have been fine.

Tapeworms are separate entities living within our bodies. I don't hear you crying for protection for tapeworms... So - separate isn't the issue.


i'm not a tape worm so its not my responsibility to defend them.

the most annoying thing about pro-choicers, is they you guys compare situations that are not simular.
abortion stops another life.

The most annoying thing about anti-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never even met can keep inside their uterine walls.

the most annoying thing about pro-choicers, is they you guys compare situations that are not simular.
abortion stops another life.
drinking and smoking are only dangerous to the person who choses to do so.
suicide(is what you are kind of suggesting) and murder are not the same thing.

Murder is the killing of another sentient human. At the point of elective abortion, the only sentient human involved is the pregnant woman.

Forced continuation of a pregnancy stops a life as well. Medically,pregnancy carries FAR more risks than abortion. It is safer to terminate the creation of another life than degrade or end one that already exists.

i'm not a tape worm so its not my responsibility to defend them.

I don't hear you disclaiming being a chimera, or shit.

I assume you want us to take that as read?

Murder is the killing of another sentient human. At the point of elective abortion, the only sentient human involved is the pregnant woman.

Did we mention unlawful killing?

The most annoying thing about anti-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never even met can keep inside their uterine walls.

we all get to vote. what ever people vote for people get. in my country its ilegal. i win.

You know, until this reply I was going to comment on how refreshing it was to actually be engaged in a civil debate on abortion, for a change. Glad I waited.

Tapeworms are separate entities living within our bodies. I don't hear you crying for protection for tapeworms... So - separate isn't the issue.

A chimera has more than one 'unique' DNA arrangement in one body. I don't hear you crying that chimeras should be devolved into their 'component' parts... so - unique DNA isn't the issue.

Feces contain 'human' DNA. I don't hear you crying for 'autonomy for shit'... so 'human' DNA isn't the issue.

You create an argument based on NO logical consistency.

These arguments don't apply. They're all outside the scope of the discussion. A tapeworm isn't a human, nor is it in a stage of human development.

I never said anything about unique DNA, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.


No - the biggest single argument for pro-choice, is that a parasitic entity is in MY body and I don't want it there.

I was wondering when someone would get around to the parasite argument.
A fetus is not a parasite. People describe it as one because it lives off of resources that come from the mother's body, but what gets lost is that the female body takes drastic measures to protect and nurture it.

A fetus takes nothing from a woman's body that isn't given to it. That's why a placents separates the two. Mom's body will sacrifice to give the baby nourishment, will cushion it from external damage whenever possible, and gears up to continue feeding it even after the baby is born.

To compare that relationship to that of a person with a leech on their skin is a bad analogy.


Ignoring the fact that this little rightwing party uses it's power to compell a woman to pass an object the size of a football, through a body cavity the size of a lemon... which you gleefully do not consider a worthy element to consider...

"gleefully"

Please calm down.

Yes it is dramatic the process of birth, but it's all completely natural (if unpleasant) and I assure you, the right wing party did not invent the process.


Why SHOULD we be relying on the state? It was those who wish to set their domains within the vaginas of other people that can't keep their fingers out of other people's pies - let them foot the bill.

By that logic are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a support mechanism for abandoned children and orphans, either?

No, I'm saying that you're out of line for saying what an obviously emotionally disturbed woman should have done without having any sort of training in psychology or the treatment of depression and with very little information on the specific case. Perhaps giving the baby up for adoption would have made her condition worse and she would have commited suicide a month after giving him up instead of holding off for four years. Perhaps she would have taken others down with her. You don't know that adopting away the kid would have helped anything. Chances are if she hadn't been pressured into keeping an unwanted child she would have been fine.

Don't forget the likely pressure from the church/family/community to actually RAISE the child. That could definitely be a factor.

Did we mention unlawful killing?

Thank you --- See? Brain's getting fried and I'm leaving out the details.

"gleefully"

Please calm down.

Are you telling him to calm down because of the word 'gleefully'?

the most annoying thing about pro-choicers, is they you guys compare situations that are not simular.
abortion stops another life.
drinking and smoking are only dangerous to the person who choses to do so.
suicide(is what you are kind of suggesting) and murder are not the same thing.
Ok, clearly you ignored the part where I said that women get depressed after giving birth to those little babies you love so much too... so here are some examples.

Woman with postpartum depression kills children
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=106870

Woman with postpartum depression kills daughters
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4145.aspx

Woman with postpartum depression attempts to kill self
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061022/GPG07/610220711/1250/GPGlife

10-20% of new moms suffer from postpartum depression
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061008/LIFESTYLE/610080338

the most annoying thing about anti-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never even met can keep inside their uterine walls.

an annoying thing about pro-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never met, destroy a life.

No, I'm saying that you're out of line for saying what an obviously emotionally disturbed woman should have done without having any sort of training in psychology or the treatment of depression and with very little information on the specific case. Perhaps giving the baby up for adoption would have made her condition worse and she would have commited suicide a month after giving him up instead of holding off for four years. Perhaps she would have taken others down with her. You don't know that adopting away the kid would have helped anything. Chances are if she hadn't been pressured into keeping an unwanted child she would have been fine.

I'll concede that it cannot be proven that giving the child up for adoption would have changed things if you'll concede that we don't know an abortion would have, either.

Are you telling him to calm down because of the word 'gleefully'?

Yes. The tone of the response struck me as becoming angry.

Don't forget the likely pressure from the church/family/community to actually RAISE the child. That could definitely be a factor.

But that's a hypothetical factor. We don't know that would have happened.

we all get to vote. what ever people vote for people get. in my country its ilegal. i win.
Well, your country sucks.

an annoying thing about pro-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never met, destroy a life.

Do you think the woman's life should be destroyed instead? If she does not WANT to be pregnant, then she should not HAVE to be pregnant. It's as simple as that.

we all get to vote. what ever people vote for people get. in my country its ilegal. i win.

Tyranny of the majority, my friend.

Doesn't make it right.

Ok, clearly you ignored the part where I said that women get depressed after giving birth to those little babies you love so much too... so here are some examples.

Woman with postpartum depression kills children
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=106870

Woman with postpartum depression kills daughters
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_4145.aspx

Woman with postpartum depression attempts to kill self
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061022/GPG07/610220711/1250/GPGlife

10-20% of new moms suffer from postpartum depression
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061008/LIFESTYLE/610080338

amazing arguement.
if start killing our children, there will be no murders left. doh.

Well, your country sucks.

I bet that was an argument too, right? ;)

But that's a hypothetical factor. We don't know that would have happened.

However, it is a common factor --one worth mentioning, at least. Of course, then we get into the whole "pregnancy as punishment" thing..

I'll concede that it cannot be proven that giving the child up for adoption would have changed things if you'll concede that we don't know an abortion would have, either.
I dunno, one of my roommates in first year found h erself pregnant and that really explained her batshit insane behaviour for the month prior. She got an abortion, and she was fine. Well, exhauseted and generally crappy feeling... but as fine as one can be after such a procedure. She returned to her prior levels of sanity too... it might have helped this other girl. Usually an individual has some idea what they're capable of handeling and what they aren't.

Do you think the woman's life should be destroyed instead? If she does not WANT to be pregnant, then she should not HAVE to be pregnant. It's as simple as that.

Abstinence: 100% effective at birth control.

I'd suggest that if one's point is on such unstable ground that they need to resort to analogies involving something as extraordinary as a set of conjoined twins, then perhaps the foundation of the argument needs to be re-examined.

QFT

Yes. The tone of the response struck me as becoming angry.

I apologise. "Glee" is such a loaded term.

:rolleyes:

Well, your country sucks.

highest standard of living in the world so..........
celebrated our nations day over a hundreth years after other countries did......

Abstinence: 100% effective at birth control.

Well, so's abortion.

amazing arguement.
if start killing our children, there will be no murders left. doh.

Get the terminology right. No CHILDREN are killed in an abortion. Get over it. It is a non-sentient embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc. It has no brain, it cannot feel, and it is NOT the same as a viable fetus.

However, it is a common factor --one worth mentioning, at least. Of course, then we get into the whole "pregnancy as punishment" thing..

It might be a common factor but it still doesn't prove anything.

If I said that a common result of pregnancy was guilt, would you accept that as a worthy factor in an argument like this one?

Get the terminology right. No CHILDREN are killed in an abortion. Get over it. It is a non-sentient embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc. It has no brain, it cannot feel, and it is NOT the same as a viable fetus.

That is the very question being debated.

Tyranny of the majority, my friend.

Doesn't make it right.

thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. the minority cant dictate the majority.

Abstinence: 100% effective at birth control.

not according to the christians

an annoying thing about pro-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never met, destroy a life.
Actually, being pro-choice, I support the right of each individual woman to deceide for herself what she should do in such a situation.

Well, so's abortion.

So is a gunshot wound through the brain, but that's hardly considered a useful method of birth control.

Abstinence: 100% effective at birth control.

Men:They've been getting away with fucking whoever they want for thousands of years...


Women: Easily punished for having sex ONCE

not according to the christians
Hahahahahaha

not according to the christians

The Virgin Mary had a choice.

highest standard of living in the world so..........
I thought that Sweden allowed women the right to choose?

Men:They've been getting away with fucking whoever they want for thousands of years...

Then you and I agree on something. It's wrong.


Women: Easily punished for having sex ONCE

I would dispute the mentality that says pregnancy=punishment.

You know, until this reply I was going to comment on how refreshing it was to actually be engaged in a civil debate on abortion, for a change. Glad I waited.


My debate has been. and still is civil. Unless you find the word 'glee' uncivil...


These arguments don't apply.


Because you say so?


They're all outside the scope of the discussion.


Outside the scope - from your perspective.

A tapeworm isn't a human, nor is it in a stage of human development.

I never said anything about unique DNA, so I'm not sure why you brought that up.


You implied that a foetus has some special significance because it is a separate entity. Clearly - a tapeworm also is 'separate'... so that argument is a red herring.

I mentioned the 'human' DNA and the 'unique DNA' arguments because, without them - the tapeworm is ENTIRELY relevent to the debate.


I was wondering when someone would get around to the parasite argument.
A fetus is not a parasite. People describe it as one because it lives off of resources that come from the mother's body, but what gets lost is that the female body takes drastic measures to protect and nurture it.

A fetus takes nothing from a woman's body that isn't given to it. That's why a placents separates the two. Mom's body will sacrifice to give the baby nourishment, will cushion it from external damage whenever possible, and gears up to continue feeding it even after the baby is born.

To compare that relationship to that of a person with a leech on their skin is a bad analogy.


Do you even understand what a parasite is?

You might want to research parasitic relationships before you write the whole terminology off as being about 'leeches'.


"gleefully"

Please calm down.

Yes it is dramatic the process of birth, but it's all completely natural (if unpleasant) and I assure you, the right wing party did not invent the process.


I didn't say they did invent it. They do, however, seem to consider it of absolutely no merit in the debate of what is allowed to pass through a vagina.


By that logic are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a support mechanism for abandoned children and orphans, either?

Not at all. I am suggesting that, where possible, people should take the responsibility for the actions they carry out.

So is a gunshot wound through the brain, but that's hardly considered a useful method of birth control.

Survival rates of after abortions are higher than after births... for the women, that is.

The Virgin Mary had a choice.

Not according to the Bible.

Read it sometime, it'll be right up your alley.

The Virgin Mary had a choice.

Oh, wouldn't the world be a happier place for it.... :p

That is the very question being debated.
No it isn't.

The facts are the same, it isn't a child, it's an embryo or a fetus if we're discussing abortions. For the sake of making this simple let's talk about 90% of abortions, in 90% of abortions there is no brain, it isn't sentient, it can't feel and it isn't the same at all as a viable fetus.

I thought that Sweden allowed women the right to choose?

i'm pretty sure the state pays for them

thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard. the minority cant dictate the majority.

Really? I'm assuming you've never heard of a little place called Iraq... you might be interested in their political model for the past few years (before we dropped bombs on it).

I would dispute the mentality that says pregnancy=punishment.
Then perhaps you should have a talk with your fellow anti-choicers. They're usually the ones who like to push that line. "That dirty whore spread her legs so she can deal with the consequences! PRAISE JESUS!!!"

an annoying thing about pro-choicers, is that they are so far up themselves, that they think they have a right to determine what women they have never met, destroy a life.

You have yet to prove that 'a life' IS destroyed.

i'm pretty sure the state pays for them
Then what's this business with this guy claiming to live in the country with the highest standard of living (Sweden) and saying that abortions are illegal? Apparently some swedes are crazy they should perhaps invest in some better mental health facilities to take care of that lest they lose their top spot.

I would dispute the mentality that says pregnancy=punishment.

Say you have the flu.
It's not comfy, right?
Now say you have the flu for nine whole months.
Even less comfy, right?
Now say at the end of that nine months you have a team of boxers take potshots at your nuts to produce a being that will take up all your free time for 2 full years, and will be difficult to handle for another 16.
That is pregnancy.
Do you see now why pregnancy=punishment?

Then what's this business with this guy claiming to live in the country with the highest standard of living (Sweden) and saying that abortions are illegal? Apparently some swedes are crazy they should perhaps invest in some better mental health facilities to take care of that lest they lose their top spot.

I'm afraid he's a delusional little Irishman...

My debate has been. and still is civil. Unless you find the word 'glee' uncivil...
The tone of your argument changed. Just pointing that out.


You implied that a foetus has some special significance because it is a separate entity. Clearly - a tapeworm also is 'separate'... so that argument is a red herring.

I mentioned the 'human' DNA and the 'unique DNA' arguments because, without them - the tapeworm is ENTIRELY relevent to the debate.

I also specified (in other posts) that it was relevant that the fetus is that of a human. Actually, I believe I was refering to a blastocyst in that particular one, but meh.


Do you even understand what a parasite is?

You might want to research parasitic relationships before you write the whole terminology off as being about 'leeches'.

I said a lot more than just comparing a parasite to a leech.


I didn't say they did invent it. They do, however, seem to consider it of absolutely no merit in the debate of what is allowed to pass through a vagina.


If the pro-life folks are right, and it really is murder to kill one, then what merit would that have, exactly?


Not at all. I am suggesting that, where possible, people should take the responsibility for the actions they carry out.

You mean actions like having sex?

Not according to the Bible.

Read it sometime, it'll be right up your alley.

I would dispute that

Oh, wouldn't the world be a happier place for it.... :p

that was uncalled for.

If the pro-life folks are right, and it really is murder to kill one, then what merit would that have, exactly?

Since "murder" is a cultural term defined by society and legislation, pro-life folks are currently wrong when claiming that abortion was murder.



You mean actions like having sex?

Yep. Do the responsible thing. Use contraception. If it fails, abort.

Simple.

No it isn't.

The facts are the same, it isn't a child, it's an embryo or a fetus if we're discussing abortions. For the sake of making this simple let's talk about 90% of abortions, in 90% of abortions there is no brain, it isn't sentient, it can't feel and it isn't the same at all as a viable fetus.

I think we may be talking about 2 different things here

that was uncalled for.

Not really. This is 2000 years of religious wars, prosecution, progroms and inhumanity that could have been avoided.

I could find biblical verses that support the murder of infants, and the acceptability of abortion... scriptural support is not limited to one side of the 'pro/anti-choice' debate.

I'm a little dubious, but curious nonetheless. Where in the Bible does it display acceptability of abortion?

I think we may be talking about 2 different things here

You mean all this time you've been arguing agains post-natal abortion?? :eek:

Say you have the flu.
It's not comfy, right?
Now say you have the flu for nine whole months.
Even less comfy, right?
Now say at the end of that nine months you have a team of boxers take potshots at your nuts to produce a being that will take up all your free time for 2 full years, and will be difficult to handle for another 16.
That is pregnancy.
Do you see now why pregnancy=punishment?

No, I don't.

But if those factors are all you see, I can understand why you do.

The Virgin Mary had a choice.

the virgin mary was a virgin. therefore christians are required to believe that abstinence is NOT 100% effective as birth control.

so, any word yet on whether you'd save the petri dish with two blastocyst-americans on it before the lone kindergartener? what if it was an easily grabbed stack of petri dishes, containing thousands and thousands of blastocyst-americans?

hell, we could leave the kindergartener out of it entirely, and make you into a firefighter. do you run in to the burning building to save those petri dishes?

Not really. This is 2000 years of religious wars, prosecution, progroms and inhumanity that could have been avoided.

Ah yes, Christians are to blame for all of the world's ills.

You really have no comprehension on why a Christian might find your remarks insulting, do you?

Not really. This is 2000 years of religious wars, prosecution, progroms and inhumanity that could have been avoided.

And the damnation of millions of souls...but nobody cares, really, about the spiritual side of things these days. We wrap ourselves up in the artificial bulwark of science and hide behind self-constructed truths, and hope that our vanity will preserve us, prolong our lives, because we don't really believe that an eternity of suffering awaits us at the hands of a wrathful deity that is greater than our own egotistical view of the universe...

Since "murder" is a cultural term defined by society and legislation, pro-life folks are currently wrong when claiming that abortion was murder.

Murder is the taking of a life unjustly. That's universal.

Typically, those supporting abortion rights don't define the fetus as being a life to take.

It's not as culturally monolithic as you think.



Yep. Do the responsible thing. Use contraception. If it fails, abort.

Simple.

And in so doing, dodging the consequences.

I'm a little dubious, but curious nonetheless. Where in the Bible does it display acceptability of abortion?

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

I just googled and found this.

Beffore I start, please note I will ignore all bible based arguments. Firstly, while I have great respect for the Christian faith but it does not bind all of us. Secondly, the bible forbids everything from shrimps to bank accounts, and even contradicts itself and changes it's view at points. Thirdly, if you can't think of a better argument than "The bible says so," you should take a long look at your moral code.

Sorry about the slight rant there.

My view is as follows :
Definetly no abortions beyond the point where the baby could theoretically survive on it's own ( about 26 weeks, I think, but I haven't checked in more detail. Take the youngest age a child has ever survived birth, then knock off 2-4 weeks)

At the foetal stage there has to be some significant reason, to perform an abortion. The definition of significant can be argued over, but I would certainly include rape, incest, serious risk of death to the mother or untreatable conditions that will kill the baby in very young infancy (less than 6 months, say)

At the embryo stage, I believe abortion is acceptable - an embryo is not a life, nor is it anymore a potential life than a sperm or an egg. Aside from nourishment, oxygen etc, it requries hormones and other chemicals that willl turn it ionto a human - you are not just your DNA. (Radiation can even change that)

Ah yes, Christians are to blame for all of the world's ills.

You really have no comprehension on why a Christian might find your remarks insulting, do you?

I used to be one.
I'm not claiming Christians are the source, I'm claiming that intolerant, monotheistic religions with missionary character is the source.

the virgin mary was a virgin. therefore christians are required to believe that abstinence is NOT 100% effective as birth control.

so, any word yet on whether you'd save the petri dish with two blastocyst-americans on it before the lone kindergartener? what if it was an easily grabbed stack of petri dishes, containing thousands and thousands of blastocyst-americans?

hell, we could leave the kindergartener out of it entirely, and make you into a firefighter. do you run in to the burning building to save those petri dishes?


Yep that plague of blastocysts deaths in fires really requires some attention.

Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

Kind of like the relevance of this hypothetical, as I've stated before.

I mean, really.. are you honestly sitting around there pinning all your hopes for this debate on that?

I used to be one.
I'm not claiming Christians are the source, I'm claiming that intolerant, monotheistic religions with missionary character is the source.

Well if you aren't one then you don't believe in Immaculate Conception anyway which means your argument is nothing more than a jab.

But that's not being uncivil, right?

the virgin mary was a virgin. therefore christians are required to believe that abstinence is NOT 100% effective as birth control.

so, any word yet on whether you'd save the petri dish with two blastocyst-americans on it before the lone kindergartener? what if it was an easily grabbed stack of petri dishes, containing thousands and thousands of blastocyst-americans?

To the second point: Impossible circumstance, and one that is unnecessary. Anything outside of the body is clearly not human life. When it is growing inside the womb as the direct result of the combination of sperm and egg, that is the debate at hand. Don't fight the hypothetical.

To the first: The Blessed Virgin was indeed a virgin. She was also impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Abstinence is still 100% effective birth control, as far as humans are concerned. If God says he wants you pregnant, well then you don't have a choice--but that is an exceptional circumstance, the only circumstance, and not the rule.

I'm a little dubious, but curious nonetheless. Where in the Bible does it display acceptability of abortion?

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Very clearly, the fetus isn't human according to the bible.

Murder is the taking of a life unjustly. That's universal.

Is it? Taking the life of a common housefly unjustly is murder?
Must make your life really difficult to believe that.


Typically, those supporting abortion rights don't define the fetus as being a life to take.

It's not as culturally monolithic as you think.

Oh, it's living tissue. It's just not alive, as the definition of that word includes independend existence.



And in so doing, dodging the consequences.

I'd say it's a responsible way to handle the consequences. No dodging... dodging would be forcing the child on someone else.

Beffore I start, please note I will ignore all bible based arguments. Firstly, while I have great respect for the Christian faith but it does not bind all of us. Secondly, the bible forbids everything from shrimps to bank accounts, and even contradicts itself and changes it's view at points. Thirdly, if you can't think of a better argument than "The bible says so," you should take a long look at your moral code.

Things that are universally believed to be wrong, with no reson other than "the Bible (or some similar text) says so:"

Murder
Rape
Theft

Yep that plague of blastocysts deaths in fires really requires some attention.

Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

Kind of like the relevance of this hypothetical, as I've stated before.

I mean, really.. are you honestly sitting around there pinning all your hopes for this debate on that?
I doubt that he is, however the fact that you're avoiding the question is rather telling.

Well if you aren't one then you don't believe in Immaculate Conception anyway which means your argument is nothing more than a jab.

But that's not being uncivil, right?

That's not universally Christian, that's Catholic dogma. And pretty recent dogma, too, if I may point that out.
And I wasn't making an argument, I was voicing a thought.

Yep that plague of blastocysts deaths in fires really requires some attention.

Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

Kind of like the relevance of this hypothetical, as I've stated before.

I mean, really.. are you honestly sitting around there pinning all your hopes for this debate on that?

*sigh*
It's very relevant. It's asking whether you really consider abortion to be murder.

Things that are universally believed to be wrong, with no reson other than "the Bible (or some similar text) says so:"

Murder
Rape
Theft

That's "human nature says so", not the bible.
(We can also give a pretty good argument for those being wrong(or not wrong) if needed.)
The bible also says eating pork is wrong.
I don't think many people would consider pork eating to be universally wrong.

Is it? Taking the life of a common housefly unjustly is murder?
Must make your life really difficult to believe that.
Come on, Cabra I know you can do better than this for analogy.


Oh, it's living tissue. It's just not alive, as the definition of that word includes independend existence.

Being alive isn't defined at all by independent existence. If it were, then symbiotic organisms aren't alive. For that matter, neither are any humans on life-support.


I'd say it's a responsible way to handle the consequences. No dodging... dodging would be forcing the child on someone else.

Forcing the child on who? People who adopt babies take them with great joy and happiness. If anyone is advocating forcing the child on someone, it's you with the idea that pro-lifers are somehow directly responsible for that baby.

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php

I just googled and found this.

Of course the Bible doesn't mention abortion--it wasn't a concept at the time it was written. It does mention punishment for injuring a pregnant woman. It does forbid murder. But then, that's what this whole debate is about--dehumanizing the issue so that it's not murder.

Things that are universally believed to be wrong, with no reson other than "the Bible (or some similar text) says so:"

Murder
Rape
Theft

*lol
Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)? It's a rule that not only governs human society, but also functions for many social structures in the animal kingdom. And it pretty much covers all of the above.

It's nothing any text needs to point out. Those texts are simply fomulating observed behaviour.

To the second point: Impossible circumstance, and one that is unnecessary. Anything outside of the body is clearly not human life. When it is growing inside the womb as the direct result of the combination of sperm and egg, that is the debate at hand. Don't fight the hypothetical.

why would being outside of the womb lessen my personhood? the womb has fuckall to do with personhood. and a blastocyst is a direct result of the combination of sperm and egg.

how is my scenario impossible? certainly not logically so, nor physically. what's left?

Very clearly, the fetus isn't human according to the bible.

I fail to see how this supports your point. It says "if the fruit [ie, child] departs from the body" they shall surely be punished...

Why should they be punished if it was not human?

I think we may be talking about 2 different things here
I don't think so...



Get the terminology right. No CHILDREN are killed in an abortion. Get over it. It is a non-sentient embryo, blastocyst, zygote, etc. It has no brain, it cannot feel, and it is NOT the same as a viable fetus.
That is the very question being debated.


The fact of the matter is that no children are killed in an abortion. There is quite simply no child to be killed. I simply stated that the facts in the matter, that there is no child, that an embryo is not sentient, that it doesn't have a brain et c are not in dispute by anyone with some knowledge of what the terms mean and some medical knowledge.

I don't know what you're debating exactly. You can't seriously claim that an embryo is viable or that it is the same as a viable fetus or a child for that matter.

I doubt that he is, however the fact that you're avoiding the question is rather telling.

That's awesome.

It's an irrational question. It's setting up a scenario so extreme as to be effectively illogical. You really want me to evaluate the ethical dilemma of whether to save a child or a blastocyst? I mean, do I REALLY have to spell it out for you?

Yet you're trying to bait me into answering it. Is your point of view that shaky that this is what it takes to defend it?

I don't think so...



The fact of the matter is that no children are killed in an abortion. There is quite simply no child to be killed. I simply stated that the facts in the matter, that there is no child, that an embryo is not sentient, that it doesn't have a brain et c are not in dispute by anyone with some knowledge of what the terms mean and some medical knowledge.

I don't know what you're debating exactly. You can't seriously claim that an embryo is viable or that it is the same as a viable fetus or a child for that matter.

OK we are talking about the same thing. Good.

Going back to what I said before. I never claimed that fetus=fully formed and functioning human being.

What I'm saying is that it, being a human fetus, deserves a helluva lot more consideration and care than to just destroy it for the sake of convenience.

why would being outside of the womb lessen my personhood? the womb has fuckall to do with personhood. and a blastocyst is a direct result of the combination of sperm and egg.

how is my scenario impossible? certainly not logically so, nor physically. what's left?

A human being WILL NOT develop outside of the womb. It has never been done, and it never will be. And it is impossible because, quite simply, it will never happen. When I see blastocysts of human beings developing in petri dishes, come talk to me. Til then, you live in fantasy world of your own ignorant design.

I fail to see how this supports your point. It says "if the fruit [ie, child] departs from the body" they shall surely be punished...

Why should they be punished if it was not human?

Or at least important enough not to abort at will?

Yep that plague of blastocysts deaths in fires really requires some attention.

Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

Kind of like the relevance of this hypothetical, as I've stated before.

I mean, really.. are you honestly sitting around there pinning all your hopes for this debate on that?

firstly, my scenario is both logically and physically possible. hell, i bet something very much like it has actually occurred at least once somewhere.

secondly, hypothetical moral dilemmas are completely relevant to deciding between competing moral claims. in fact, they are pretty much the best way to do so. if someone makes a moral claim, they are committing themselves to its consequences. one of the consequences of the claim that blastocysts have personhood is that we should give them equal consideration with other persons.

are you just afraid of stating an answer to the dilemma because my suspicion is right; you would save the kid rather than the petri dishes?

*lol
Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)? It's a rule that not only governs human society, but also functions for many social structures in the animal kingdom. And it pretty much covers all of the above.

It's nothing any text needs to point out. Those texts are simply fomulating observed behaviour.

Human being do not instinctively follow this rule. Animals don't either, on any level.

Have you ever observed Chimpanzees in the wild? They follow none of those rules. They're supposed to be our closest genetic relations.

Human being do not instinctively follow this rule. Animals don't either, on any level.

Have you ever observed Chimpanzees in the wild? They follow none of those rules. They're supposed to be our closest genetic relations.

They do, as a group. Individuals might disobey the rule, resulting in punishment by the group. I suggest you observe chimps a bit closer next time.

A human being WILL NOT develop outside of the womb. It has never been done, and it never will be. And it is impossible because, quite simply, it will never happen. When I see blastocysts of human beings developing in petri dishes, come talk to me. Til then, you live in fantasy world of your own ignorant design.

"never will be" is a rather strong claim. i would not be nearly so sure if i were you. we are well on the way already, actually.

and you don't appear to be holding that "life begins at conception" here. i'm not sure what this position would be - "personhood comes from being in a womb at some point" maybe? which itself will have some interesting consequences when we actually are medically capable of growing humans in vats. i assume you wouldn't like the consequences of that - denying personhood to all of those people. maybe you'd be ok with that, but i doubt it. as i said, personhood has fuckall to do with wombs.

firstly, my scenario is both logically and physically possible. hell, i bet something very much like it has actually occurred at least once somewhere.

secondly, hypothetical moral dilemmas are completely relevant to deciding between competing moral claims. in fact, they are pretty much the best way to do so. if someone makes a moral claim, they are committing themselves to its consequences. one of the consequences of the claim that blastocysts have personhood is that we should give them equal consideration with other persons.

are you just afraid of stating an answer to the dilemma because my suspicion is right; you would save the kid rather than the petri dishes?

"You lose because you won't answer my irrational question."

This is not, as far as I know, an accepted debate or philosophical argument form.

Your analogy isn't as realistic as you think. I guess I will have to spell it out.

If a blastocyst is laying in a petri dish out on a table somewhere, it's probably dead already.

Where would it be? in a laboratory, presumably. If it's viable, then it's in some sort of containment device that I, as a software developer, would have not the slightest idea about. All I see is some 5 year old kid on the floor that needs saving. Don't know what the kid is doing here, but here he is.

Does that address the ethiocal issues you're trying to get at? No, that's stupid. I have a better idea. Why don't we just create an analogy that actually DOES happen in real life, shall we?

Suppose a pregnant woman finds out that if she carries the baby to term, she will not survive. Is it ethical then to abort? Yes. A developed human life supercedes a human fetus.

But please let's not pretend that somehow a person's lifestyle being disrupted by an unplanned pregnancy is somehow comparable to death.

Things that are universally believed to be wrong, with no reson other than "the Bible (or some similar text) says so:"

Murder
Rape
Theft

I'm an athiest and I believe they are wrong. Also, there are any number of socialogical and philosophical reasons, with no religious overtones at all, that state that murder, rape, theft or all of the above are unacceptable.

Can you honestly tell me that if you had never read the Bible, you would believe murder is okay?

P.S. Can we avoid the bible games and adress the issue of my view on abortion?

What I'm saying is that it, being a human fetus, deserves a helluva lot more consideration and care than to just destroy it for the sake of convenience.
So embryos are fair game then? Ok, good.

They do, as a group. Individuals might disobey the rule, resulting in punishment by the group. I suggest you observe chimps a bit closer next time.

Ah, an argument of the form "I don't think they do that so, because you disagree wi th me, you must not have observed them enough."

Chimps murder. If they kill a member of another group, that's a murder they get away with. They cannibalize too, by the way. If I go kill a Canadian, is that somehow not murder because he comes from a different social group than I do? Will I not still be punished?

That's awesome.

It's an irrational question. It's setting up a scenario so extreme as to be effectively illogical. You really want me to evaluate the ethical dilemma of whether to save a child or a blastocyst? I mean, do I REALLY have to spell it out for you?

Yet you're trying to bait me into answering it. Is your point of view that shaky that this is what it takes to defend it?
Well, no it is quite simple. If you believe that life begins at conception and that every object of conception should be saved, then you should attempt to save the many blastyoclasts from the fire first (well, if you believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). If you don't believe that the needs of the many outweight the needs of teh few then you might go rescue the little boy, maybe you like him better.

Ah, an argument of the form "I don't think they do that so, because you disagree wi th me, you must not have observed them enough."

Chimps murder. If they kill a member of another group, that's a murder they get away with. They cannibalize too, by the way. If I go kill a Canadian, is that somehow not murder because he comes from a different social group than I do? Will I not still be punished?

Nope, that's not murder. I believe it's called "warfare" in human society.

I'm an athiest and I believe they are wrong. Also, there are any number of socialogical and philosophical reasons, with no religious overtones at all, that state that murder, rape, theft or all of the above are unacceptable.

Can you honestly tell me that if you had never read the Bible, you would believe murder is okay?

P.S. Can we avoid the bible games and adress the issue of my view on abortion?

You believe murder is wrong because you were taught to believe it in a society that is founded on a set of values that proceed from those ancient texts.

No we can't avoid Biblical discussion since that's very close to the heart of those who disagree with abortion...

Oh wait, now I see why you want to leave it out.

Nope, that's not murder. I believe it's called "warfare" in human society.

So if I get into my car right now, and drive up through New York and into Canada, then randomly pick a Canadian and kill him, that's alright because it's warfare?

And yes, that's what I'm talking about with chimps. I know they have wars, but they also kill individually.

Suppose a pregnant woman finds out that if she carries the baby to term, she will not survive. Is it ethical then to abort? Yes. A developed human life supercedes a human fetus.

But please let's not pretend that somehow a person's lifestyle being disrupted by an unplanned pregnancy is somehow comparable to death.

So you do accept that in some hypothetical situations abortion is acceptable?

In that case, it's not a question of "Abortion is right or wrong" It's a question of at what point does the development of the child supersede the damage or risk to the mother. Both of these change depending on the circumstances

Hey guys it's been a blast but it's time for me to scoot. Thanks for the stimulating and much-more-civil-than-average debate :)

I'll try to jump back in later if it's still going.

You believe murder is wrong because you were taught to believe it in a society that is founded on a set of values that proceed from those ancient texts.

No we can't avoid Biblical discussion since that's very close to the heart of those who disagree with abortion...

Oh wait, now I see why you want to leave it out.

May I just point out that there are heaps of texts concerned with laws against murder, theft, rape, etc. dating from well before the bible emmerged?

That text may be close to your heart. But seeing as it simply places a fine on causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, can we agree that the doctor's fee for performing the abortion is enough to satisfy the religious requirements?

So you do accept that in some hypothetical situations abortion is acceptable?

In that case, it's not a question of "Abortion is right or wrong" It's a question of at what point does the development of the child supersede the damage or risk to the mother. Both of these change depending on the circumstances

Correct.

OK we are talking about the same thing. Good.

Going back to what I said before. I never claimed that fetus=fully formed and functioning human being.

What I'm saying is that it, being a human fetus, deserves a helluva lot more consideration and care than to just destroy it for the sake of convenience.

Since when is having your cervix dialated and a vacuum tube inserted CONVENIENT?

So if I get into my car right now, and drive up through New York and into Canada, then randomly pick a Canadian and kill him, that's alright because it's warfare?

And yes, that's what I'm talking about with chimps. I know they have wars, but they also kill individually.

So if the chimp from the first group killed the chimp from the second group, what do you think would happen to him if the first group got hold of him? Or if his own group handed him over to the other group?

That's what you get for not bringing along the family if you want to start a war.

If a blastocyst is laying in a petri dish out on a table somewhere, it's probably dead already.

no, it isn't. maybe the problem is that you don't know what a petri dish is?


ok, obviously for the hypothetical to work you'd need to know that there were multiple 'persons' on that petri dish over there and that you could pick them up and save them from the fire. and so we are assuming that you do have such knowledge. you can't wiggle your way out of this moral dilemma. it actually exists, and worse, has teeth.

You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.

Very good. Now consider this. The fetus has no way to breath or eat without the mother. Therefor the fetus is essentialy a parasite. Therefore the mother has the right to remove the parasite that is leeching off her.

Short, sweet, but gets the message across.

So if I get into my car right now, and drive up through New York and into Canada, then randomly pick a Canadian and kill him, that's alright because it's warfare?

And yes, that's what I'm talking about with chimps. I know they have wars, but they also kill individually.

I can't help feeling that, when we are discussing "Monkey Wars", we may have wandered a teensy weensy bit off topic ;)

I can't help feeling that, when we are discussing "Monkey Wars", we may have wandered a teensy weensy bit off topic ;)

Well, it seems his way of trying to prove the bible correct. ;)

Last time I checked when someone is unconcious the brain is still functioning.
Of course, if the conciousness is gone then we do not need to kill that individual. It is in fact what we call dead already.

Fetus begins development of brain at 3 weeks. So there's some brain activity from then on. Most abortions, I believe, is done after that.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

"never will be" is a rather strong claim. i would not be nearly so sure if i were you. we are well on the way already, actually.

and you don't appear to be holding that "life begins at conception" here. i'm not sure what this position would be - "personhood comes from being in a womb at some point" maybe? which itself will have some interesting consequences when we actually are medically capable of growing humans in vats. i assume you wouldn't like the consequences of that - denying personhood to all of those people. maybe you'd be ok with that, but i doubt it. as i said, personhood has fuckall to do with wombs.

Let me reiterate: It won't happen. Ever. A human being is only created through the combination of sperm and egg within the womb, development, and eventual birth. It doens't matter whether I'd be okay with people in vats--it ain'ts going to happen.

Let me reiterate: It won't happen. Ever. A human being is only created through the combination of sperm and egg within the womb, development, and eventual birth. It doens't matter whether I'd be okay with people in vats--it ain'ts going to happen.

Er... you are aware of the fact that it is already happening, right?

Let me reiterate: It won't happen. Ever. A human being is only created through the combination of sperm and egg within the womb, development, and eventual birth. It doens't matter whether I'd be okay with people in vats--it ain'ts going to happen.

Thats what they said with sheep. And it dids happen!

You still wriggle out of answering the question?

What logic? I have applied no 'logic' - I have simply asked a question.

If you are spotting logic here, it must be your own mind playing tricks on you.

Question - once again: Is the 'person' in the brain, or the body?

It was a rather silly question. Too hypothetical. Why would they remove someone's brain and spinal cord? If you are going to be *that* hypothetical, I need to know more. Is this thing happening in future when they can simply put the brain and spinal cord back in? Is this person an alien who maybe crashed to Earth and that's why they removed his brain and spinal cord? To study? Maybe this alien has some brains on his genitals as well?
Clarify...

Fetus begins development of brain at 3 weeks. So there's some brain activity from then on. Most abortions, I believe, is done after that.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

No, there isn't brain activity from then on. The brain is developing, but there are no brainwaves until about 26 weeks or so.

If you don't believe that the needs of the many outweight the needs of teh few then you might go rescue the little boy, maybe you like him better.

though then i'd just change the situation slightly so that the little boy would be a complete stranger too.

ultimately we'd get to a point where a person that held that 1) blastocysts are persons and 2) there isn't a moral obligation to save many rather than few, would have to make the choice purely on convenience (or they could not save either, which throws then into the total bastard category by pretty much all imaginable standards). and at that point, i'll put the petri dish just a few steps out of the way and the child on the other side of the room.

essentially, i'll rig the game so that anyone who really believes that blastocysts are persons will save the blastocysts and let the kindergartener burn to death. i strongly doubt that anyone will actually hold such a position though, and therefore that anyone actually thinks blastocysts have as full personhoods as kindergarteners.

essentially, i'll rig the game so that anyone who believes that blastocysts are persons will save the blastocysts and let the kindergartener burn to death.

Then what?

Ok, Nordligmark, thank you captain fucking obvious for making a blanket retarded statement.


Anyway... this abortion issue is impossible to debate for longer than about 5 minutes. Either you like it or you don't, and neither party is going to change their mind. It's pointless to argue something like this...I mean, what are you getting out of it other than self gratification? Everyone wants to let everyone else know how important their point of view is when in reality you're really just filling your own ears.

That being said, how is it any of anybody's business what someone else wants to do with their body/life ? No matter how you feel on the subject, what makes you think that you have any opinion in the matter? Leave it to a bunch of Americans to liberty up and assume that because they have 'freedom of speech' they have the right dictate others lives based on how they were reared.

Anyway, I agree with abortion. If I concieve on accident, married, in a relationship, single or whatever, and I can't wholly provide for the chlid in question, I will make the choice to terminate the pregnancy at the earliest possible time. Why would I want to give birth to a child that wouldn't have the proper chance at life? Why would I waste a human life on my poor decision? If you really care about the zygote in question, you will do what is necessary to give that child the best possible life. If that choice is no life vs. poverty and an unorthodox parenting situation then so be it. I will say that abortion is not birth control, and I do not agree with people who selfishly get multiple abortions because they're too dense to pay the fucking 30 dollars each month for the pill, or the 180 for an IUD (which may last up to ten years in some cases), the 9.99 for the pack of condoms at wal-mart, or just lacking common sense to NOT HAVE SEX if you're ovulating.

Thank god I live in a world where people are too stupid to not have babies. Accidents happen, but there's no reason to be careless.


Ahh...typical American...usual chantings of liberty and an attitude which takes a primitive economic system for granted.

In civilized countries, like Norway, if a mother is financially strained, she can apply for child welfare. With that they could have a decent life, considering healthcare and schools and pretty much lots of stuff are free. Sure, they may struggle a bit but they'll be fine.

Then what?

Then we win the argument, as the pro-life people have just admited they'd let someone die for the sake of A FEW CELLS.

I've never had an abortion. I hope to never be in a position to make one.

However, given my lifestyle, it would be irresponsable of me not to have an abortion if I found myself unexpectedly pregnant.

How about you give him/her to state care instead of murder?

Then we win the argument, as the pro-life people have just admited they'd let someone die for the sake of A FEW CELLS.

well, if they do openly claim those consequences as their own, then we'll call them monsters, but the argument won't be won. it actually only works because nobody really will say "yup, petri dish before kindergartener". it's a demonstration that they don't hold their stated position, as they would find its logical outcomes as monstrous as we do. therefore they are logically required to modify their position to better conform with their moral intuitions.

Then what?

then we find out if anyone on the entire planet actually does have a real moral intuiton that "life begins at conception" and that blastocysts are persons. i doubt the existence of such people.

They are both rights associated with meeting certain criteria.

Your logic is that, if a zygote might eventually meet all of the criteria to be considered a living human person, it should be considered one right now. This is logically equivalent to saying that a child should be considered an adult right now because he might one day be one. A young adult should be considered elderly right now because she may one day be elderly. All human beings should be considered dead right now because they will all be dead one day.


So we should never think about future to decide if certain criterias are met? Your house payment will finish next year so the bank gives you credit for car now. Does that mean we should let children vote? NO. Because those are seperate issues.
Similarly, allowing humans to live is a seperate issue from you collecting pentions. You are being ridiculous.

Er... you are aware of the fact that it is already happening, right?

don't confuse them with facts - they're already confused enough as it is by the concept of testing moral claims

No, there isn't brain activity from then on. The brain is developing, but there are no brainwaves until about 26 weeks or so.

Link?

Very good. Now consider this. The fetus has no way to breath or eat without the mother. Therefor the fetus is essentialy a parasite. Therefore the mother has the right to remove the parasite that is leeching off her.

Short, sweet, but gets the message across.

Yeah and parasites may grow into Kate Moss. :rolleyes:

Pro-abortion people and their analogies...LOL

How about you give him/her to state care instead of murder?
1. It's not murder.
2. I didn't mean that I wouldn't be able to take care of a kid once it's born, however, if I'm unexpectedly pregnant, chances are good that I'll have had several drinks during the time I was unaware of this pregnancy. Chances are also good that I haven't been eating well. And with my family history of spina bifida, poor diet and alcohol during pregnancy are likely to result in a kid that no one will want to adopt.

1. It's not murder.
2. I didn't mean that I wouldn't be able to take care of a kid once it's born, however, if I'm unexpectedly pregnant, chances are good that I'll have had several drinks during the time I was unaware of this pregnancy. Chances are also good that I haven't been eating well. And with my family history of spina bifida, poor diet and alcohol during pregnancy are likely to result in a kid that no one will want to adopt.

Ideally, we'd have a screening system to see if the baby is damaged in any way. I think this is either possible or close, technologically.

If the baby is healthy and there is no rape or incest or a threat to mother's life, abortion should be illegal. If you dont want it, just give it to state care.

Ideally, we'd have a screening system to see if the baby is damaged in any way. I think this is either possible or close, technologically.

If the baby is healthy and there is no rape or incest or a threat to mother's life, abortion should be illegal. If you dont want it, just give it to state care.
There's no screening test for spina bifida until the third trimester.

I don't know if there's a screening test for fetal alcohol syndrome.

There's no screening test for spina bifida until the third trimester.

I don't know if there's a screening test for fetal alcohol syndrome.

If there were both and the baby is healthy, would you abort?

Fetus begins development of brain at 3 weeks. So there's some brain activity from then on. Most abortions, I believe, is done after that.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

brain development does not equal brain activity.

If there were both and the baby is healthy, would you abort?
I would abort long before the test for spina bifida is doable. I can't afford a pregnancy at this point, let alone an infant.

If I was planning on getting pregnant and had the spina bifida test done, I'd abort it too.

Also, I really want to know what this state care you're referring to is. Other than the overcrowded foster care system I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah and parasites may grow into Kate Moss. :rolleyes:

Pro-abortion people and their analogies...LOL

The unborn DO bear a strong biological resemblance to parasites. This cannot be denied.

And for the last time, next to no one is pro-abortion. Get off it.

I would abort long before the test for spina bifida is doable. I can't afford a pregnancy at this point, let alone an infant.

If I was planning on getting pregnant and had the spina bifida test done, I'd abort it too.

Also, I really want to know what this state care you're referring to is. Other than the overcrowded foster care system I don't know what you're talking about.

If you arent going that low (abortion), why not this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch

If you arent going that low (abortion), why not this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch
I'm not abandoning my problem with someone else.

And perhaps you missed the part where I said that if I became pregnant now I'd abort it before tests were even available.

If you arent going that low (abortion), why not this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch

Do you have any clue how FUCKED foster care and the adoption system are?

Do you have any clue how FUCKED foster care and the adoption system are?

Maybe in USA.

I'm not abandoning my problem with someone else.

And perhaps you missed the part where I said that if I became pregnant now I'd abort it before tests were even available.

Good for you. :rolleyes:

Maybe in USA.

That's kind of the point....

Good for you. :rolleyes:
Why thank you.

That's kind of the point....

Your country does not interest me when I'm talking about abortion.

Ahh...typical American...usual chantings of liberty and an attitude which takes a primitive economic system for granted.

In civilized countries, like Norway

Typical NN, banging his gavel of Real Ultimate Supremacy.

First it's race.
Then it's your specific nationality.
Then the actual nation.
And it's economic system.
Of course, your intelligence (by your own words) is also superior to us primitive forum posters.

Everything about you is superior, NN, now why is that? Genes perhaps?

That's kind of the point....

not really. if the fuckedupitude of the foster system are going to be used in an argument, then someone can easily point out that there are other places where their foster system lacks said fuckedupitude. therefore it becomes and argument about foster care reforms.

Your country does not interest me when I'm talking about abortion.

Have you not seen our news? Abortion is one of several political "hot buttons" right now, and our Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs Wade has recently been IGNORED by South Dakota...

Not to mention a good number of generalites are from the US, and when bringing the legality issue into the picture, it's kind of IMPOSSIBLE to separate our country from the issue since our country kind of determines the laws we're speaking of...*shakes head* oi...

not really. if the fuckedupitude of the foster system are going to be used in an argument, then someone can easily point out that there are other places where their foster system lacks said fuckedupitude. therefore it becomes and argument about foster care reforms.

That would be a good argument, maybe better than this one...

Really? I'm assuming you've never heard of a little place called Iraq... you might be interested in their political model for the past few years (before we dropped bombs on it).

your one of those word twisters. thats not what i ment. you know what imean, i've said many mant times. people vote. the majority wins. the minority can stick it or leave. thats what civilised countries do.

You have yet to prove that 'a life' IS destroyed.

thats a pointless. there is something living, then it isnt.

Then what's this business with this guy claiming to live in the country with the highest standard of living (Sweden) and saying that abortions are illegal? Apparently some swedes are crazy they should perhaps invest in some better mental health facilities to take care of that lest they lose their top spot.

i'm not sweedish nor have i ever claimed to be.

your one of those word twisters. thats not what i ment. you know what imean, i've said many mant times. people vote. the majority wins. the minority can stick it or leave. thats what civilised countries do.

There's another option for the Minority. That's to fight back, and attempt to win back the real majority (In every country but the US, that's the moderates; in the U.S. it's an even split between moderates and conservatives). In "civilized" (never seen anyone who fit that mold yet) countries, we have a complex political process which is not so simple as "stick it or leave it".

don't confuse them with facts - they're already confused enough as it is by the concept of testing moral claims

Facts? I see no "facts" as such. Show me human beings grown in petri dishes. Show me one example of a human produced outside of the womb. We are but human. We can't overcome our ego enough to recreate ourselves through our pathetic science.

Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.

His inference was relative to an individual species; In other words, it is a wildebeasts prerogative to survive, and it is a lion's prerogative to survive, but as they are separate species, this does not conflict with the other, they merely compete for survival.

An unborn child is not a different species, nor is it's life guaranteed to harm it's mothers survival, so this logic of yours is flawed.

So if you go to a tropical country fully knowing that you could contract a parasite by drinking the water. And you drink the water and contract a parasite, you lose all right to medical treatment for your parasite?

A human being is not a parasite. Murdering your child is not "Treatment". Being pregnant is not an illness that you need to be cured of. Have you ever even seen a child, for God's sake? How can someone who claims to be a member of humanity make a statement like this?

Since this is probably the 9 billionth topic on abortion, I'm not going to bother reading through it, but one thing occured to me that should be fairly acceptable to both sides.

Since the anti-choicers are all hot and bothered about this sort of thing, why not start funding towards the development of artificial wombs? And adopt any unwanted offspring?

Of course, I predict that 90% or more of those who argue against abortion would balk at the idea of taking added burdens to prove their convictions. So it's a moot point anyway. Hypocrites the lot of them.

Yes, and if I let a friend into my house I accept the possible outcome that he may bring one of his friends around and I accept the consequences of having to kick him the fuck out of my house.

Is it right, however, to slit his friend's throat, and dump the body in a trash-can? What if evicting this unwanted guest will cause him to die? Would the government say it was alright because it was your house, or would it be voluntary manslaughter?

Seriously, if you want to invent a procedure to let me take my unwanted embryo out of my uterus and gestate it in a tank to be adopted by a childless couple then by all means do so, I'm all for passing on my genes with minimal effort. However, as it is, it's my uterus this thing is occupying (hypothetically of course) and I get to choose whether I want it there or not.

Once again, consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy.


I am afraid this is simply not true. Why should you be allowed to commit murder because you don't like the person, and don't think he or she should exist? If you were married and your spouse lost their legs, would you kill them because they were an inconvenient burden?

My premise is thus: The individual is in certain cases subjected to non-optional responsibility(ies); Next, pregnancy is the result of a consensual action, but Responsibility for consensual actions is not reliant on consensus; Thus, consent to sex is fine and dandy, but you don't get to pick and choose what responsibilities you consent to, you have those responsibilities regardless of whether you want them or not.

Take a born child, for instance. You have some options, like putting him or her up for adoption, but it is your responsibility to make sure that he or she is fed and cared for as long as they are in your custody, whether you want to or not, because society and it's strong right arm the government say that it is the child's right to exist, and you are responsible for maintaining that existence.

So, we have established: A) Responsibility is non-Negotiable; B) Responsibility can result from a consensual action, but does not require consensus to be applicable to an individual; C) Society at large has the right to dictate that one own up to one's responsibility; D) The Rights of Individuals incapable of caring for themselves can infringe on the rights of other Individuals.

One might say that this establishes that individual rights ARE infringable, and that as such an individual Mother may infringe on her child's Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness by getting him or her aborted; BUT, whereas the infringement of one's Right to Happiness by enforced responsibility for the care of minors does NOT result in anyone's death, the former example of infringing the rights of the individual by infringing their Right to Life to ensure the continuance of one's own Right to Happiness DOES result in the end of a life, and is therefore on a different level of infringement.

This implies that certain Rights of the individual top or outweigh others. The Right to Life topping all, the Right to Liberty topping Happiness. It might make one happy to kill all homosexuals, but this infringes their Right to Life. Therefore, their Right to Life tops your Right to Happiness. It might make one happy to throw anyone who wears short skirts in prison, but this infringes their Right to Liberty. Their Right to Liberty tops your Right to Happiness.

Likewise, it makes you Happy to have an abortion, but a born or unborn Minor's Right to Life tops your Right to Happiness.


(note: for the sake of clarity, this is what is meant above by the word "Responsibility":
re‧spon‧si‧bil‧i‧ty  /rɪˌspɒnsəˈbɪlɪti/ [ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee]
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or fact of being responsible.
2. an instance of being responsible

re·spon·si·ble (r-spns-bl)
responsible, answerable, liable, accountable, amenable
These adjectives share the meaning obliged to answer, as for one's actions, to an authority that may impose a penalty for failure.)

A human being is not a parasite.

Then explain the difference between an unwanted embryo and a parasite, explaining why they should be treated differently. Go into detail -no "it's obvious!"or "it's human !".
Explain what makes an embryo human. Explain why being human is special.

Have you ever even seen a child, for God's sake?
I have. I also have seen zygotes, embryos and different stages of fetus development.
Have you ?
If so - does an embryo look human to you ?

Have you not seen our news? Abortion is one of several political "hot buttons" right now, and our Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs Wade has recently been IGNORED by South Dakota...

Not to mention a good number of generalites are from the US, and when bringing the legality issue into the picture, it's kind of IMPOSSIBLE to separate our country from the issue since our country kind of determines the laws we're speaking of...*shakes head* oi...

No, I havent seen your news.

Then explain the difference between an unwanted embryo and a parasite, explaining why they should be treated differently. Go into detail -no "it's obvious!"or "it's human !".
Explain what makes an embryo human. Explain why being human is special.


Because parasites stay as parasites and embryos... Well, you cant be that ignorant.


I have. I also have seen zygotes, embryos and different stages of fetus development.
Have you ?
If so - does an embryo look human to you ?

Now, human "looks" can be very subjective.

so does anyone want to say that in the burning building they would save the petri dish before the kindergartener? come on, step right up and defend the personhood of blastocyst-americans!

Okay, I'll make an easy one for you: Instead of a blastocyst, it's a 8 year old boy with a broken leg. Instead of a kindergartener, it's a sixteen year old girl who has been knocked unconscious by falling debris.

Now choose.

You can only save one.

In your example, you seek to derive an answer that would amount to someone saying that a blastocyst is more important than a kindergartner. In doing so, you equate and thus assume that each are human in their own right. Thus, it is identical to choosing between two people.

But of course, You won't admit that you're proposal is ludicrous. You'll say the blastocyst isn't human and deride the person for choosing it; or, if they choose the kindergartener, you will claim that they have reneged on their previous position that a blastocyst is just as human. But you are wrong; no such distinction needs to be made. Choosing a blastocyst over a kindegartener, or vice verse, is the same as choosing between an 8 year old boy with a broken leg and a 16 year old unconscious girl, or any pair of people. So congratulations. You defeated your own argument.

You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.
Please explain how abortion takes away rights to reproduce...

Humans have rights because they're intelligent.
Fetuses are not intelligent.
Fetuses are not required to be given rights.

Short, sweet, gets my message across.

Then explain the difference between an unwanted embryo and a parasite, explaining why they should be treated differently. Go into detail -no "it's obvious!"or "it's human !".
Explain what makes an embryo human. Explain why being human is special.

Uhhh... Are you honestly asking me why preserving a full-grown human being's life is "Special" compared to an insect? I suppose that's a good question. All I can say is because a Human is the same species as us, and as animal it should be, if we are sane, in our instincts for self preservation.

But, if a human is not special compared to an insect, surely you would not be against ethnic cleansing, eugenically-enforced euthanasia, religious persecution, the butchery of homosexuals etc? If you are against these things, you inherently must admit that there is a reason for being against these things, why is it different than an ant-exterminator? Why is being human special?


I have. I also have seen zygotes, embryos and different stages of fetus development.
Have you ?
If so - does an embryo look human to you ?

An embryo is going to be human, as long as it is not prematurely removed - the same cannot be said of a non-human parasite, nor can it be said of sperm or ovaries on their own(both of which are naturally expelled - unlike embryos).

I'm not going to use names, I'll substitue similar ones.

I went to college with Danielle. Danielle's friend Mary found out she was pregnant. She didn't think she could handle it, so she planned to have an abortion.

Her family found out, and with her church, coerced her into not having the abortion.

Eventually, a liitle boy I shall call Darren was born.

Darren is 9, now. If he is still alive. I haven't seen him since he was 4, when his mother hanged herself.

She was right - she really couldn't handle it.

Wow, that's really terrible. Anyone dumb enough to die in a back-alley abortion, or from coat-hanger abortions, or from killing themselves for no apparent reason when they have a kid to look out for, deserved to die. Good riddance, the human gene pool will thank them for getting rid of their own defective stock.

And by the way, yes she should have put him up for adoption.

Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.
What, you think there's nothing wrong with condemning someone to die just because people are too selfish to voluntarily relinquish their organs?

Your right to live does not trump...
The right to live trumps everything.

I'm suprised we're still debating this, without answering one of the fundamental question. When does life begin? Once we establish this, then we can debate the morality of abortions.
There's no point in debating that. Not only is certainty impossible, but the prevention of life that certainly will soon exist is the same as killing it.

If I give permission for my friend Bob to come in my house and I come home one day to find that he has Joe in the back door, I have every right to kick Joe out of my house.
Yes, but you don't have a right to kill Joe.

Consent to sex is not consent to remain pregnant.
This is why we need education. I get the feeling that there are still some people who fail to see the direct connection to (unprotected) sex and pregnancy.

So if you go to a tropical country fully knowing that you could contract a parasite by drinking the water. And you drink the water and contract a parasite, you lose all right to medical treatment for your parasite?
The difference between an embryo, or foetus, and a water parasite is obvious.

What, you think there's nothing wrong with condemning someTHING to die just because people are too selfish to voluntarily relinquish their organs?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

fetus=/= sentient

fetus=/= person

fetus= PARASITE

I'm really shocked about some arguments here - and I miss some important aspect.

Does anybody think of women who made an abortion? It is not like a normal operation, it is much emotional stress.

My mother had a friend, which had an abortian. And my mother told me, that her friend had to visit every shop with baby stuff she saw. She had a severe psychologic damage after her abortion.

And I have read about abortions of heavily disabled embryos (With things like trisomy 9) One woman said that she didn't want to see the dead embryo - she couldn't stand the look.

In some cases, abortion is necessary or an option to think about. (rape, sever disabled childs, high risk for the mother, etc.) But it shouldn't be so easy like removing the appendix, because the potential psychological damage can be huge. If a pregnant woman really don't want to have a baby, she should think about an adoption after birth first.

But outlawing abortions wouldn't be good either. Clinics doing such abortions need surveillance like every other kind of clinic. Abortions souldn't be done illegaly. This could endanger the life of many women who want an abortion even illegaly.

Okay, I'll make an easy one for you: Instead of a blastocyst, it's a 8 year old boy with a broken leg. Instead of a kindergartener, it's a sixteen year old girl who has been knocked unconscious by falling debris.

Now choose.

You can only save one.

whichever is closest or otherwise most likely for me to be able to save. but you seem to have missed the point of my example...

In your example, you seek to derive an answer that would amount to someone saying that a blastocyst is more important than a kindergartner. In doing so, you equate and thus assume that each are human in their own right. Thus, it is identical to choosing between two people.

But of course, You won't admit that you're proposal is ludicrous. You'll say the blastocyst isn't human and deride the person for choosing it; or, if they choose the kindergartener, you will claim that they have reneged on their previous position that a blastocyst is just as human. But you are wrong; no such distinction needs to be made. Choosing a blastocyst over a kindegartener, or vice verse, is the same as choosing between an 8 year old boy with a broken leg and a 16 year old unconscious girl, or any pair of people. So congratulations. You defeated your own argument.

ah, but you see it was two blastocyst-americans on the petri dish. thus it was a choice between saving one person or two. and, of course, i can modify the setup to make it even more stark - blastocyst-americans are quite small, so we could have hundreds or even thousands in a conveniently grabable stack of petri dishes. so it's either save one person or save thousands of persons.

choose.

I also specified (in other posts) that it was relevant that the fetus is that of a human. Actually, I believe I was refering to a blastocyst in that particular one, but meh.


Which is why I also pointed out that just being 'human' tissue is no big deal.


I said a lot more than just comparing a parasite to a leech.


Yep, you sure did. However, you also argued that the relationship is not parasitic, which means you don't understand what 'parasitic' means.


If the pro-life folks are right, and it really is murder to kill one, then what merit would that have, exactly?


I don't believe there are enough 'pro-life' people to make that term worth using. Many of the same people that call themselves 'pro-life' become feircely indifferent to the continuation of that 'life' beyond the uterus, and even ebmrace termination of 'life' for certain criminal acts.

But, regardless of the appropraiteness of the propaganda moniker... it might make all the difference. I don't believe our medical system currently allows me to have you tortured, just because it might help me feel better, does it?


You mean actions like having sex?

Indeed. Like it or not, 'abortion' IS 'taking responsibility' for a possible repurcussion of certain sex acts.

I'm a little dubious, but curious nonetheless. Where in the Bible does it display acceptability of abortion?

Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

If a woman 'loses' her 'child', the protagonist is only as guilty as the 'husband' and 'judges' determine.

Thus - if the law allows abortion, and if the 'mother' is either unmarried, or the husband does not object, there is no 'sin' in causing abortion.

Murder is the taking of a life unjustly. That's universal.


No - it really isn't. Think about it - what YOU consider 'just' might not match what I consider 'just'... which is why the 'law of the land' is a salient factor in the assessment of whether a thing is 'murder'.

Your 'definition' also fails to allow that the 'life' unjustly taken be human.

Which is why we stick to 'legal' definitions - under which, 'murder' is the illegal taking of human life, by another human (or humans).

And in so doing, dodging the consequences.

Not dodging, just applying a different form of 'dealing with it' than you (personally) would embrace.

Yep that plague of blastocysts deaths in fires really requires some attention.

Oh, wait, it doesn't exist.

Kind of like the relevance of this hypothetical, as I've stated before.

I mean, really.. are you honestly sitting around there pinning all your hopes for this debate on that?

In other words, you can't answer the question?

To the second point: Impossible circumstance, and one that is unnecessary. Anything outside of the body is clearly not human life. When it is growing inside the womb as the direct result of the combination of sperm and egg, that is the debate at hand. Don't fight the hypothetical.

To the first: The Blessed Virgin was indeed a virgin. She was also impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Abstinence is still 100% effective birth control, as far as humans are concerned. If God says he wants you pregnant, well then you don't have a choice--but that is an exceptional circumstance, the only circumstance, and not the rule.

Parthenogensis?

Things that are universally believed to be wrong, with no reson other than "the Bible (or some similar text) says so:"

Murder
Rape
Theft

Prove it.

I can think (off the top of my head) of instances in which murder, rape and theft are all allowed by cultures.

Hell, even in the bible I can find examples of murder, rape and theft that are considered 'good' acts.

Of course the Bible doesn't mention abortion--it wasn't a concept at the time it was written. It does mention punishment for injuring a pregnant woman. It does forbid murder. But then, that's what this whole debate is about--dehumanizing the issue so that it's not murder.

Actually, many cultures already practised abortion at that point - usually by ingestion of 'abortifactant' plants.

The insistence that one person should be able to govern that process FOR another, however... THAT is pretty new.

I fail to see how this supports your point. It says "if the fruit [ie, child] departs from the body" they shall surely be punished...

Why should they be punished if it was not human?

It doesn't say what you say it says....

In other words, you can't answer the question?

i think it's fairly clear at this point that those trying to weasel out of my moral dilemma know that they will come down on the sane side which says that blastocysts and kindergarteners are not of equal moral worth, and just don't want to admit it. which is probably wise, because i can use the same general setup to demonstrate that they don't value blastocysts at even 1/10000 of an actual person. and i can do similarly for all stages of human development right up to the point where the real disagreements kick in - at viability or the like. and even there it's not clear cut. my moral intuitions say one kindergartener outweighs two or three infants, for example.

Fetus begins development of brain at 3 weeks. So there's some brain activity from then on. Most abortions, I believe, is done after that.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Nice work.

Except - you totally failed to read anything on the source you provided.

First - I have to point out - formation of tissue is not the same as tissue being functional.

Second - I have to point out - your own source clearly states that relex actions and 'startle' reactions are artifacts of the 24th week. The formation of a 'reflex arc' is about the simplest form of 'brain activity'... it is a straightforward connectivity, and MUST precede more complex activity. If it doesn't start until week 24, 'brain activity' can't be starting in week 3.


By the way - I disagree with your source - other medical sites I have seen show some coherent 'reflex' arc type reactions as early as week 20 through to week 22. I think the site you provide is erring on the side of caution, by picking a date at which the MAJORITY of pregnancies will have generated such a result.

It was a rather silly question. Too hypothetical. Why would they remove someone's brain and spinal cord? If you are going to be *that* hypothetical, I need to know more. Is this thing happening in future when they can simply put the brain and spinal cord back in? Is this person an alien who maybe crashed to Earth and that's why they removed his brain and spinal cord? To study? Maybe this alien has some brains on his genitals as well?
Clarify...

I already gave an example that clarifies - the medical condition in which a 'child' is born with no brain - literally, the spinal cord nexus never forms properly, and the 'baby' is born with an open-topped head and no brain tissue.

I provided the option for the scenario to allow for the brain to have been transplanted into another body, so that we could determine (definitively) whether the 'person' would exist in the brain, if you moved it to another body.

But - just answer the 'empty' one first, if you feel better about it.

How about you give him/her to state care instead of murder?

You have yet to prove the foetus IS 'a human life'. Legality is debatable.

Thus, the use of the phrase 'murder' is errant.

It is also an 'appeal to emotion', and thus, not a 'logical' debate tactic.

So we should never think about future to decide if certain criterias are met? Your house payment will finish next year so the bank gives you credit for car now. Does that mean we should let children vote? NO. Because those are seperate issues.
Similarly, allowing humans to live is a seperate issue from you collecting pentions. You are being ridiculous.

No - quite the contrary.

What is being shown is that the 'argument from potential' is a plea to 'special exception'... and insupportable in any circumstance except (you argue) this one.

Your country does not interest me when I'm talking about abortion.

Strangely, many people might feel the same about your political/religious bias, when it comes to THEIR right to abortion, no?

your one of those word twisters. thats not what i ment. you know what imean, i've said many mant times. people vote. the majority wins. the minority can stick it or leave. thats what civilised countries do.

It's not a matter of twisting words. You said a minority can't dominate a majority.

You were utterly wrong, as I showed with one real world example, straight off the top of my head.

Another perfect example would have been the US elections of 2000, in which not EVERY citizen voted, and more of those that DID vote, voted for Gore than Bush - but the electoral system relies on a different 'measure' than actual number of votes cast.

Thus - a majority was, once again, dominated by a minority.

thats a pointless. there is something living, then it isnt.

Cancer is living. It isn't 'a life'.

If you can't see that 'living' and 'a life' are different, you might not be ready for this type of debate.

A human being is not a parasite. Murdering your child is not "Treatment". Being pregnant is not an illness that you need to be cured of.

A foetus IS parasitic.. even if you think it is really cute. Cute or no, it is a parasite.

Abortion is not 'murder', until a foetus can be clearly established to be 'a human life', and there can be precedence shown that it is 'illegal' to dismantle it.

Being pregnant is not an illness, but it IS a 'condition'.

Could you be more wrong?


Have you ever even seen a child, for God's sake? How can someone who claims to be a member of humanity make a statement like this?

Because some 'members of humanity' are not using 'appeals to emotion' as the sole basis of their argument?

Wow, that's really terrible. Anyone dumb enough to die in a back-alley abortion, or from coat-hanger abortions, or from killing themselves for no apparent reason when they have a kid to look out for, deserved to die. Good riddance, the human gene pool will thank them for getting rid of their own defective stock.

And by the way, yes she should have put him up for adoption.

I'll pretend you were civilised enough to make an argument WORTH responding to, instead of this hate-filled vitriol.

The right to live trumps everything.


You miss the point - the quote you were responding to said 'your right'.

Do you believe MY right to live trumps yours? Would you give up your life, right now, to save me?

Please explain how abortion takes away rights to reproduce...

Humans have rights because they're intelligent.
Fetuses are not intelligent.
Fetuses are not required to be given rights.

Short, sweet, gets my message across.

there are alot of people in this planet who are not intelligent. plan on going around and killing them?

It's not a matter of twisting words. You said a minority can't dominate a majority.

You were utterly wrong, as I showed with one real world example, straight off the top of my head.

Another perfect example would have been the US elections of 2000, in which not EVERY citizen voted, and more of those that DID vote, voted for Gore than Bush - but the electoral system relies on a different 'measure' than actual number of votes cast.

Thus - a majority was, once again, dominated by a minority.

people frequently say "cannot do this", when they mean "you cannot do this and be in the right". i am well aware that at times a minority has dictated over a majority. would you agree they should not? or does voting mean nothing to you?

Cancer is living. It isn't 'a life'.

If you can't see that 'living' and 'a life' are different, you might not be ready for this type of debate.

again i am not cancer. i'm only concernd humans and living human cells that eventually become human.

You miss the point - the quote you were responding to said 'your right'.

Do you believe MY right to live trumps yours? Would you give up your life, right now, to save me?

people do give thier lives to save others. there are at least a few people in the world that are not selfish.

I'll pretend you were civilised enough to make an argument WORTH responding to, instead of this hate-filled vitriol.

I'll not be lectured on being civilized by someone who considers unborn children non-Human Parasites. Doesn't a Parasite by definition have to be from a different species than the creature to which it is attached?

again i am not cancer. i'm only concernd humans and living human cells that eventually become human.

And before anyone says so, Sperm and Ovaries cannot become humans without being combined; If you leave them alone they wont grow into babies, an embryo will.

I'll not be lectured on being civilized by someone who considers unborn children non-Human Parasites. Doesn't a Parasite by definition have to be from a different species than the creature to which it is attached?

i'm waiting for his amazing responce.

And before anyone says so, Sperm and Ovaries cannot become humans without being combined; If you leave them alone they wont grow into babies, an embryo will.

true true. sperm dies within 3 days anyway.

there are alot of people in this planet who are not intelligent. plan on going around and killing them?
Yes, I do firmly believe that those people who are as unintelligent as a fetus (i.e. in a vegetative state) should have the right to be killed by their guardians if they so wish.

Oh, and the parasite thing... no, there's no barriers on same-species parasites.
par·a·site (pr-st) Pronunciation Key
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.
Explain how a fetus somehow is excluded from that definition.

A foetus IS parasitic.. even if you think it is really cute. Cute or no, it is a parasite.

par‧a‧site  /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-sahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite)

Are you saying a Human Fetus is a member of another species?

Abortion is not 'murder', until a foetus can be clearly established to be 'a human life', and there can be precedence shown that it is 'illegal' to dismantle it.


There is plenty of precedence both in America and Europe, because before the last century it was criminal to give or receive abortions.

As for establishing whether or not it is a human life, you can't any easier establish that it is not a human life, and since we are potentially dealing with a human life, better not to take chances, no?

Being pregnant is not an illness, but it IS a 'condition'.

Could you be more wrong?

Evidently, yes, yes I could.



Because some 'members of humanity' are not using 'appeals to emotion' as the sole basis of their argument?

Appeals to emotion like talking about their College roommate's friend who hung herself because she had a baby?

*snickers* at ^ post
It looks like you got that from Dictionary.com too, so I apologise if I'm wrong, but there were six definitions for parasite on that page from different sources and that was the only one which said it was of a different species.

*snickers* at ^ post
It looks like you got that from Dictionary.com too, so I apologise if I'm wrong, but there were six definitions for parasite on that page from different sources and that was the only one which said it was of a different species.

so you regard your self as post-parasite?

Yes, I do firmly believe that those people who are as unintelligent as a fetus (i.e. in a vegetative state) should have the right to be killed by their guardians if they so wish.

Oh, and the parasite thing... no, there's no barriers on same-species parasites.

Explain how a fetus somehow is excluded from that definition.

so murder homeless people? people on welfare? all children in general? handicapped? married women who dont work?

so murder homeless people? people on welfare? all children in general? handicapped? married women who dont work?
Nowhere did I suggest that we should murder parasites. Just that saying that 'a fetus is a parasite' is a true statement.

[teh edit]
Well, I don't really think about it, but I suppose I am a post-parasite. So what?

Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

If a woman 'loses' her 'child', the protagonist is only as guilty as the 'husband' and 'judges' determine.

Thus - if the law allows abortion, and if the 'mother' is either unmarried, or the husband does not object, there is no 'sin' in causing abortion.

He is still punished; the degree of punishment is what varies according to the judges and the husband. Thus, there is still sin in abortion--the degree of a penance is to be determined by the judges and with the consent of the husband.

Parthenogensis?

Impossible in humans.

whichever is closest or otherwise most likely for me to be able to save. but you seem to have missed the point of my example...



ah, but you see it was two blastocyst-americans on the petri dish. thus it was a choice between saving one person or two. and, of course, i can modify the setup to make it even more stark - blastocyst-americans are quite small, so we could have hundreds or even thousands in a conveniently grabable stack of petri dishes. so it's either save one person or save thousands of persons.

choose.

How can I? Your argument is flawed from conception. But, as you insist, I would go after the kindergartener. Especially considering that the blastocysts will not grow into human beings (being in a petri dish and all).

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.

Using your logic (and I use the word very loosely) every woman in the world is obligated to sleep with me; if they didn't then they'd be 'screwing one of the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe' through their refusal to screw. Therefore we should legalise rape.

Honestly, I've read a lot of nonsense from the anti-choicers but even by their standards this is moronic.

Honestly, I've read a lot of nonsense from the anti-choicers but even by their standards this is moronic.

Thats more Dawinian theory, IE that to survive is to reproduce.

The strongest argument against abortion is "the sanctity of life." Which is bullshit, because the same people spouting it usually support the death penalty. They say "well, some folks need killing." And they are goddamn right.
A woman gets to decide whether she gets an abortion or not, and it's none of your business why unless you got her pregnant. (And even then, it's a tough argument.)
For those who oppose both the death penalty and abortion, I suppose you've never met someone whose mother tried a DIY abortion. I have. And after the baby was born, deformed and brain damaged from the poisons her mother ingested, her mother tried to kill her again. And again. Despite this, the child grew up. When I met her, she was a young adult, and had 3-5 more years to live before her heart would finally give out. She was mentally and physically disabled, but smart enough to understand what her mother had done and why. Most painfully, she also understood why people avoided looking at her. But she forgave her mother and didn't blame her for her condition. She blamed abortion being illegal.
Even an idiot can see that making abortion illegal results in tragedy.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

fetus=/= sentient

fetus=/= person

fetus= PARASITE

An organism that is intimately associated with and metabolically dependent on another living organism (the host) for completion of its life cycle, and which is typically detrimental to the host.
biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm

Hmmm...life cycle of fetus...I guess that goes on until a white haired person dies, usually. I'm not even talking about other definitions:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11902534&postcount=490