NationStates Jolt Archive

Under the law, citizens cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against suspected threats to themselves in their houses - for example (and primarily), intruders.

Gee, I don't see a darn thing in there about mowing down people crossing your lawn!

pwned? right!

Well, okay... let' take the rape example first. This is an arguable case... should we allow abortion in case of rape? I'll side with the pro-choicers there, because it was not the choice of the woman to engage in a practice she knew caused pregnancy. Birth control is not 100%, and anyone who uses it, should know that and be prepared for the consequences.
Ok, so let me get this straight. Women are allowed to have abortions if they didn't enjoy the sex?

The 'broken leg' red herring is not relevant, but again, nice diversionary tactic!
No, we're talking about denying medical treatment to individuals, a skiier should know the risks and be willing to suffer a permanent limp from a bone that doesn't set properly, clearly.

and you should be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_My_Day_law
Haha. Best name for a law. Ever.

So?

Well, if you wanted to lose some weight, would you purposely put a parasite into your body, such as a tapeworm?

Gee, I don't see a darn thing in there about mowing down people crossing your lawn!

pwned? right!
You see someone hop your fence, you don't know if they're armed and coming towards your house, so you shoot them before they get the chance.

1) I do not have a homeless shelter in my home, but I do financially contribute to and contribute my labor to homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other corporal works of mercy. And if there were a tornado, hurricane, or other natural disaster raging outside my house, and event which has yet to occur where I live, I would allow people to weather in my basement until it had passed.

2) Even if the above were not true, and I never had helped another soul in my life, that would not invalidate my argument.

You have not sacrificed even half of what you stated women must sacrifice in order to preserve the lives of other people. Thereby, you are not putting money where your mouth is.

Thereby, your argument is invalid. You do not "walk the talk" so to speak.

As such, you have no argument. It is as valid as a butcher's analysis of fifth and sixth generation integrated circuitry.

Gee, I don't see a darn thing in there about mowing down people crossing your lawn!

pwned? right!

Actually it has been upheld in my state that if they are on your property without your permission that they constitute a threat and you can shoot them. You have to prove you were threatened, but when it's you and some dead guy, and dead guys don't talk........

I have been told by many a police officer, "shoot them before they step off the curb, make sure they are on your land".

medical treatment =/= abortion.
And oddly enough abortion is a medical treatment. It cures pregnancies.

Science doesn't explain things in stone, science is constantly changing and old ideas are tossed out and replaced by new ones. So, saying that something IS, because of science, can be debated.

You are confusing "science" with "scientific theory". Science does indeed provide us with universal laws of physics and things that are constant and undeniable facts of life. Biology dictates that a human embryo is human life, it can't be anything other than this, just like a pine tree can't be a fish. You can certainly call a pine tree a fish, and you can challenge science and biology, but it doesn't mean you have a viable argument or point.

I have been told by many a police officer, "shoot them before they step off the curb, make sure they are on your land".
What if they fall over off your property when they die? Are you legally boned then? Oh, or if you shoot them in such a way that they don't die right away and can drag themselves off your property before dying?

Well, if you wanted to lose some weight, would you purposely put a parasite into your body, such as a tapeworm?

Ya know..all I said was that I got some usefulness out of my "parasite".

And as for your little comparison there kid..if I were to purposefully put a parasite (aka..fetus) in my body..then well there would be no argument about abortion now would there be? As I would WANT it there.

It was a joke. Lighten up.:rolleyes:

You are confusing "science" with "scientific theory".
No he's not.

Science does indeed provide us with universal laws of physics and things that are constant and undeniable facts of life.
No it doesn't. Tell Newton that laws of physics don't change.

Biology dictates that a human embryo is human life,
In a way... it's human life, but not a human life. My toe is human life.

So biology dictates that a human embryo is human life, but that it is not a human life. So your point is non-existant.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Women are allowed to have abortions if they didn't enjoy the sex?


No, we're talking about denying medical treatment to individuals, a skiier should know the risks and be willing to suffer a permanent limp from a bone that doesn't set properly, clearly.

Has nothing to do with the "enjoyment" of the sex. It has to do with personal responsibility of chosing to have sex.

A skiier breaking their leg has nothing to do with aborting a living human fetus. Setting a broken leg is not equivalent in any regard, to performing an abortion and terminating human life. Find another analogy, because that red herring is stinking up the place!

You are confusing "science" with "scientific theory". Science does indeed provide us with universal laws of physics and things that are constant and undeniable facts of life. Biology dictates that a human embryo is human life, it can't be anything other than this, just like a pine tree can't be a fish. You can certainly call a pine tree a fish, and you can challenge science and biology, but it doesn't mean you have a viable argument or point.

No, none of it is proven. Science is a way of explaining the world around us, and we don't know anything for sure. There are things we've tested, things that work consistently, but again, nothing is set in stone.

It's not about sin, a unborn baby is born perfect with out sin. Abortion goes against the Plan of Christ, to be sent here for a mortal life and to learn to come unto him, and to be challanged and tested. It's the plan we all chose, it's robbing the child of that choice. Besides Earth isn't all about suffering. Life is full of ups and downs. Triumphs and tradgedies alike.

Bah.

If you wish to take the biblical view that killing those "perfect and without sin" babies is reprehensible to God, then ask youself how many pregnant women he killed in the Great Flood? How many in various other plagues and pestilences that He visited on various peoples?

Yeah, I know, he's just a selfish deity who can't stand others following His lead.

Typical parental hypocritical BS of "do as I say, not as I do."

Personally, I've always been against the notion of aborting any child that I sire (which would be rather a miraculous occassion post-vasectomy these days). IF I had ever knocked up a girl and she didn't want the baby, I'd have let her off the hook for parenthood and offered myself as sole custodial parent and even complete anonymity should she be willing to carry the child to term and then disapear. Or come to any other possible arrangement to avoid terminating the pregnancy. However I also have always recognized that, in the end, it is the woman who has to make that decision to risk her own life and health ... or not. All I could offer are options.

However, what I certainly don't feel qualified to do is to make that decision for everyone else. Not everyone is capable to be a parent. Not everyone is in good enough health to carry a baby to term without great personal risk. Not everyone got pregnant due to consentual activities. Not everyone is mentally capable of having understood the ramifications of their actions. And early testing can demonstrate that a fetus is damaged beyond hope of long or happy life, and that forcing parents to carry this child to term would cause undue hardship upon their entire family due to medical expenses in an already lost cause.


In other words, I recognize that I lack the ability to judge the position of others when faced with this decision. So I leave the decision to those who know it best. Themselves.

Preaching disingenuous moral absolutes simply has no place in this discussion as far as I am concerned.

No, none of it is proven. Science is a way of explaining the world around us, and we don't know anything for sure. There are things we've tested, things that work consistently, but again, nothing is set in stone.

Yes, things are "proven" through science. If they weren't, science would be totally irrelevant and pointless. It is as set in stone as the revolution of the planets around the sun in particular orbits, a human fetus is human life. You can try to dance around this biological fact, but you can't prove your point.

Ya know..all I said was that I got some usefulness out of my "parasite".

And as for your little comparison there kid..if I were to purposefully put a parasite (aka..fetus) in my body..then well there would be no argument about abortion now would there be? As I would WANT it there.

It was a joke. Lighten up.:rolleyes:

I know, I laughed when I saw it. But you challenged my statement, so I had to prove you wrong.

What if they fall over off your property when they die? Are you legally boned then? Oh, or if you shoot them in such a way that they don't die right away and can drag themselves off your property before dying?

depends on the police investigation, if they are fleeing your property and you shoot them then they probably weren't a threat, however if they are still running at you when you shoot them...it's a different story.

mostly if you yell at someone to leave, in my state they will, unless they really want to harm you, then you can shoot them.

depends on the police investigation, if they are fleeing your property and you shoot them then they probably weren't a threat, however if they are still running at you when you shoot them...it's a different story.

mostly if you yell at someone to leave, in my state they will, unless they really want to harm you, then you can shoot them.


In any case, the original point was... IS IT MORALLY RIGHT to kill someone who is walking across your yard, and intends no harm to you. According to your own law, it is NOT morally right to do so.

Has nothing to do with the "enjoyment" of the sex. It has to do with personal responsibility of chosing to have sex.
Choosing to have sex isn't the same as choosing to become pregnant though, otherwise we wouldn't have things called condoms or birth control pills or contraceptive foams or sponges or diaphragms or cervical caps et c. My point is that you're off on this bit of punishing women for having consentual sex.

A skiier breaking their leg has nothing to do with aborting a living human fetus. Setting a broken leg is not equivalent in any regard, to performing an abortion and terminating human life. Find another analogy, because that red herring is stinking up the place!
What about the skiier's personal responsability? Shouldn't they accept that their choice of skiing has lead them to a lifetime of being a gimp?
Abortion doesn't terminate a human life, it ends a pregnancy.

Yes, things are "proven" through science.
Actually, it's more that things are disproven through science.

If they weren't, science would be totally irrelevant and pointless. It is as set in stone as the revolution of the planets around the sun in particular orbits,
Hahaha. Oh my, someone's never heard of Ptolemy.

a human fetus is human life. You can try to dance around this biological fact, but you can't prove your point.
And you can dance around the fact that human life != a human life all you want too, it doesn't prove your point either.

I know, I laughed when I saw it. But you challenged my statement, so I had to prove you wrong.

how did you do that? My parasite was pretty useful to me..so by your def..he wasn't a parasite at all. *sticks tongue WAAYYY out* hehe

In any case, the original point was... IS IT MORALLY RIGHT to kill someone who is walking across your yard, and intends no harm to you. According to your own law, it is NOT morally right to do so.

A human fetus is a parasite. If a person does not want to have a parasite in them, then they don't they have the right to get rid of it. Or are you saying that people with malaria should just let themselves die, and people with tapeworm should just slowly starve?

Thus, a human in it's early stages of life, is a parasite. If you think abortion should be banned, then you support parasites. It's that simple.

Oooh, and social welfare too. You know how certain quarters view social welfare as feeding parasites.

A human fetus is a parasite. If a person does not want to have a parasite in them, then they don't they have the right to get rid of it. Or are you saying that people with malaria should just let themselves die, and people with tapeworm should just slowly starve?
Nah, this guy only cares about humans. Well, really just humans who aren't women of childbearing age, women of childbearing age should be lined up and shot in the head according to one of his posts.

how did you do that? My parasite was pretty useful to me..so by your def..he wasn't a parasite at all. *sticks tongue WAAYYY out* hehe

Well, was the parasite being useful? No, having a parasite in you doesn't make you want to have more sex, it's chemicals your body makes.

Well, was the parasite being useful? No, having a parasite in you doesn't make you want to have more sex, it's chemicals your body makes.
Um... said chemicals are trigged by the presence of the embryo, they don't get released like that on their own.

In any case, the original point was... IS IT MORALLY RIGHT to kill someone who is walking across your yard, and intends no harm to you. According to your own law, it is NOT morally right to do so.

You keep capitalizing the word "moral".

Since when was morality the sole, or even preeminant basis for secular law?

Adultry is deemed imoral. Rarely is it deemed illegal.

The law exists to protect public safety and welfare, NOT to impose a singular moral code. If your God exists, and you have correctly assumed his position on abortion, than the guilty shall face their punishment in His time.

However, if you're wrong, then perhaps you should be just as militant on banning the sale of pork products... you know - just in case you are accidentally abetting the "imorality" of the cunsumption of unclean meat products.

Really? So a woman can't say no to sex? After all, if there is no such thing as reproductive rights, then a woman has no right to refuse to take part in the reproductive process...

Neo Art, thank you for giving such a great argument for pro-life! Indeed, the woman has the right to say no, and with rights come responsibility. She could have simply said no, and, by saying 'yes', she took on the possible responsibility of a child.


the fetus IS however using the body of another individual without that individual's consent, and, as NO person, none what so ever, has the right to use another's body without that person's consent, said use may be terminated at will by that person.

Just as you have no rights to my kidney, a fetus has no rights to a woman's womb, unless she allows it.

This is a bad analogy. If someone forced you to give up your kidney, you had no choice in the matter. Unless it is rape, no once can force you to become pregnant.

unless she allows it

I like your choice of words here. See, she did allow it. By having sex.

Ahhh, and here it is. The final desperate argument of the unsupportable position. "Consent to sex is consent to pregnancy". Bullshit.

There is a risk that whenever I get into a car I will get into an accident. Should I be denied medical treatment because I consented to the risk?

This is also a bad analogy, for three reasons (the last being pretty debateable):

Number one, you don't have to have sex to sustain life. In a way, you do need to drive somewhere to sustain life (For example, to go to work so you can have money to buy food)

and...

Number two, pregnancy, in most cases, is not life threatening, nor does it usually cause serious injury, whereas injury from a car-crash can be life threatening and can cause serious injury.

And three, saving someone from a car crash generally does not involving killing someone else, while abortion does.

And here we go!

The dirty little slut should be punished with a kid because she enjoyed sex! The base of the argument.

If it makes you feel any better, if it were up to me, I wouldn't let her have an abortion any if she didn't like the sex.

Oooh, and social welfare too. You know how certain quarters view social welfare as feeding parasites.


Well those on welfare do contribute, at least most of the time.

Um... said chemicals are trigged by the presence of the embryo, they don't get released like that on their own.

Proof?

If it makes you feel any better, if it were up to me, I wouldn't let her have an abortion any if she didn't like the sex.
So rape victims have to carry their rapist's children?

Proof?
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Expectations-All-One-Childbirth/dp/0760741328/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/102-8104611-5439339?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188879063&sr=8-6
I'll give you a page quote when I get home. There's a nice chapter on sex during pregnancy and how the embryo triggers releases of certain chemicals that have different effects on women.

Being pregnant does trigger quite a number of changes in a woman's body, or didn't you know that?

Neo Art, thank you for giving such a great argument for pro-life! Indeed, the woman has the right to say no, and with rights come responsibility. She could have simply said no, and, by saying 'yes', she took on the possible responsibility of a child.


Actually, no. Given that the woman is operating under the assumption that abortion is possible, then by saying 'yes' she took on the possible responsibility of having to require an abortion. And the possible pleasure of repeating the word "yes" in a phrase such as "yes! yes! yes! Oh my f*cking God Yeeessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!"

Having an understanding of possible consequences to a decision does NOT impose the secondary notion that there is only a single solution to dealing with that consequence.

It only raises the possibility of a subsequent decision to be made.

Neo Art, thank you for giving such a great argument for pro-life! Indeed, the woman has the right to say no, and with rights come responsibility. She could have simply said no, and, by saying 'yes', she took on the possible responsibility of a child.
So by taking measures to prevent pregnancy, she clearly said yes to childbirth?

This is a bad analogy. If someone forced you to give up your kidney, you had no choice in the matter. Unless it is rape, no once can force you to become pregnant.
If you accidently food poison your friend and their kidneys fail, are you obliged to donate one of yours to help them?

I like your choice of words here. See, she did allow it. By having sex.
Consent to sex != consent to birthing

Number one, you don't have to have sex to sustain life. In a way, you do need to drive somewhere to sustain life (For example, to go to work so you can have money to buy food)
Bullshit. You don't need a car to live. You have feet, you can walk. Or take the bus or other public transportation.
Sex is much more essential to living well than a car is.

Number two, pregnancy, in most cases, is not life threatening, nor does it usually cause serious injury, whereas injury from a car-crash can be life threatening and can cause serious injury.
Pregnancy does cause injury, as temporary (9 months long) as it may be.

And three, saving someone from a car crash generally does not involving killing someone else, while abortion does.
In a pregnancy, there is only one "somebody": the woman who is pregnant. The other thing is a potential somebody, nothing more.

Choosing to have sex isn't the same as choosing to become pregnant though, otherwise we wouldn't have things called condoms or birth control pills or contraceptive foams or sponges or diaphragms or cervical caps et c. My point is that you're off on this bit of punishing women for having consentual sex.

It is not punishment any more than it is "punishment" to accept responsibility for breaking a window when you play ball, or scraping a car in a parking lot. Birth control is not 100%, and everyone who engages in sex, should be aware of that fact.

No one has answered my question about the moral argument for killing your kids? What if a young dropout couple has a baby and discovers it's harder to raise it than they thought? Is it "okay" in your book, to let them euthanise the child? It's the same argument you are making for allowing abortion on demand... it's an inconvenience to the woman, so she has the "right" to kill another human.

Well, was the parasite being useful? No, having a parasite in you doesn't make you want to have more sex, it's chemicals your body makes.

And it's the chemicasl that your body produces MORE of when you are pregnant. So yes he was useful.

The majority of Christians are against it because to them life begins at conception and it is supposedly a "gift" from God. There is also something about protecting the unborn child...

However, the problem with your argument is that while ideally the aborted foetus should go to heaven in some sects or denominations of Christianity, one of the pre-requisites for entry passed the pearly gates is to to have been baptised. However, the one common requisite is belief in God, which an unborn foetus cannot do. In fact, many young children cannot do it because they are unable to understand even the most basic element of that belief.

I think I got it right... I've seen the argument written down before.

Abortion is neither good nor bad; of course, that neutral argument depends on whether or not it was forced - ie: removing the power of choice from the woman. It's a choice the woman makes as it is her body. It cannot truly be one or the other because for everyone, it's different.

In a nutshell it comes down to original sin - the Catholic church's old position is that they would go to limbo then to heaven, however, its changed to going straight to heaven. As for the protestant; there is no official party line - hence 'protest' to ultimately bring it down to the individuals own interpretation of the scripture.

So rape victims have to carry their rapist's children?

A tragedy has occured. Let's not cause another one. An abortion would just add to the trauma. It's not the child's fault that the mother was raped.

Many of you say that a woman is "giving up her life" by having a baby. But she's not. Not really. She can give the baby up for adoption once it's born, and, really, what's nine months that a mother has to spend pregnant compared to at least ninety (assuming that the child does not die an early death) that this baby could spend alive? What is nine months compared to ninety years?

It is not punishment any more than it is "punishment" to accept responsibility for breaking a window when you play ball, or scraping a car in a parking lot. Birth control is not 100%, and everyone who engages in sex, should be aware of that fact.
Yeah, and having an abortion is really punishment enough, don't worry, those skanks still gets what's comign to them.

No one has answered my question about the moral argument for killing your kids?
Because nobody's talking about killing kids, we're talking about having an abortion.

What if a young dropout couple has a baby and discovers it's harder to raise it than they thought? Is it "okay" in your book, to let them euthanise the child? It's the same argument you are making for allowing abortion on demand... it's an inconvenience to the woman, so she has the "right" to kill another human.
Actually, this is a totally different argument. Now, you remember when I was trying to explain to you the difference between human life and a human life? The embryo is human life like my big toe is human life or my skin cells are human life. A child is a human life with the same rights to live as its parents. In other words: your argument is made of fail.

It is not punishment any more than it is "punishment" to accept responsibility for breaking a window when you play ball, or scraping a car in a parking lot. Birth control is not 100%, and everyone who engages in sex, should be aware of that fact.

No one has answered my question about the moral argument for killing your kids? What if a young dropout couple has a baby and discovers it's harder to raise it than they thought? Is it "okay" in your book, to let them euthanise the child? It's the same argument you are making for allowing abortion on demand... it's an inconvenience to the woman, so she has the "right" to kill another human.

Still with the single-minded focus on the word "moral" :rolleyes:

False comparison.

The young couple can have access to the same decision as the pregnant couple should they not wish to keep the child. Have it removed from their care by the appropriate authorities. For those with the living child, that would mean turning it over to family services. Now, if you can find a doctor who can equally remove the 12-week old fetus and keep it alive, then more power to you! You will have solved the problem.

A tragedy has occured. Let's not cause another one. An abortion would just add to the trauma. It's not the child's fault that the mother was raped.

Many of you say that a woman is "giving up her life" by having a baby. But she's not. Not really. She can give the baby up for adoption once it's born, and, really, what's nine months that a mother has to spend pregnant compared to at least ninety (assuming that the child does not die an early death) that this baby could spend alive? What is nine months compared to ninety years?
Ok. I'm going to hurt you. I am going to hurt you badly. And THEN, I am going to spend 9 months reminding you about it every time you look in the mirror, every time you move, every second of every day about it.

Sound like a nice time to you?

A tragedy has occured. Let's not cause another one.
Oh good, so you agree that the rapist doesn't have the right to automatically reproduce with anyone he forces himself on. That would be tragic.

An abortion would just add to the trauma.
Except not.

It's not the child's fault that the mother was raped.
What child? There's no child in an abortion.

Many of you say that a woman is "giving up her life" by having a baby. But she's not. Not really.
And what if she dies in childbirth (it's 100 times more likely than death due to an abortion)? What if she's got a scholarship that can't be put off for a year and can't afford to go to school otherwise? What if she's a couple of months away from a job that would give her real health benefits? What if she's already struggling to feed and clothe three other kids?

She can give the baby up for adoption once it's born, and, really, what's nine months that a mother has to spend pregnant compared to at least ninety (assuming that the child does not die an early death) that this baby could spend alive? What is nine months compared to ninety years?
Haha, you have a penis, don't you?

Haha, you have a penis, don't you?

Hey!!

Not everyone with a third leg is an idiot you know..... :p

You keep capitalizing the word "moral".

Since when was morality the sole, or even preeminant basis for secular law?

Adultry is deemed imoral. Rarely is it deemed illegal.

The law exists to protect public safety and welfare, NOT to impose a singular moral code. If your God exists, and you have correctly assumed his position on abortion, than the guilty shall face their punishment in His time.

However, if you're wrong, then perhaps you should be just as militant on banning the sale of pork products... you know - just in case you are accidentally abetting the "imorality" of the cunsumption of unclean meat products.

Ahh, typical moral coward reaction! Let's attack religion now! I've not mentioned religion, only "morality". The two are not joined at the hip, you know? In fact, most Atheist and Agnostic people will argue that they have "morals" and they aren't based on religious edicts. So, which is it? Are Atheist/Agostic heathens "moral" or devoid of it?

For the record, I don't practice "religion", I am a spiritualist. My moral stand comes from humanity and being an intelligent human being with a conscience, and an obligation to my species to uphold a higher standard of ethic. Killing innocent humans is wrong, you can dress it up in any kind of costume, call it other things, justify it with red herring after straw man argument, appease yourself by claiming to take a "neutral" stand, or you can do the morally right thing to do, and denounce abortion on demand.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Expectations-All-One-Childbirth/dp/0760741328/ref=pd_bbs_sr_6/102-8104611-5439339?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188879063&sr=8-6
I'll give you a page quote when I get home. There's a nice chapter on sex during pregnancy and how the embryo triggers releases of certain chemicals that have different effects on women.

Being pregnant does trigger quite a number of changes in a woman's body, or didn't you know that?

I know, I was just being annoying. Now, in any case, since the parasite in question is not actually causing the changes which we consider positive, it is still a parasite. If the parasite was actually excreting these chemicals, then it would be doing something positive (though it's really an opinion whether it's positive or not), but because the host's body is excreting these chemicals in reaction, then it's still a parasite.

It is not punishment any more than it is "punishment" to accept responsibility for breaking a window when you play ball, or scraping a car in a parking lot. Birth control is not 100%, and everyone who engages in sex, should be aware of that fact.

I'm going to wait the next time you have an accident. Probably a maiming one. Then I'll prevent anyone from providing medical aid. You're going to have to accept responsibility for it.

And I notice your argument is solely on the woman. Nothing on the man.

Must be nice to escape all the burdens of pregnancy hmm?


No one has answered my question about the moral argument for killing your kids?

Morals should never ever be law. Laws should only be put into place to ensure stable societies and functional governance.

If you want morals as law, try living in Iran for a year or two. Watch out for their religious police. That's the kind of law you espouse.

And they aren't kids. A fetus isn't a kid. It's a fetus. Calling it a kid, or baby, is nothing more than an emotional lie.

Yeah, and having an abortion is really punishment enough, don't worry, those skanks still gets what's comign to them.


Because nobody's talking about killing kids, we're talking about having an abortion.


Actually, this is a totally different argument. Now, you remember when I was trying to explain to you the difference between human life and a human life? The embryo is human life like my big toe is human life or my skin cells are human life. A child is a human life with the same rights to live as its parents. In other words: your argument is made of fail.

Again, you are dead wrong. A fetus is nothing at all like your big toe, if it were, I would agree with you in the debate and abortion wouldn't be an issue. A fetus has distinct and unique DNA, a heartbeat, brain function, etc. Your toe doesn't. A living child is no different than a living fetus, except for the element of time, and development stage. If you have some biological evidence to contradict what I am saying, please present it, or shut up trying to continue to prop up the lie that a fetus isn't a human life.

Ahh, typical moral coward reaction! Let's attack religion now! I've not mentioned religion, only "morality". The two are not joined at the hip, you know? In fact, most Atheist and Agnostic people will argue that they have "morals" and they aren't based on religious edicts. So, which is it? Are Atheist/Agostic heathens "moral" or devoid of it?

For the record, I don't practice "religion", I am a spiritualist. My moral stand comes from humanity and being an intelligent human being with a conscience, and an obligation to my species to uphold a higher standard of ethic. Killing innocent humans is wrong, you can dress it up in any kind of costume, call it other things, justify it with red herring after straw man argument, appease yourself by claiming to take a "neutral" stand, or you can do the morally right thing to do, and denounce abortion on demand.

Awwwww, we've degenerated to name calling. How adorably cute. The consistant fallback position of those who can't win a debate via a well reasoned position.

So by taking measures to prevent pregnancy, she clearly said yes to childbirth?

Condoms and birth control pills aren't 100% guarantee not to get pregnant. Noticed my word choice: "she took on the possible responsibility of a child"

It is still possible to get pregnant after using a condom or birth control (or both), so my argument is still legit.


If you accidently food poison your friend and their kidneys fail, are you obliged to donate one of yours to help them?

I'm truly sorry, but I have no idea what you're getting at here.


Consent to sex != consent to birthing

I can not change your opinion on this, especially since you have given no information to back it up.


Bullshit. You don't need a car to live. You have feet, you can walk. Or take the bus or other public transportation.
Sex is much more essential to living well than a car is.

You could get run over by a car while walking. A bus could crash. A plane could crash. A boat could crash. (though, in the last two cases, you probably either be engulfed in fire or drown before you could receive medical help)

Take those scenarios. Apply what I said about the car crash.


Pregnancy does cause injury, as temporary (9 months long) as it may be.

That is not really injury. It's wasted time. And, as I've said several times before and will continue saying, a mother loses nine months. An unborn child could lose a lifetime.


In a pregnancy, there is only one "somebody": the woman who is pregnant. The other thing is a potential somebody, nothing more.

That is, in your opinion. I think it would be nice it we could ask the child what they thought about all this.

Hey!!

Not everyone with a third leg is an idiot you know..... :p
I know, but I was just guessing based on the content of the post, especially that last remark.

And yeah, some guys actually think and put themselves in other people's shoes instead of being like "you must give me my baby now!"

Morals should never ever be law.

Really? Then why are there laws about wearing clothes in public? Why can't we openly masturbate in public? Why can't we marry 12-year-olds? Why can't we murder our neighbor because we don't like how he looks at us? Why can't we just take whatever we want from whoever we want, if we are bigger? Why can't we rape women? Why can't we do all these things and more? It seems to me, someone didn't get the memo about morals and law, because we have a number of laws based on morality.

Consent to sex != consent to birthing
I can not change your opinion on this, especially since you have given no information to back it up.


Put the shoe on the other foot. Why should consent to one equate to consent to the other? You believe it does. Fair enough. But why should a woman who has grown up her entire life knowing that abortions were a legal possibility automatically have come to that same conclusion - except that you think that she should?

I know, I was just being annoying. Now, in any case, since the parasite in question is not actually causing the changes which we consider positive, it is still a parasite. If the parasite was actually excreting these chemicals, then it would be doing something positive (though it's really an opinion whether it's positive or not), but because the host's body is excreting these chemicals in reaction, then it's still a parasite.

ahh..but it is the embryo that is CAUSING the body to produce more of the chemicals. If it weren't there..the body wouldn't react that way. Cause and effect...

See..I can do it too!:p

Condoms and birth control pills aren't 100% guarantee not to get pregnant. Noticed my word choice: "she took on the possible responsibility of a child"
No, she took on the possibility of having to have an abortion if she really doesn't want a kid.

It is still possible to get pregnant after using a condom or birth control (or both), so my argument is still legit.
Not really. She took all possible precautions to prevent a pregnancy so clearly she wasn't consenting to pregnancy any more than a driver driving safely is consenting to getting in a car wreck.

I'm truly sorry, but I have no idea what you're getting at here.
You are preparing a dish for your friend. Now, in any cooking endeavour it is possible that something will go badly, perhaps you undercook something, perhaps the grocery store you bought from failed to list an ingredient, perhaps the food went off, perhaps you failed to ask your friend about their food allergies, it doesn't matter. There was a possibility of feeding your friend something that would eventually be fatal (via causing kidney failure) yet you feed your friend some food anyways. Your friend gets ill from your cooking and his kidneys fail. Do you now have the responsability of donating your kidney to save your friend's life?

I can not change your opinion on this, especially since you have given no information to back it up.
What information is there to give? If consent to sex was the same as consenting to giving bith then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You could get run over by a car while walking. A bus could crash. A plane could crash. A boat could crash. (though, in the last two cases, you probably either be engulfed in fire or drown before you could receive medical help)

Take those scenarios. Apply what I said about the car crash.
You could grow your own crops in a co-op where nobody drives. Then you can't get run over by a car unless you leave the co-op (which isnt' necessary for life).

Now you might argue that this doesn't provide a very fun life, but I would also say that not having sex unless one wants to be pregnant isn't a very fun life either.

That is not really injury. It's wasted time. And, as I've said several times before and will continue saying, a mother loses nine months. An unborn child could lose a lifetime.
Oh, it's just a waste of time. Good to see that you would make a woman suffer an ordeal she doesn't wish when you don't even care about the kid that will eventually come into existance. And the embryo doesn't lose anything, it doesn't have anything to lose.

That is, in your opinion. I think it would be nice it we could ask the child what they thought about all this.
There is no child. There is the potential for a child, but there is no child involved in an abortion (unless some poor kid started puberty early and got knocked up).

Again, you are dead wrong. A fetus is nothing at all like your big toe, if it were, I would agree with you in the debate and abortion wouldn't be an issue. A fetus has distinct and unique DNA, a heartbeat, brain function, etc. Your toe doesn't. A living child is no different than a living fetus, except for the element of time, and development stage. If you have some biological evidence to contradict what I am saying, please present it, or shut up trying to continue to prop up the lie that a fetus isn't a human life.

Ah, I see how twins, which are genetically identical, are the exact same person. You've yet to adequately counter my blood cell argument, or the big toe argument. Those things are alive, they are human with unique genetic data (at most they share it with one person) but are not human lives. There is something that separates them from a human being, which is what you keep saying an abortion murders and many of us keep saying it doesn't.

Oh, and stop calling people moral cowards, whatever the hell that even means. It really is a nonsensical term, aside from being incredibly asinine and pointlessly insulting. No one has been calling you a "logical coward" in this thread, and it seems like you could return the civility.

I'm going to wait the next time you have an accident. Probably a maiming one. Then I'll prevent anyone from providing medical aid. You're going to have to accept responsibility for it.

Why do you persist with this straw man argument? Becoming pregnant by accident, through no fault of you own, is extremely rare. I've already said, my position would allow some credible consideration for this unusual circumstance... put the cards on the table, tell the court what happened and how you weren't responsible for becoming pregnant, and if you are not found at fault in any way, then maybe we can allow you to kill an innocent human. Maybe it's acceptable under that circumstance? I'll be willing to listen to the debate! As it stands, there are over 1 million innocent human lives being taken daily in the US alone, all for the sake of mere vanity and convenience, and it needs to stop. It's just plain wrong!

Then why are there laws about wearing clothes in public?
Who said there should be?

Why can't we openly masturbate in public?
Who said there should be?

Why can't we marry 12-year-olds?
Because they lack the mental and emotional development to enter into such agreements.

Why can't we murder our neighbor because we don't like how he looks at us?
Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.

Why can't we just take whatever we want from whoever we want, if we are bigger?
Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.

Why can't we rape women?
Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.

Why can't we do all these things and more?
Because some laws are in place to protect the structure of society. Some laws (i.e. drug laws, prostitution laws, nudity laws) are just stupid.
Also, if laws are so closely tied to morals and abortion is legal, doesn't that mean that abortion is moral?

Really? Then why are there laws about wearing clothes in public?
Those don't exist everywhere.

Why can't we openly masturbate in public?
Good question? Why can't we?

Why can't we marry 12-year-olds?
Because marriage is a contract between adults. 12-year-olds don't qualify.

Why can't we murder our neighbor because we don't like how he looks at us?
Because the law serves to protect the citizens, and provide public order. If you don't like the way he is looking at you and he is on your land, well then he's fair game. We've been over this. Killing IS acceptable under certain circumstances ergo the law does not recognize the moral absolute that killing is always wrong.

In a similar vein, having a fight with your neighbour is assault and breach of peace. Unless you can convince them to enter a boxing ring with you.

Why can't we just take whatever we want from whoever we want, if we are bigger?
Because the law serves to protect the citizens, and provide public order. If you can convince them to sign a legal contract that screws them, then you are a shrewd business person. Ripping people off is not illegal. Ripping them off without their consent is.

Why can't we rape women?
Revisit the notion of consent.

Why can't we do all these things and more? It seems to me, someone didn't get the memo about morals and law, because we have a number of laws based on morality.

Morality is the true basis of fewer laws than you might imagine. Public protection and maintaining order is its mainstay.

Why do you persist with this straw man argument? Becoming pregnant by accident, through no fault of you own, is extremely rare. I've already said, my position would allow some credible consideration for this unusual circumstance... put the cards on the table, tell the court what happened and how you weren't responsible for becoming pregnant, and if you are not found at fault in any way, then maybe we can allow you to kill an innocent human. Maybe it's acceptable under that circumstance? I'll be willing to listen to the debate! As it stands, there are over 1 million innocent human lives being taken daily in the US alone, all for the sake of mere vanity and convenience, and it needs to stop. It's just plain wrong!

So, given that you yourself are willing to bend your moral absolute in certain circumstances, at this point all you are arguing is the amount of flexibility your absolute should have.

Reminds me of that old conversation (I think it was a Groucho Marx line, but could be wrong)

Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Yes!
How about for one dollar?
No! What do you think I am?
We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price!


Oh yes, and most estimates from reputable sources have the rate at around 4,000/day in the US.

A million per day?

Sheesh. There are only around 300 million Americans. You would need one in 300 people having an abortion every single day for that to be true. Drop that number in half for the gender split and then drop out those outside childbearing years and you'd need about 1 in 50 women of childbearing years having an abortion each and every day!!! Just think, every month and a half it would be your turn!

Ah, I see how twins, which are genetically identical, are the exact same person. You've yet to adequately counter my blood cell argument, or the big toe argument. Those things are alive, they are human with unique genetic data (at most they share it with one person) but are not human lives. There is something that separates them from a human being, which is what you keep saying an abortion murders and many of us keep saying it doesn't.

Oh, and stop calling people moral cowards, whatever the hell that even means. It really is a nonsensical term, aside from being incredibly asinine and pointlessly insulting. No one has been calling you a "logical coward" in this thread, and it seems like you could return the civility.

I did counter your big toe argument, a big toe does not have distinct and unique DNA, it shares the same DNA with the person it belongs to. It also doesn't have brain function, a heartbeat, a circulatory system, a central nervous system, or any other attributes of a human being. A fetus has all of these. Something does separate a toe from being a human being, in fact, several things I have mentioned and you haven't refuted. Nothing separates a fetus from this distinction, according to science and biology, it is a human life.

'Moral coward' means you are afraid to stand up for morals, because you fear the reprisal. To you, it is easier to analogize straw men and create red herrings, than to stand up for what you know and understand to be morally right. I'm sorry if you find the term insulting, but that is what you are.

As for me being a "logical coward" nothing could be further from the truth, logic dictates... if it is not human, it has to be some other living life form, I asked this question and got no logical answer. Then I asked the logical question, if it is not living, why must it be terminated? Again, no logical answer, just hyperbole and platitudes. Finally, the logical question, if it IS human life, why are we debating killing it? Still, no logical answer, just this continued denial of biological facts, reverting to previous lies and myths, and resorting to cheap shot attacks on religion. Seems to me, you are also a "logical coward" ...maybe just a coward in general. who knows?

Again, you are dead wrong.
No I'm not, and I wasn't aware that I was wrong earlier either.

A fetus is nothing at all like your big toe, if it were, I would agree with you in the debate and abortion wouldn't be an issue. A fetus has distinct and unique DNA, a heartbeat, brain function, etc. Your toe doesn't.
1. unique DNA... so identical twins are the same person and a chimera is two people? What if I had a mutation during my development and my big toe is really genetically distinct from the rest of me?
2. My toe has a heartbeat, you can feel it.
3. Embryos don't have brainfunction when they're aborted usually either.
4. Neither my toe nor an embryo are a human life, but they are both human life.

A living child is no different than a living fetus, except for the element of time, and development stage.
And a brain.

If you have some biological evidence to contradict what I am saying, please present it, or shut up trying to continue to prop up the lie that a fetus isn't a human life.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

Brain waves don't show up until 13-16 weeks, 90% of abortions occur during the first 12.

Those don't exist everywhere.

Everywhere people have MORALS!


Good question? Why can't we?

MORALITY!


Because marriage is a contract between adults. 12-year-olds don't qualify.

Really?? WHY NOT??? MORALS???


Because the law serves to protect the citizens, and provide public order.

WHY???? Isn't this based on MORALITY?


If you don't like the way he is looking at you and he is on your land, well then he's fair game.

No, according to your own law, he is not "fair game" unless he threatens you. But WHY??? MORALS?

We've been over this. Killing IS acceptable under certain circumstances ergo the law does not recognize the moral absolute that killing is always wrong.

Never said anything about this "moral absolute".

In a similar vein, having a fight with your neighbour is assault and breach of peace. Unless you can convince them to enter a boxing ring with you.


Because the law serves to protect the citizens, and provide public order. If you can convince them to sign a legal contract that screws them, then you are a shrewd business person. Ripping people off is not illegal. Ripping them off without their consent is.

WHY???? Becasue MORALLY it's not RIGHT to rip people off!


Revisit the notion of consent.

Revisit the notion of MORALITY!



Morality is the true basis of fewer laws than you might imagine. Public protection and maintaining order is its mainstay.

Regardless, we have PLENTY-O-LAW based on MORALS and MORAL judgement. To deny this, or to wish for something else, is frankly idiotic.



.

Repeating the same word in caps over and over does not make it so anywhere except in your own mind.

The basis of the laws of the United States of America is rooted in the constitution therof. To whit, it is the supreme law of the land. In specifics:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The word "moral" does not exist therin. Domestic tranquility and general welfare - far more closely aligned to the terms I have used - are to be found.

Game. Set. Match.

1. unique DNA... so identical twins are the same person and a chimera is two people? What if I had a mutation during my development and my big toe is really genetically distinct from the rest of me?

Your toe has your DNA. Twins may well have the same DNA, but it's unique compared to the host parent of the twins. Your point is not made, sorry.

2. My toe has a heartbeat, you can feel it.

No, you toe has no heart, therefore, no heartbeat. Sorry again, you are incorrect.


3. Embryos don't have brainfunction when they're aborted usually either.

Untrue statement.

4. Neither my toe nor an embryo are a human life, but they are both human life.

A toe is a part of a living human organism. An embryo is a living human organism. There is a BIG difference.

Quote:
A living child is no different than a living fetus, except for the element of time, and development stage.
And a brain.

A living fetus has a brain, sorry, wrong again!!

Quote:
If you have some biological evidence to contradict what I am saying, please present it, or shut up trying to continue to prop up the lie that a fetus isn't a human life.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

Sorry, not seeing anything to contradict biological fact there, try again!

Brain waves don't show up until 13-16 weeks, 90% of abortions occur during the first 12.

Wow, seems pretty amazing for something without a brain, huh?

Who said there should be?
People who made the MORAL judgement to pass the law!

Who said there should be?
People who made the MORAL judgement to pass the law!

Because they lack the mental and emotional development to enter into such agreements.
This is based on a MORAL judgement of man, no?

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Again, a MORAL decision made by man, is it not?

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Another MORAL decision made by man!

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Yet another MORAL decision made by man!

Because some laws are in place to protect the structure of society.
Based on mans MORAL judgement!

Some laws (i.e. drug laws, prostitution laws, nudity laws) are just stupid.
No argument, but they too are based on MORAL judgements.

Also, if laws are so closely tied to morals and abortion is legal, doesn't that mean that abortion is moral?
No.

Well, that's enough of beating my head against a brick wall for one night.

It's late and I have this MORAL imperative to be awake to get my kids to school in the morning.

Gosh.... putting MORAL in caps is fun!!!!

Sure, it looks idiotic and serves no real debating purpose, but it really is fun!


MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL MORAL!


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!


And maybe someday this person will have the misforture of attending law classes and discover just how far off base they are. Laws and sausages are two things that you really don't want to know how they are made.

But you just can't argue with caps. They're kryptonite to silly things like.... facts.

'night all.

If you are even going to have this conversation you should ensure you have the terminology right.

An abortion does not terminate a fetus. An abortion terminates a pregnancy. An abortion aborts the pregnancy.

Now if your statement is that it is generally understood by all people that a pregnancy at a certain state should not be aborted, then no, that's quite incorrect.

I am outlining an argument from a philosophical perspective. I am not here to debate semantics. Generally it is illegal to abort a fetus after a certain age.

Your toe has your DNA. Twins may well have the same DNA, but it's unique compared to the host parent of the twins. Your point is not made, sorry.
My toe might not have the same DNA. Errors in replication happen and DNA can be different within the same organism. Identical twins have identical DNA (largely) because they were formed when the same fertilized ovum split into two different embryos. Chimeras are the opposite of this, two fertilized ovum fused to become one embryo, so this person will be half one set of DNA, half another. Your lack of knowledge in this area has made you look foolish.

No, you toe has no heart, therefore, no heartbeat. Sorry again, you are incorrect.
My heartbeat can be felt through my toe, this is what you required...

Untrue statement.
Actually, it's quite true. I accept your apology.

A toe is a part of a living human organism. An embryo is a living human organism. There is a BIG difference.
An embryo isn't an organism until it preforms stimulus response as an organism, which doesn't happen until well into the fetal stage of development (somewhere around 20 weeks at the earliest).

A living fetus has a brain, sorry, wrong again!!
Doesn't have brainwaves until a point in development well after most abortions occur.

Sorry, not seeing anything to contradict biological fact there, try again!
It's contradicting your biological "facts", not real biological facts.

Wow, seems pretty amazing for something without a brain, huh?
It doesn't have a brain to speak of until after most abortions occur. Of course it gets a brain eventually, but this point of developments has absolutely nothing to do with most abortions.

Who said there should be?
People who made the MORAL judgement to pass the law!

Who said there should be?
People who made the MORAL judgement to pass the law!
The same people who made the moral judgement to make abortion legal?

Because they lack the mental and emotional development to enter into such agreements.
This is based on a MORAL judgement of man, no?
No, it's based on psychological studies which have determined that children of this age are not mentally of emotionally developed enough to make such decisions.

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Again, a MORAL decision made by man, is it not?
No, a decision made by the society based on what will allow most of its members to be most productive and participate fully in society.

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Another MORAL decision made by man!
Not at all.

Because society wouldn't function very well if we could do that.
Yet another MORAL decision made by man!
Nope, still not.

Because some laws are in place to protect the structure of society.
Based on mans MORAL judgement!
Based on what society needs to operate in an organized and fair manner.

Some laws (i.e. drug laws, prostitution laws, nudity laws) are just stupid.
No argument, but they too are based on MORAL judgements.
Ok, so we agree that basing laws on morals is stupid?

Also, if laws are so closely tied to morals and abortion is legal, doesn't that mean that abortion is moral?
No.
So it only works one way around? Or just when it's convenient for your argument?

meh, Dakini beat me to the meat of the argument, though I might have worded it differently. Suffice it to say, I consider your rebuttal so far inadequate. The argument you are presenting is either logically invalid, makes use of false premises or both...well, not, it does suffer from both.

And your personal attacks are nothing short of childish. At the root of your argument, you seem to be addressing some kind of intuitive moral compass that has nothing to do with reason or logic. There's a reason sentimentalism fell out of favor. ;)

My toe might not have the same DNA. Errors in replication happen and DNA can be different within the same organism. Identical twins have identical DNA (largely) because they were formed when the same fertilized ovum split into two different embryos. Chimeras are the opposite of this, two fertilized ovum fused to become one embryo, so this person will be half one set of DNA, half another. Your lack of knowledge in this area has made you look foolish.

My knowledge of DNA is not in debate, neither is your opinion of how I look. You argued, inaccurately, that a big toe was equivalent to a fetus, and I have shown you where you are wrong. I'm sorry, I hate it, I wish I could agree with you, but biology simply states otherwise.


My heartbeat can be felt through my toe, this is what you required...

No, I stated that your toe has no heartbeat, and it doesn't. Your toe has no heart, so it is impossible to have a heartbeat. A fetus has a heart, and thus, a heartbeat.

By the way, where are your presentations to refute central nervous system and circulatory systems found in human fetuses, and not found in big toes? That seems to be curiously missing from your diatribe.


Actually, it's quite true. I accept your apology.

No, sorry, it was untrue, but if you want to lie about human life, you'll lie about anything.


An embryo isn't an organism until it preforms stimulus response as an organism, which doesn't happen until well into the fetal stage of development (somewhere around 20 weeks at the earliest).

Science says it is a living organism at the point of conception. Again, you can attempt to muddy the water and pretend otherwise, but you are a liar and an idiot, as you have proven already.

Doesn't have brainwaves.

Yes, a human fetus does have brainwaves, feels pain, reacts to stimulation, has unique DNA, a heartbeat, a central nervous system, a circulatory system, unique fingerpints, and all organs and components of a fully grown adult human being.


It's contradicting your biological "facts", not real biological facts.

You haven't contradicted the biological fact that human life begins at conception. To do this, you need to demonstrate what physical element is added to a fetus to make it a human life, and at what point in time. As far as science can tell us, this is at conception.


It doesn't have a brain to speak of until after most abortions occur. Of course it gets a brain eventually, but this point of developments has absolutely nothing to do with most abortions.

Now you have changed your position... it doesn't have a brain to speak of! But, it does have a brain, it begins growing at point of conception, and will continue to grow until the living organism is dead. It doesn't "get a brain"... if it does, please inform me of where this brain is obtained and how? My biology book says the brain is formed, and the needed components and enzymes for the brain are there all along, it is a matter of development, but the brain does exist, it isn't "gotten" at any point in time.

Your argument wants to flirt around with "sentience" and claim that a fetus is something other than what it is, until, in your opinion, it has gained a certain developmental level. This is a dangerous ethos, as it is one step away from killing any people we deem unworthy of living.

The same people who made the moral judgement to make abortion legal?

I doubt it.


No, it's based on psychological studies which have determined that children of this age are not mentally of emotionally developed enough to make such decisions.

Yes, but why are we compelled to protect these children? Is this not a moral obligation?

No, a decision made by the society based on what will allow most of its members to be most productive and participate fully in society.

Again, what compells us to make such decisions? Ethics? Morals?


Not at all.
Nope, still not.
Oooo... don't know how to argue with those brilliant points!


Based on what society needs to operate in an organized and fair manner.

There is a lot of "based on what society needs" in your comments, do you not understand or comprehend, things "based on what society needs" is the same thing moral judgement?


Ok, so we agree that basing laws on morals is stupid?

No, I didn't say that. In fact, I don't think you want to live in a world devoid of laws based on morals.


So it only works one way around? Or just when it's convenient for your argument?

No, it only works for laws based on morality, and abortion is immoral. There is no argument to make the taking of innocent human life, moral and ethical. You can try, you've done a good job of that, but it's not possible.

My knowledge of DNA is not in debate, neither is your opinion of how I look. You argued, inaccurately, that a big toe was equivalent to a fetus, and I have shown you where you are wrong. I'm sorry, I hate it, I wish I could agree with you, but biology simply states otherwise.
I didn't argue that they were equivalent in all senses. I said that they were equivalent in the sense that they are both human life but not human beings. This is something you have outright failed to dispute properly.

No, I stated that your toe has no heartbeat, and it doesn't. Your toe has no heart, so it is impossible to have a heartbeat. A fetus has a heart, and thus, a heartbeat.
My big toe has a heartbeat, my heart can be felt through it. You can also check for a heartbeat in the thumb, the radial artery, the brachial artery et c or anywhere when you injure yourself, really.

By the way, where are your presentations to refute central nervous system and circulatory systems found in human fetuses, and not found in big toes? That seems to be curiously missing from your diatribe.
Again, I never said that my big toe was the exact same as a fetus. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, I think.

No, sorry, it was untrue, but if you want to lie about human life, you'll lie about anything.
Ok, now you're just being insulting. I think I'm going to make this my last response to you and then you can jolly well fuck off.

---rest of argument and further arguments ignored---

There is a lot of "based on what society needs" in your comments, do you not understand or comprehend, things "based on what society needs" is the same thing moral judgement?
... Please tell me you're joking. Societal needs can dovetail with morality, but is not the same as a moral judgement.

I didn't argue that they were equivalent in all senses. I said that they were equivalent in the sense that they are both human life but not human beings. This is something you have outright failed to dispute properly.

You said a fetus is human life, like your big toe is human life. That is equating the two. It's nice to see you recant that idiotic statement. As far as disputing it, I don't know how else to dispute an idiot... your toe is not a living human organism, a fetus is. Your toe is part of your body, a fetus also has toes, it is not the same thing as a toe in any biological regard, other than, both are of the human species... or maybe we are talking about monkey toes? who the heck knows anymore?

My big toe has a heartbeat, my heart can be felt through it.

Once again, your toe itself, has no heartbeat. You can feel your heart beating through your toe, but it has no heartbeat, and no heart... or circulatory system... or nervous system... or distinct DNA... brainwave function... etc. etc. etc.

Again, I never said that my big toe was the exact same as a fetus. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, I think.

Oh, I am sorry, I generally take it to mean, when something is LIKE something else, it means it is the same or similar in most regards. Truth is, I am correct, the toe is nothing like a fetus, they are distinctly different. You don't like being proven wrong, and that is understandable, this is a forum, and most forum idiots are defiant when proven wrong. I understand completely. Good night.

... Please tell me you're joking. Societal needs can dovetail with morality, but is not the same as a moral judgement.

Compulsory decisions on "what society needs" are almost universally based on collective moral judgement to some degree. I'm sorry if that flies comfortably over your head, but it is the truth.

I said that they were equivalent in the sense that they are both human life but not human beings.

Yes, but biology says a human fetus is a human being. Science dictates, it can't be anything other than human, and it is living, so it is in a physical state of 'being' and can't possibly be in another state. You have not contradicted this, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.

Awwwww, we've degenerated to name calling. How adorably cute. The consistant fallback position of those who can't win a debate via a well reasoned position.

They've actually done it all night.

Compulsory decisions on "what society needs" are almost universally based on collective moral judgement to some degree. I'm sorry if that flies comfortably over your head, but it is the truth.
Really? So how does a 55mph speed limit fit?

The need for a hunting licence?

What about spending on research and devlopment?

What moral decisions were those?

Sorry if reality doesn't fit your moral needs.

Yes, but biology says a human fetus is a human being. Science dictates, it can't be anything other than human, and it is living, so it is in a physical state of 'being' and can't possibly be in another state. You have not contradicted this, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.
Science says no such thing. But, if you say it has, prove it. Show me ONE vetted biology source that claims that.

Really? Then why are there laws about wearing clothes in public?


First and foremost, put my name in the quote. Finding out where I've been quoted or not without a name to follow is annoying.

As to this question, laws regarding dress vary significantly across nations. Some places have laws requiring people dress up like a sack.

As for why? Societal reasons. Mostly transfered from European cultures.


Why can't we openly masturbate in public?


The same reason why you get slapped with a fine for tossing a used can of coke on the street, or pissing on it. Sanitation. Someone has to clean that up, and if you can't be arsed to keep things clean, you're going to pay for it.


Why can't we marry 12-year-olds?


Because of practical reasons. 12 year olds are not considered to be mature enough in some societies to effectively manage married life as well as the responsibility of raising people.

It creates additional strain on existing welfare and health systems.

Economics factor into it.

Oh, and legal contracts including marriage are specifically stated as between adults. 12 year olds don't classify as adults.


Why can't we murder our neighbor because we don't like how he looks at us? Why can't we just take whatever we want from whoever we want, if we are bigger? Why can't we rape women?


For the same reason I am not going to come to your house now and murder you before you pollute the gene pool with your stupidity.

Because without this framework of law, you might as well not have a government. Laws against murder, theft and assault are there to prevent societal and governmental collapse.

Abortion leading to societal collapse? Laughable.


Why can't we do all these things and more? It seems to me, someone didn't get the memo about morals and law, because we have a number of laws based on morality.

Hah. Laws like the Taliban's "Shoot women in the head for exposing their ankles"?

Laws on morality are idiotic laws.

Why do you persist with this straw man argument?


It's not. By stepping on the road, you consent to the possibility that you may be run down by a bus. Repeatedly. Any injuries you gain as a result of that accident are solely your fault.

Who said there should be?
BECAUSE I SAID SO!!! RAWWWRRR PHEAARR MY MORALITY!!! FACTS AND LOGIC BE DAMNED!


Distilled for accuracy.

Really? So how does a 55mph speed limit fit?

The need for a hunting licence?

What about spending on research and devlopment?

What moral decisions were those?

Sorry if reality doesn't fit your moral needs.

Apparently, now that you are failing to make any point on the abortion debate, you want to claim the argument that I have not made. You seem to think that I argued all laws are based on morals, and that wasn't my statement. I addressed the idiotic point that no law should be based on morals. We have many laws, some are certainly based on morals, as well as moral judgements. I never said that all laws were so based, but many of them are, or have roots in basis from a moral standpoint. Indeed, law itself is a moral constraint established by society and based on moral codes or judgements. I am sorry if you have a different opinion, but that is reality.

Science says no such thing. But, if you say it has, prove it. Show me ONE vetted biology source that claims that.

Fertilisation or fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is fusion of gametes to form a new organism of the same species. In animals, the process involves a sperm fusing with an ovum, which eventually leads to the development of an embryo. Depending on the animal species, the process can occur within the body of the female in internal fertilisation, or outside in the case of external fertilisation.

The entire process of development of new individuals is called procreation, the act of *species reproduction.

In mammals, binding of the spermatozoon to the GalT initiates the acrosome reaction. This process releases the enzyme hyaluronidase, which digests the matrix of hyaluronic acid in the vestments surrounding the oocyte. Fusion between the sperm and oocyte plasma membranes follows, allowing the entry of the sperm nucleus, mitochondria, centriole and flagellum into the oocyte. The fusion is likely mediated by the protein CD9 in mice (the bindin homolog). Once the ovum fuses with a single sperm cell, its cell membrane changes, preventing fusion with other sperm (see Egg activation).

*Reproduction is the biological process by which new individual organisms are produced. Reproduction is a fundamental feature of all known life; each individual organism exists as the result of reproduction. The known methods of reproduction are broadly grouped into two main types: sexual and asexual.

In asexual reproduction, an individual can reproduce without involvement with another individual of that species. The division of a bacterial cell into two daughter cells is an example of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is not, however, limited to single-celled organisms. Most plants have the ability to reproduce asexually.

Sexual reproduction requires the involvement of two individuals, typically one of each sex. Normal human reproduction is a common example of sexual reproduction.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction
References
^ Halliday, Tim R.; Kraig Adler (eds.) (1986). Reptiles & Amphibians. Torstar Books, p. 101. ISBN 0-920269-81-8.
^ Savage, Thomas F. (September 12, 2005). A Guide to the Recognition of Parthenogenesis in Incubated Turkey Eggs. Oregon State University. Retrieved on 2006-10-11.
^ "Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone, Researchers Find", Washington Post, Wednesday, May 23, 2007; Page A02
^ Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template
Scientists Create Artificial Virus
^ Williams G C. 1975. Sex and Evolution. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
S. P. Otto and D. B. Goldstein. "Recombination and the Evolution of Diploidy". Genetics. Vol 131 (1992): 745-751.
Tobler, M. & Schlupp,I. (2005) Parasites in sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae, Teleostei): a case for the Red Queen? Biol. Lett. 1 (2): 166-168.
Zimmer, Carl. "Parasite Rex: Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's Most Dangerous Creatures", New York: Touchstone, 2001.
"allogamy, cross-fertilization, cross-pollination, hybridization". GardenWeb Glossary of Botanical Terms (2.1). (2002).
"allogamy". Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary (27). (2004).
==============================================


Good enough "scientific proof" for ya???:fluffle:

A living human organism is created at point of conception. A new human life. Complete with everything you and I have, with no requirement except development time. It is a human, it is in the state of being, therefore, it is a Human Being. It is in its expected developmental stage of life, just as I am and you are obviously not. In fact, I would be careful, they might pass a bill that it's okay to kill off retarded people next... I'd hate for you to be victim of your own avocations some day.

Yes, but biology says a human fetus is a human being. Science dictates, it can't be anything other than human, and it is living, so it is in a physical state of 'being' and can't possibly be in another state. You have not contradicted this, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.

A being, but not a person. There is no reason to assume the growing body is anything but a fleshy husk until the brain and neural net kick in.

Apparently, now that you are failing to make any point on the abortion debate, you want to claim the argument that I have not made. You seem to think that I argued all laws are based on morals, and that wasn't my statement. I addressed the idiotic point that no law should be based on morals. We have many laws, some are certainly based on morals, as well as moral judgements. I never said that all laws were so based, but many of them are, or have roots in basis from a moral standpoint. Indeed, law itself is a moral constraint established by society and based on moral codes or judgements. I am sorry if you have a different opinion, but that is reality.
Did you strain your back moving those goal posts? Perhaps you forgot what you have posted. Let me remind you.


There is a lot of "based on what society needs" in your comments, do you not understand or comprehend, things "based on what society needs" is the same thing moral judgement?
And:
Compulsory decisions on "what society needs" are almost universally based on collective moral judgement to some degree. I'm sorry if that flies comfortably over your head, but it is the truth.
THAT is what you said.

Either say what you mean or yes, you WILL be called upon it, especially when making stupid statements like the above. Sorry you didn't quite get that.

Good enough "scientific proof" for ya???:fluffle:

A living human organism is created at point of conception. A new human life. Complete with everything you and I have, with no requirement except development time. It is a human, it is in the state of being, therefore, it is a Human Being. It is in its expected developmental stage of life, just as I am and you are obviously not. In fact, I would be careful, they might pass a bill that it's okay to kill off retarded people next... I'd hate for you to be victim of your own avocations some day.
No. Because:

There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

And no, science does not state that life begins at conception, because it doesn't even agree what life is.

Granted she didn't give up those rights if she were raped, thus why abortion for that reason should be allowed.

How exactly is the rape supposed to be verified, legally, so that the abortion can be allowed for that reason?

C.

How exactly is the rape supposed to be verified, legally, so that the abortion can be allowed for that reason?

C.

... eh?

I think I'm missing something here, but possibly the same way in which people get convicted of rape?

A woman seeking an abortion became pregnant somehow, correct? Now, if you can demonstrate how this came about through no choice of her own... like aliens came down and implanted the fetus inside her... or the fetus just broke into the womb and started living there... then I am listening, otherwise, I have to conclude it got there because of some action taken by the woman.

Er... rape?

C.

Many of you say that a woman is "giving up her life" by having a baby. But she's not. Not really. She can give the baby up for adoption once it's born, and, really, what's nine months that a mother has to spend pregnant compared to at least ninety (assuming that the child does not die an early death) that this baby could spend alive? What is nine months compared to ninety years?

Have you ever been pregnant?

C.

... eh?

I think I'm missing something here, but possibly the same way in which people get convicted of rape?

I don't understand how a legal differentiation between abortion for rape cases and abortion for all other cases is supposed to be practically enforced.

It's difficult to prove rape, physically. Not all rape is violent so there'd be no physical marks, and some consensual sex is rough and does leave marks, the only thing you could possibly prove is that sex took place (if the rapist isn't wearing a condom and you can test the DNA), but that says nothing about whether or not the sex was consensual. You'd have to take the word of the woman who said it was rape (and I'd imagine that if abortion were legal only for cases of rape, and a declaration of rape was all that was required to get the abortion, that many women who were not actually raped would claim to have been raped to have the abortion -- I know I would if I was denied my right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy).

Practically, it's unrealistic to allow abortion in cases of rape, but make it illegal otherwise. You either have to allow all abortion, or no abortion at all.

C.

I don't understand how a legal differentiation between abortion for rape cases and abortion for all other cases is supposed to be practically enforced.

It's difficult to prove rape, physically. Not all rape is violent so there'd be no physical marks, and some consensual sex is rough and does leave marks, the only thing you could possibly prove is that sex took place (if the rapist isn't wearing a condom and you can test the DNA), but that says nothing about whether or not the sex was consensual. You'd have to take the word of the woman who said it was rape (and I'd imagine that if abortion were legal only for cases of rape, and a declaration of rape was all that was required to get the abortion, that many women who were not actually raped would claim to have been raped to have the abortion -- I know I would if I was denied my right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy).

Practically, it's unrealistic to allow abortion in cases of rape, but make it illegal otherwise. You either have to allow all abortion, or no abortion at all.

C.

Why couldn't one just take the matter to court and allow abortion based on the outcome of a rape conviction?

Anyway, the point is moot, because strangely I don't really believe in enforcing the rights of something that is medically braindead.

Because for Christians its hard to differentiate from murder.

Isn't murder defined as the unlawful taking of life of a human, by another human? And if it is, then how is it defined with abortion. they make it legal, so in essence, it's no different than getting a hunting permit. After a baby unborn, isn't even good enough to be considered equal to an animal, right?

Why couldn't one just take the matter to court and allow abortion based on the outcome of a rape conviction?

Anyway, the point is moot, because strangely I don't really believe in enforcing the rights of something that is medically braindead.

I can't imagine that anyone who is "pro-life" would consider the findings of a jury acceptable enough to deem a case rape for abortion purposes.

C.

No, I am sorry, it doesn't depend on how you define 'human', science defines human life already. It depends on whether you choose to ignore science or not. An unborn fetus is a human life, it can be nothing other than human, and it is living. Now, many people choose to ignore science and call a fetus something other than what it is, but that doesn't make it so. It only allows you to appease your conscience and continue killing innocent human life.

1. If it is not Human, what species is it?
2. If it's human and not alive, why do we have to terminate it?
3. If it's human life, why are we debating killing it?

The very fact that the author of this thread attributes humanity to the fetus, speaks volumes. You know as well as the pro-lifer's, the fetus is most certainly a human life. You're just okay with killing humans you don't think are worthy of living. Let's be honest about that.

'Human life' is the key term, perhaps 'human' by itself is too loose. As Nervun has said, there is no consensus on when life begins. My opinion is that it starts with the development of brain functions, you do not agree, ok, this is what most abortion arguments boil down to. That and the right of the woman to bodily autonomy. And stop building strawmen.

Pffft..

'Defending herself against an unwanted parasite' eh?

First off, it is really hard to contract this 'parasite' if you refrain from having sex. It isn't like you drink a glass of water one day and wake up the next with this 'parasite' inside you, living off the food you intake.(well, so long as this water has no drugs in it) Since sex is generally something voluntary and not a necessary action to keep an individual alive, it isn't self-defense when you abort a fetus. 'Self-defense' would be not getting a fetus in the first place.

Having sex =/= wanting to be pregnant, that is why people use protection. And yes, having an abortion for an unwanted(/potentially dangerous) pregnancy is akin to taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Self-defense.

Also, fetii are not actually parasites, unless you consider humans to be parasites. In which case, calling a fetus a parasite is the same as saying it is a human.

Please reread the definition of 'parasite' that others have posted previously in this thread. A fetus is a human parasite.

So when birth control fails a woman should be allowed to get an abortion? Good that you agree.


Now as to why you think someone who isn't responsable enough to use contraception is responsable enough to have a kid... yeah, why is this exactly?

That's a good question, maybe it's because it's a LIFE! I mean think about it really, imagine your mother goes out this saturday, and she decides to have sex without protection. How would you feel if the police found out and said that you would be sentenced to death for her indescretion?

That's a good question, maybe it's because it's a LIFE! I mean think about it really, imagine your mother goes out this saturday, and she decides to have sex without protection. How would you feel if the police found out and said that you would be sentenced to death for her indescretion?

That's possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. It's up there, anyway.

You do realise the first step of making the above accurate would be to recognise that you wouldn't actually have existed if not for that sex act.

'Human life' is the key term, perhaps 'human' by itself is too loose. As Nervun has said, there is no consensus on when life begins. My opinion is that it starts with the development of brain functions, you do not agree, ok, this is what most abortion arguments boil down to.

Indeed. I also believe that before a human can experience anything (i.e. when it is without brain and nervoussystem) it is not harmed by being killed - since from its own point of view there truly is no difference between non-existence and life. There is potential for developing that capacity - but it is not yet there.

Yes, the fetus is in your body, through no fault of its own, and no choice it made to be there. No other instance in our society, is a human life acceptably terminated because of no fault of their own.

Of course, it has no fault. Random clumps of cells have no volition. But even if it did have volition and somehow managed to itself in my body, through no fault of its own, it would still be my body and I would still have the sovereign right to remove it. If I kidnap a Mexican and drive him to Illinois, he's still getting deported when the INS catches him.

And the death of innocent human life is actually so commonplace we have invented terms for it, like 'collateral damage' and 'euthanasia' and 'reasonable cause', or my current favourite: enemy combatant. Of course, I'm still pretending that the fetus is a human life...

In any case, the original point was... IS IT MORALLY RIGHT to kill someone who is walking across your yard, and intends no harm to you. According to your own law, it is NOT morally right to do so.

Laws have nothing to do with morals. It's against the law in my state to buy sex toys, and yet, there is nothing morally wrong with sex toys.

Laws have nothing to do with morals. It's against the law in my state to buy sex toys, and yet, there is nothing morally wrong with sex toys.

There is nothing morally wrong with most sex toys.


I've seen things....

There is nothing morally wrong with most sex toys.


I've seen things....

well.........what I mean is sex toys are amoral, not that you can't do immoral things with them.

well.........what I mean is sex toys are amoral, not that you can't do immoral things with them.

I hope to Flying Monster of Spaghetti you are right.

*looks at locked closet door*

Noodly Appendage save us.

I hope to Flying Monster of Spaghetti you are right.

*looks at locked closet door*

Noodly Appendage save us.
Been buying things from Japan, huh? ;)

Been buying things from Japan, huh? ;)

Don't get the Mecha Ultra Super Surprise Pocket Package from J-List.

Question... Has anyone here who is against abortion been faced with unwated pregnancy in difficult circumstance?

Question... Has anyone here who is against abortion been faced with unwated pregnancy in difficult circumstance?

Closest i've got is pregnancy scares from a male perspective. Doesn't make me much of an expert

You need to help me... I've been having thoughts about getting myself an abortion... And I'm a guy.

:p

Been buying things from Japan, huh? ;)

now the Hello Kitty one might just be evil.

Yep.

And what occured?

Question... Has anyone here who is against abortion been faced with unwated pregnancy in difficult circumstance?

Yep.

Laws have nothing to do with morals. It's against the law in my state to buy sex toys, and yet, there is nothing morally wrong with sex toys.

what state is that?

Why did you make a abortion thread!? WHY!?

So we can begin the mass abortion of the unborn. I declare abortion day.

Dixieanna, you were doing fine until you got to this bit:
... It is in its expected developmental stage of life, just as I am and you are obviously not. In fact, I would be careful, they might pass a bill that it's okay to kill off retarded people next... I'd hate for you to be victim of your own avocations some day.

Please read, learn and inwardly digest the contents of this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), the One-Stop Rules Shop.

Pay special attention to this part in the FORBIDDEN ACTIONS section:

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming.

And if you read on to the section about flamebaiting, don't think you were flamebaited, because you weren't.

I've taken this long to explain it to you because you're new. No-one will bother explaining it next time, so don't have a next time. Too many "next times" can lead to a "last time".

Snip.

I find Ardchoille's mod warnings the most poetic (so to speak) ones.

The question is a moral one. Do we, as mortal humans, have the right to take life?


Yes, or we'd have starved to death by now.

And, technically, we have the right if we say we do as, despite the fondness for 'god-given' rights, those we have were decided upon by ourselves and, in the absence of any evidence for an objective morality, then that's all we need.

Foestuses have original sin, thus they go to hell.

Wha?

There was an aged mod, name of Ard,
Who put on her mod hat so hard
That she had to speak rhyme
Most all of the time ...

Omigod what am I doing spamming up the umpteen millionth abortion thread?

I don't suppose you'd all just agree to disagree? No? Ah well, carry on.

There was an aged mod, name of Ard,
Who put on her mod hat so hard
That she had to speak rhyme
Most all of the time ...

Omigod what am I doing spamming up the umpteen millionth abortion thread?

I don't suppose you'd all just agree to disagree? No? Ah well, carry on.

Well, that's not quite what I meant by poetic. I meant in the sense of creation...

Omigod what am I doing spamming up the umpteen millionth abortion thread?


Venting boredom?

By that logic, murder is also morally acceptable because it likely sends the person to heaven faster.

No, that only sends you to the sorting bin faster.

No, that only sends you to the sorting bin faster.

Nice one.

I think the OP needs a minor tweak.

Not all Christians are against abortion, just as not all Catholics believe that the rhythm method is an actual, workable method of birth control.

Rhythm method? Why does that sound like a vague sexual euphemism in this context?

Nice one.

I think the OP needs a minor tweak.

Not all Christians are against abortion, just as not all Catholics believe that the rhythm method is an actual, workable method of birth control.

Always reading something extra into what I post.

Really, you give me too much credit in that department. I take it you're thinking of the old in-out...

Not really, I'd have thought the same thing if someone else posted it.

It really does sound vaguely sexual.

Wait...so that's not what it is?

Rhythm method? Why does that sound like a vague sexual euphemism in this context?

Always reading something extra into what I post.

Really, you give me too much credit in that department. I take it you're thinking of the old in-out...

My apologies for my earlier post, which was not only spammy, but also insulting to those of you who are debating this subject seriously.

Yes, I know better. Yes, I've read the stickies. Yes, I won't have any chocolate for 24 hours. :( Fair dos?

Wow... I had 20 pages to catch up but I think I got the gist of what I needed.

Now, time for an ammo check... everything is in place. Now what should I use...? Ah, I'll just fire at random and hope I hit something. :)

I'm a poor substitute for Bottle but I shall do my best.

On a final note, I suggest you find a copy of the film A Silent Scream. The film is from a real life ultrasound of an abortion. I have to be honest, it is the most disturbing thing I have seen in my life. Without being too graphic, the fetus struggles to escape death as the forceps move in to eliminate it. Again it is horrifying to watch, and it makes me wonder a lot about the abortion issue.

For some reason that doesn't make me squirm as much as the vivid memory I have from grade 11 Biology, during one class when my teacher was conducting a unit on human reproduction and showed the class a video of a live birth. That was just... messed up. Especially when the crown of the head started to emerge.

abortion is wrong because life begins at conception, abortion is killing and wrong because its taking away life, life is a gift and should be cherished. babies will go to heaven without baptism if the parents intended for them to go be baptized. the same goes for aborted babies.

Even if life begins at conception, according to 3:15-16, God doesn't recognised any humans 1 month old or less as "life".

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD.



Abortion is neither right nor wrong. It is amoral and it is not up to you to decide if it's right or wrong. You can decide if it's right or wrong for you but you cannot do it for another.

Also, unbaptised babies will not go to Heaven because they are unable to believe in God, which is a key requisite into heaven. I believe it was Jesus who stated this. Even if the baby is baptised, if they die without believing in God, they will not to go heaven.

So, here's a question, by your logic, babies, both born and aborted go to heaven, where does it leave those who were miscarried? Or do they not count in your messed up equation?

So when birth control fails a woman should be allowed to get an abortion? Good that you agree.


Now as to why you think someone who isn't responsable enough to use contraception is responsable enough to have a kid... yeah, why is this exactly?

That is a good point. In fact, I never thought of it that way.

It makes you feel better about killing innocent life, to categorize my position as one of punishment for the "skank". My position is based on personal responsibility, not punishment.

Another straw man in your food example... "YOU DIDN'T KNOW" ...Tell me? When's the last time you knew of someone having sex and not KNOWING how you become pregnant?

The decision to abort an unwanted pregnancy is taking personal responsibility because the woman is recognising that she is unable to adequately care for the foetus should it develop into a human. It may not be "responsible" in your eyes, but she has taken control and responsibility for the situation and tried to fix it.

What would be irresponsible would be to bring the pregnancy to term and abandon the child without a second thought when there are many other children who could use a loving home.

Why worry about a woman's choice to abort a potential life when there are children living as wards of the state, wanting a loving home. Are they not living beings with potential? Why are they being ignored in favour of a blastocyst; a zygot; a foetus?

Should there be a moral obligation to living children who need a home more than to the foetus that may not even develop into sentient life?

I find it funny that most people who are against abortion are pro-gun ownership, pro-Iraq war, pro-death penalty, and so on.. and just to think some actually justify killing abortionist to 'save life' haha.

It's all about control.

No, a fetus IS a human life. Until you can scientifically prove otherwise, this fact can't be avoided. Sorry, but science doesn't lie. You can claim it is something else, but I can also claim that the moon is made of cheese, it doesn't make it factual.

The fetus does not "become" life, it is alive from point of conception, and as I argued earlier, if it isn't human life, what life form is it?

Proven otherwise?

Well, given that the foetal period commences on the 10th week (8th week of physical development) following conception, we can assume that life doesn't not begin at conception, since you're maintaining that a foetus is human life. The unborn isn't even potentially life until then if we consider the foetus to even be human.

You can say that a person on life support is alive but are they truly alive? If that support was removed, they may potentially die. Just as the womb is the life support for the unborn foetus keeping it alive, so is medical technology that keeps a patient alive.

The difference between the person on life support and the foetus is that the person is a living human being and the foetus is well... not a living human being.

No, an ant is not a human life.

No, but it is still life. It is alive. A foetus isn't life until it is outside of the womb. Until then it is potential life because it can die in the womb and come out as a stillborn.

There is no such thing as an innocent insect. Hell, the little buggers wear their skeletons on the outside, that's just freaking odd.

No, Platypuses are odd. :)

You are confusing "science" with "scientific theory". Science does indeed provide us with universal laws of physics and things that are constant and undeniable facts of life. Biology dictates that a human embryo is human life, it can't be anything other than this, just like a pine tree can't be a fish. You can certainly call a pine tree a fish, and you can challenge science and biology, but it doesn't mean you have a viable argument or point.

How can a human embryo be a human life when it lacks the defining characteristics of a human being? The embryonic stage precedes the foetal stage and while it is an embryo, it lacks many key physical characteristics, though the early instances from the cells begin to form, but not enough to the point of constituting "human life".

Would you consider unbaked bread dough to be a loaf of bread? It has the potential to be a loaf of bread but until it's baked, it's just dough and it's not bread in the sense that we accept bread.

Has nothing to do with the "enjoyment" of the sex. It has to do with personal responsibility of chosing to have sex.

Choosing to use condoms, birth control pills... etc is showing responsibility.

When the contraceptives fail, as they have a small chance of:

Choosing to use the morning after pill is assuming responsibility for any possible consequence of sexual intercourse.

Choosing to have an abortion is also assuming responsibility.

Seeing the doctor to discuss pre-natal care options is accepting responsibility.

Seeing the doctor to discuss post-natal options if keeping the foetus isn't an viable option is assuming responsibility.

These are all forms of responsibility. By not doing anything is the woman not accepting any form of responsibility. Whether you like it or not, the decision to abort is still taking responsibilities for one's actions.

Neo Art, thank you for giving such a great argument for pro-life! Indeed, the woman has the right to say no, and with rights come responsibility. She could have simply said no, and, by saying 'yes', she took on the possible responsibility of a child.

And what of the man? His responsibility ends after the sex is done?

This is a bad analogy. If someone forced you to give up your kidney, you had no choice in the matter. Unless it is rape, no once can force you to become pregnant.

By telling a woman she has no control over her reproductive system you are telling her that she MUST be pregnant.

unless she allows it

That's what we like to call "choice". If she allows it and goes through with the pregnancy, it's her choice.

I like your choice of words here. See, she did allow it. By having sex.

No, she allows it if she chooses to allow it.

Number two, pregnancy, in most cases, is not life threatening, nor does it usually cause serious injury, whereas injury from a car-crash can be life threatening and can cause serious injury.

The potential injuries from a car crash are reliant on a number of both mitigating and aggravating factors, including and not limited to the speed of one (or both cars if there is more than one involved), if seat belts were used, if the car flipped over etc...

Just as the chance of complications in pregnancy are reliant on many factors as well.

A tragedy has occured. Let's not cause another one. An abortion would just add to the trauma. It's not the child's fault that the mother was raped.

And what kind of trauma would that be? Physical trauma? Psychological trauma?

I refer you to this post by The Cat-Tribe (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12800950&postcount=260), in which they list numerous studies that show no link between abortion and potential mental health issues.

Reported cases of physical trauma are often linked to the patient's inability to follow post-abortion instructions if there are complications that arise. The instructions when ignored lead to complications.

Oh good, so you agree that the rapist doesn't have the right to automatically reproduce with anyone he forces himself on. That would be tragic.

I am sorry you view the miracle of life as a tragedy. I truly am.


What child? There's no child in an abortion.

In your opinion.


And what if she dies in childbirth (it's 100 times more likely than death due to an abortion)? What if she's got a scholarship that can't be put off for a year and can't afford to go to school otherwise? What if she's a couple of months away from a job that would give her real health benefits? What if she's already struggling to feed and clothe three other kids?

Okay. *takes a long breath*

In my opinion, abortion should be legalized if the mother's life is at stake. I've seen many pregnant people go to college and succeed. She can take care of the children herself while pregnant or get someone to watch the kids and give the baby up for adoption once it is born.


Haha, you have a penis, don't you?

No. I've very interested to find out why you would think I was male?

Have you ever been pregnant?

C.

No. Have you ever been ripped apart by an abortionist because your mother didn't want you?

[QUOTE]Having sex =/= wanting to be pregnant, that is why people use protection. And yes, having an abortion for an unwanted(/potentially dangerous) pregnancy is akin to taking antibiotics for a bacterial infection. Self-defense.[\QUOTE]

Even with protection, there is a possibility you might get pregnant. Having used the protection, you should know there is still a possibility. You have the right to say no. You have the knowledge to know what could possibly happen if you say yes, and with rights and knowledge come responsibility.

Having an abortion if the womans life is in danger is self defense. Having an abortion just because the child is unwanted is not.

It's not about whether or not they wanted to become pregnant. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. And no, it's not responsible to have an abortion. What is responsible about that?

Not everyone considers that child an "unwanted parasite". Frankly, I think that's a pretty horrid term to use, especially considering it's an incorrect use of the term in the first place and has a really dehumanizing feel akin to "vermin".

You can't dehumanize something that's not yet a human being. Like my finger a fetus has human DNA but it is not A human anymore than my finger is.

It's not about whether or not they wanted to become pregnant. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. And no, it's not responsible to have an abortion. What is responsible about that?

It's far more responsible than going through with a pregnancy only to turn the child over to child protection services and hoping it gets placed into a loving home and doesn't remain a ward of the state for it life until it turns 18.

How responsible is it to turn a child over to an already burdened system? It seems rather irresponsible to me when there are other children waiting to be adopted by a family that wants them. These children do not need to compete with yet more children in order to find a loving home.

Carrying a pregnancy to term does not equate responsibility.

Kryozerkia, I can understand why you think that, but it's like saying 'Oh, dear child, there's only a 10% chance you're going to lead a happy life. So, instead, we're going to give you a 0% chance of being happy! Aren't we kind?'

I tend to establish personhood at around the same time, although I don't consider survival outside the womb to be particularly important in and of itself (I was actually slightly premature).

At which point you SURVIVED OUTSIDE THE WOMB. Had you not you would not be here making this argument.

It's far more responsible than going through with a pregnancy only to turn the child over to child protection services and hoping it gets placed into a loving home and doesn't remain a ward of the state for it life until it turns 18.

How responsible is it to turn a child over to an already burdened system? It seems rather irresponsible to me when there are other children waiting to be adopted by a family that wants them. These children do not need to compete with yet more children in order to find a loving home.

It's interesting, as I read this posting it occurred to me that this particular argument seems to justify killing, rather than somehow disprove that's what's happening.

If the social services and adoption agencies are THAT overburdened, abortion isn't the solution. Abortion has been legal for 34 years now and it would appear this has not solved the problem of the overburdened system.

The high unwanted pregnancy rate is a social problem that needs to be addressed directly. legalizing abortion as a solution to it is like treating a symptom, not the disease.


Carrying a pregnancy to term does not equate responsibility.

Neither does killing an unborn baby. It's more like taking the easy way out.

Why don't we find some why to fix the adoption agency that doesn't include killing innocent unborn babies?

Kryozerkia, I can understand why you think that, but it's like saying 'Oh, dear child, there's only a 10% chance you're going to lead a happy life. So, instead, we're going to give you a 0% chance of being happy! Aren't we kind?'

No, it's more along the lines of saying, "let's worry about the children who are born rather than those who have yet to be born". These children's right to happiness don't end when they leave the womb. The sanctity of life becomes more important once the unborn is brought into the world bloody and crying.

Oh wouldn't it be loverly if all children had at least one parent? If no children were wards of the state and all children were cared for by loving family? But sadly such a utopian paradise doesn't exist, and yet people still bring children into the world without wanting them then abandoning them to a cluttered bureaucratic sea of red tape and paperwork.

I'm not saying that children who are wards of the state can never be happy, I'm simply of the contention that as long as there are children that remain in the system waiting to be adopted why pro-life/anti-abortion advocates insist that the woman can carry the pregnancy to term and leave the infant as a ward of the state.

To me, that is irresponsible.

Instead of killing babies, why don't we find some why to fix the adoption agency that doesn't include killing innocent unborn babies?

A baby is a human being. An unborn foetus is not a baby. It will become a baby once it has gone through the birth canal (or been delivered via caesarian section).

Even if the problem is "fixed", it doesn't fix that there are unwanted pregnancies in the world. What would fix unwanted pregnancies would be sound sexual education policies that focus on prevention. Additionally, unrestricted access to the "morning after pill", which is not an abortion pill, since it simply prevents the fertilised egg from implanting itself in the wall of the uterus, would also contribute greatly.

I'm not saying children are any less important than unborn babies. I don't want either to have to suffer. And, again, I can understand why you would think that, but the unborn child has the right to a chance to be happy just as much as the born child as the right to be happy. If you kill the baby, you're denying it that chance.

It's not about whether or not they wanted to become pregnant. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. And no, it's not responsible to have an abortion. What is responsible about that?

Who exactly is being hurt by an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy ? Something is indeed stripped of the chance of becoming something that could have experiences and a life - but it does not have those capacities yet.

So.. how do can you hurt something that is incapable of being hurt ?

The chance... the chance... the chance... *echo, echo, echo...*

The chance... the chance... the chance... *echo, echo, echo...*

The "chance" is being hurt ? "The chance" has feelings ?

Lots of people can be hurt. The parents, the friends, the father of the child who can't do anything about it. The mother herself can get hurt. She may regret it or never wanted to do it in the first place but someone forced her to.

Who exactly is being hurt by an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy ?

The unborn baby.


Something is indeed stripped of the chance of becoming something that could have experiences and a life - but it does not have those capacities yet.


Not sure what capacities you refer to. Could you elaborate, please?


So.. how do can you hurt something that is incapable of being hurt ?

Why do you say it cannot be hurt?

The "chance" is being hurt ? "The chance" has feelings ?

We're assuming that this is the earliest stage of pregnancy and the child can not get hurt (most woman don't catch the pregnancy by this point). The chance of what the child might become. The chance that the mother might love the child. The chance that the child could have done something to help someone. The chance that the child was going to do something important. The chance that the child could have been happy. It all dies.

Not sure what capacities you refer to. Could you elaborate, please?

The ones I mentioned. Being able to have experiences.

Why do you say it cannot be hurt?
How do you propose to hurt something that is unable to experience anything and has no capacity for thought ?

We're assuming that this is the earliest stage of pregnancy and the child can not get hurt (most woman don't catch the pregnancy by this point). The chance of what the child might become. The chance that the mother might love the child. The chance that the child could have done something to help someone. The chance that the child was going to do something important. The chance that the child could have been happy. It all dies.

The same is true if I decide not to have sex with my girlfriend tonight.

As far as we know there is no great void where potential human souls are adrift, waiting for a new body to be created and inhabit. As such, the chances you mention do not hurt actual existing persons. Philosophically speaking the chances may result in different futures with more net happiness - but that is true for every single action we take. Condemning abortion for something like that is therefor silly.

The decision to abort an unwanted pregnancy is taking personal responsibility because the woman is recognising that she is unable to adequately care for the foetus should it develop into a human. It may not be "responsible" in your eyes, but she has taken control and responsibility for the situation and tried to fix it.

No, I am sorry, killing people to avoid dealing with them, is NOT accepting personal responsibility.

Well, given that the foetal period commences on the 10th week (8th week of physical development) following conception, we can assume that life doesn't not begin at conception, since you're maintaining that a foetus is human life. The unborn isn't even potentially life until then if we consider the foetus to even be human.

Not according to biology. It becomes a living organism at point of conception. Now, you can deny this organism is human, but this also flies in the face of biology, as the organism has never produced anything other than humans.

You can say that a person on life support is alive but are they truly alive? If that support was removed, they may potentially die. Just as the womb is the life support for the unborn foetus keeping it alive, so is medical technology that keeps a patient alive.

The difference between the person on life support and the foetus is that the person is a living human being and the foetus is well... not a living human being.

A person on life support is a living human organism as well. It doesn't matter if they will die when it is removed, this doesn't change the state of something. A fetus is indeed a living human being. It is living, it is human, and it is in the state of being. It is impossible for it to be anything else. You constantly contradict yourself here, you first say, "it could die" then you say "it's not alive" and both statements can not be true.

No, but it is still life. It is alive. A foetus isn't life until it is outside of the womb. Until then it is potential life because it can die in the womb and come out as a stillborn.

A fetus is a living organism, it is human life. I know you want this NOT to be the case, but lying and being dishonest about this is silly. You can't say something can potentially die, therefore it is not alive! It is a gross contradiction of logic to conclude such a thing.

How can a human embryo be a human life when it lacks the defining characteristics of a human being? The embryonic stage precedes the foetal stage and while it is an embryo, it lacks many key physical characteristics, though the early instances from the cells begin to form, but not enough to the point of constituting "human life".

Would you consider unbaked bread dough to be a loaf of bread? It has the potential to be a loaf of bread but until it's baked, it's just dough and it's not bread in the sense that we accept bread.

The defining characteristics of a human being, is human DNA, which the fetus (and embryo) has. Whether an organism is living, has nothing to do with characteristics, it is either alive or not alive. There is no scientific or biological example of where this is "constituted" by observing characteristics.

I undersrtand you have to grasp at straw men to hold onto your misguided views, but a loaf of bread is not a living organism, and has no place in this debate.

Whether you like it or not, the decision to abort is still taking responsibilities for one's actions.

Like a rapist killing his victim so she won't identify him. Your logic is all over the board!

The ones I mentioned. Being able to have experiences.

A baby in the womb reacts to external stimuli. That is the definition of having experiences. They're pretty simplistic by our standards, but nonetheless they are there.


How do you propose to hurt something that is unable to experience anything and has no capacity for thought ?

Tearing it apart will do it.

A baby in the womb reacts to external stimuli. That is the definition of having experiences. They're pretty simplistic by our standards, but nonetheless they are there.

What stage of the pregnancy are we talking about here ? I fully agree that a fetus should be protected after brain and neural net are activated. As do most lawgivers - which is why abortion becomes illegal slightly before that time (to be on the safe side).

Tearing it apart will do it.

Nope. Because from its own point of view there is no difference whatsoever between the two situations. We are the ones that see a difference. The embryo does not.

The same is true if I decide not to have sex with my girlfriend tonight.

As far as we know there is no great void where potential human souls are adrift, waiting for a new body to be created and inhabit. As such, the chances you mention do not hurt actual existing persons. Philosophically speaking the chances may result in different futures with more net happiness - but that is true for every single action we take. Condemning abortion for something like that is therefor silly.


Is nothing held sacred anymore?

We're assuming that this is the earliest stage of pregnancy and the child can not get hurt (most woman don't catch the pregnancy by this point). The chance of what the child might become. The chance that the mother might love the child. The chance that the child could have done something to help someone. The chance that the child was going to do something important. The chance that the child could have been happy. It all dies.

Yes, but that's the chance taken. There is also the chance that the mother just plain doesn't want the child that will be the result of the pregnancy. There is a chance that this child could be a burden on society. The chance that the child could not be happy.

There are a lot of "what ifs". Chance can swing either way.

You'd probably still say, "well, give it a chance".

But what of the mother? Perhaps she has yet to reach her potential and this child may prevent her from doing so.

Life is filled with chance. There are many "what ifs".

Lots of people can be hurt.

Yes, hitting people on the head with a frying pan will hurt them unless they're wearing a helmet.

The parents,

How are the woman's parents hurt?

They may feel she made the wrong choice. They may feel she made the right choice.

They may lament the loss of a potential grandchild. They may see it as her choice to wait.

They may never know.

the friends,

This one baffles me. How does it hurt her friends?

the father of the child who can't do anything about it.

He can talk to her if she has told him.

Chances are if they are in a serious relationship, they would have already decided what they would do if she got pregnant.

Or... what if the father left? How would he be hurt if he left her before he found out she was pregnant? Or for that matter, left her AFTER the fact?

The mother herself can get hurt. She may regret it or never wanted to do it in the first place but someone forced her to.

Yes she may be hurt. It can happen. It's called "chance".

Even if she regrets it, she may feel that it was the right choice.

Yes, being forced to abort, it happens. The parents may have forced her to abort the child. Her husband or partner may have forced her. Or... she wasn't forced and made the choice herself.

I said people "can" be hurt. You just answered your own question.

As for friends, if one of my friends got pregnant and decided to abort, it would hurt me.

What stage of the pregnancy are we talking about here ? I fully agree that a fetus should be protected after brain and neural net are activated. As do most lawgivers - which is why abortion becomes illegal slightly before that time (to be on the safe side).


You're right for many states but not all of them. In some places it's legal beyond that point (resonse to stimuli).

As for the stage, if we agree that the baby ought to be protected after neural activity occurs, then let's focus on the period before that. Granted, the baby doesn't respond to stimuli before that point, but we're talking pretty early. Brainwave activity can be measured at 9 weeks, although it's not unreasonable to conclude that there are waves too small to measure before that. The brain begins to form at 5 weeks so it'll be somewhere in that time period.

Abortion is legal in all 50 states at 9 weeks.


Nope. Because from its own point of view there is no difference whatsoever between the two situations. We are the ones that see a difference. The embryo does not.

I don't see the relevance. The same could be said about a hospital patient in a coma. Nobody would advocate killing all coma patients simply because they are unaware of the act.

No, I am sorry, it doesn't depend on how you define 'human', science defines human life already. It depends on whether you choose to ignore science or not. An unborn fetus is a human life, it can be nothing other than human, and it is living. Now, many people choose to ignore science and call a fetus something other than what it is, but that doesn't make it so. It only allows you to appease your conscience and continue killing innocent human life.

1. If it is not Human, what species is it?

You are assuming that at this point in development it is a separate being from the mother.

2. If it's human and not alive, why do we have to terminate it?

The fetus is not terminated, the pregnancy is.

3. If it's human life, why are we debating killing it?

Pro-choice debaters DON'T argue about "killing" anything. They argue about aborting the pregnancy. Pro-lifers on the other hand come at it from the "OMG eb1L baby killer" standpoint.

No, I am sorry, killing people to avoid dealing with them, is NOT accepting personal responsibility.

How is it killing a person when the foetus isn't even a foetus yet?

Not according to biology. It becomes a living organism at point of conception. Now, you can deny this organism is human, but this also flies in the face of biology, as the organism has never produced anything other than humans.

It may become a living organism but it doesn't make it a human.

A person on life support is a living human organism as well. It doesn't matter if they will die when it is removed, this doesn't change the state of something. A fetus is indeed a living human being. It is living, it is human, and it is in the state of being. It is impossible for it to be anything else. You constantly contradict yourself here, you first say, "it could die" then you say "it's not alive" and both statements can not be true.

How is the foetus a living human being? It is totally and completely reliant on the woman for life support.

Yes a person on life support is a person; they are living but they aren't truly living. They are reliant on life support to sustain them just as the developing foetus is reliant on the mother.

The only difference is that one has achieved personhood while the other hasn't but neither are living. One is sustain through a natural system wile the other is artificially sustained.

You may see it as a contradiction but I cannot view something as "living" as long as it is reliant on life support (It's still alive but not necessarily living). Conversely until the foetus is out of the womb, it is not living because it is relying on nature's life support system, the womb. It may be alive but it's not a living being.

A fetus is a living organism, it is human life. I know you want this NOT to be the case, but lying and being dishonest about this is silly. You can't say something can potentially die, therefore it is not alive! It is a gross contradiction of logic to conclude such a thing.

Yes it is a living organism but it is not human life until it achieves defining human characteristics.

A tree can be alive but have a dead branch. It is still alive but that branch isn't.

Undefined cells and underdeveloped characteristics are not human life. They have the potential to be human life but they are not human life.

The defining characteristics of a human being, is human DNA, which the fetus (and embryo) has. Whether an organism is living, has nothing to do with characteristics, it is either alive or not alive. There is no scientific or biological example of where this is "constituted" by observing characteristics.

My nail clippings contain human DNA, are those now human life? They carrying my DNA.

I undersrtand you have to grasp at straw men to hold onto your misguided views, but a loaf of bread is not a living organism, and has no place in this debate.

It is an analogy. Unbaked bread has to be baked in an oven in order to become a loaf of bread just as the fertilised egg has to go through gestation in order to become eventually a human. Unbaked, the bread is just dough; without the womb, the fertilised egg is just a fertilised egg and nothing more.

Both require a form of intervention in order to change its form into something greater.

I said people "can" be hurt. You just answered your own question.

As for friends, if one of my friends got pregnant and decided to abort, it would hurt me.

I know they can, but they also may not be hurt. It can go both ways.

Exactly how would your friend aborting her pregnancy hurt you? It's not your child now is it? You may object and find it immoral but how does it actually hurt you? I'm honestly curious.

You are assuming that at this point in development it is a separate being from the mother.

It is. It's not an organ of the mother's body nor is it her same DNA.


The fetus is not terminated, the pregnancy is.


I'd say both are.


Pro-choice debaters DON'T argue about "killing" anything. They argue about aborting the pregnancy. Pro-lifers on the other hand come at it from the "OMG eb1L baby killer" standpoint.

Which is consistent with the fact that an unborn baby is, in fact, being killed.

A legal code presupposes a metaphysics. For example, here you presuppose a (possibly) materialistic metaphysics and certainly a radical empiricist epistemology.

You are clearly using an unknown definition of one of the bolded terms.

It is an analogy. Unbaked bread has to be baked in an oven in order to become a loaf of bread just as the fertilised egg has to go through gestation in order to become eventually a human. Unbaked, the bread is just dough; without the womb, the fertilised egg is just a fertilised egg and nothing more.

Both require a form of intervention in order to change its form into something greater.

That's an interesting analogy, but it bears mentioning that a lump of dough must be acted upon to change into a loaf of bread. On its own, it does nothing.

On the other hand, once a human egg is fertilized it isn't acted upon, it acts on its own. The mother provides the necessary nutrients, water and a safe environment, but the act of developing through the stages of pregnancy is all done by the unborn for itself.

That's an interesting analogy, but it bears mentioning that a lump of dough must be acted upon to change into a loaf of bread. On its own, it does nothing.

On the other hand, once a human egg is fertilized it isn't acted upon, it acts on its own. The mother provides the necessary nutrients, water and a safe environment, but the act of developing through the stages of pregnancy is all done by the unborn for itself.

I realise that one does require manual intervention but let's assume that this dough is being processed in an industrial complex that makes different types of bread. This changes one of the existing conditions, which is on its own it does nothing.

Though, the egg on it own does nothing. The first "ingredient" in needs it the sperm. Even a fertilised egg on its own does nothing. It needs a jump start.

I realise that one does require manual intervention but let's assume that this dough is being processed in an industrial complex that makes different types of bread. This changes one of the existing conditions, which is on its own it does nothing.


I'm not sure I understand.


Though, the egg on it own does nothing. The first "ingredient" in needs it the sperm. Even a fertilised egg on its own does nothing. It needs a jump start.

Right, which is why I specified "fertilized egg."

Which is consistent with the fact that an unborn baby is, in fact, being killed.

No such thing. Until birth you have either a fetus or an embryo (which I tend - incorrectly I know - to use interchangeably. It's like how I sometimes say Steven Speilberg when I mean George Lucas or visa versa.).

No such thing. Until birth you have either a fetus or an embryo (which I tend - incorrectly I know - to use interchangeably. It's like how I sometimes say Steven Speilberg when I mean George Lucas or visa versa.).

To me that's like saying "It's not a baby, it's an infant!" or "That isn't a child it's techincally a toddler."

It's ALWAYS a baby, we just have specific names for the various stages of development from conception to annoying teenager-hood.

(I almost made a joke about Steven Spielberg and George Lucas being a hive mind, thus explaining your (or anybody's) tendency to use their names interchangeably, but that gives way too little credit to S.S. and far to much to G.L. as filmmakers.)

No such thing. Until birth you have either a fetus or an embryo (which I tend - incorrectly I know - to use interchangeably. It's like how I sometimes say Steven Speilberg when I mean George Lucas or visa versa.).

The primary stage following conception, after which the fertilised egg implants itself in the wall of the uterus is the embryonic stage. It is first a blastocyst before becoming a zygot then an embryo. Foetus is the second phase, which beings at the 10th week.

I hope that helps. :) (If I got it wrong, correct it).

You are assuming that at this point in development it is a separate being from the mother.

Not assuming this, biology says it is. Read up on it!

The fetus is not terminated, the pregnancy is.

No, the fetus and pregnancy are both terminated.

Pro-choice debaters DON'T argue about "killing" anything. They argue about aborting the pregnancy. Pro-lifers on the other hand come at it from the "OMG eb1L baby killer" standpoint.

A fetus is a living human being in earliest development stage. Nothing to the contrary of that has ever been presented. Sorry.

The primary stage following conception, after which the fertilised egg implants itself in the wall of the uterus is the embryonic stage. It is first a blastocyst before becoming a zygot then an embryo. Foetus is the second phase, which beings at the 10th week.

I hope that helps. :) (If I got it wrong, correct it).

Not quite right.

Conception --> Zygote (single cell) --> Blastocyst --> Embryo --> Fetus --> Neonate

In some instances, you will see the blastocyst referred to as an early (pre-implantation) embryo.

Continue on with your regularly scheduled argument.

The defining characteristics of a human being, is human DNA, which the fetus (and embryo) has. Whether an organism is living, has nothing to do with characteristics, it is either alive or not alive. There is no scientific or biological example of where this is "constituted" by observing characteristics.

How do you think alive vs. not alive is determined? There are various definitions of life in biology, and all of them rely on certain criteria that the organism must meet - certain characteristics that it must have. Generally used criteria are things like metabolism, response to stimuli, excretion of wastes, growth and development. Depending on where you look, you may see other criteria as well.

If you define a human life as anything which has human DNA, your excrement is a human life. Each individual organ is a human life. The cells I have growing in the next room are human lives. And so on....

Now, there is certainly argument over how an embryo does or does not meet the criteria to be considered an organism and you're welcome to argue your side. But you make yourself look utterly ignorant when you loudly proclaim things about biology that simply aren't true.

Not quite right.

Conception --> Zygote (single cell) --> Blatocyst --> Embryo --> Fetus --> Neonate

In some instances, you will see the blastocyst referred to as an early (pre-implantation) embryo.

Continue on with your regularly scheduled argument.

Isn't it a Blastocyst? ;)

Edit: My mistake, you have it correct in one part and incorrect in the other.

Not quite right.

Conception --> Zygote (single cell) --> Blatocyst --> Embryo --> Fetus --> Neonate

In some instances, you will see the blastocyst referred to as an early (pre-implantation) embryo.

Continue on with your regularly scheduled argument.

I get the earlier two mixed up. Thanks for the correction.

Isn't it a Blastocyst? ;)

Edit: My mistake, you have it correct in one part and incorrect in the other.

Yeah, ok, so I suck.

Corrected, though. =)

As for the stage, if we agree that the baby ought to be protected after neural activity occurs, then let's focus on the period before that. Granted, the baby doesn't respond to stimuli before that point, but we're talking pretty early. Brainwave activity can be measured at 9 weeks, although it's not unreasonable to conclude that there are waves too small to measure before that. The brain begins to form at 5 weeks so it'll be somewhere in that time period.

This gives me an opportunity to explain my brilliant idea for abortion.

I think we can all assume that the baby develops over the pregnancy. The most ardent pro-lifer does not object to abstinence (before the birth) and the most extreme pro-choician does not favor infanticide (after the birth). So, the magical time is somewhere in between.

This is what I suggest: we consider the baby, as soon as it leaves to womb, to be 100% human. We consider the unfertilized egg to be 0% human. Through the nine months, the baby will pass through all percentages of humanness. Doctors can find out the exact path, but for the sake of example we will assume it is a constant progression, a straight line on a graph.

Now, all we do is make sure the number of abortions that take place in one year never exceed 100%. Thus, a fetus that is 99% human could be aborted, but all other abortions would have to add up to less than one. We never destroy a single human! It's great!
For some reason, no one I've mentioned this to sees the logic in it.

Yeah, ok, so I suck.

Corrected, though. =)

I can be a real bugger some times, eh? :p

For some reason, no one I've mentioned this to sees the logic in it.

how are you going to decide which pregnancy may be aborted? and which not?

and do you really think it's a good idea to abort a 99% human? While I'm "pro-choice" I certainly don't think that's a good idea.

how are you going to decide which pregnancy may be aborted? and which not?
I leave it to doctors to determine how human something is. It isn't a perfect match, but you could probably assign values to some stages and then assume the in-between spaces are constant.
Ex. A three-month-old has 50% of a newborn's organs and such ,while a six-week-old has 10%. We'll assume that the organism gains 1.2% every day.

and do you really think it's a good idea to abort a 99% human? While I'm "pro-choice" I certainly don't think that's a good idea.
No, I'm not really serious about any of this. I think that this is a logical solution to a problem that doesn't have much to do with logic, despite the way some make it appear.

EDIT: By the way, we could do the same with the death penalty. Find the average mass of all the prisoners about to be executed, and just make sure to not go past this mass. Get rid of an arm here, a nose there...
Decisions are so much easier if you just think of people as numbers.

"Hello doctor. During the course of my weekly self exam I found this rapidly growing, potentialy fatal mass of cells developing in my midsection. Could you please remove it for me?" :P

I fully understand that some people like babies, and want to hafve babies of their own and potentially want to have as many babies as they can biologically push out before they die. I'm fine with that, but I don't want any for myself and have taken painstaking measures in making absolutely sure that I will never have a baby, including remaining indefinately single ('cause let's face it, what fully functioning male wants a girlfriend who wont have sex?).

As far as I'm concerned, if it's attached to me, living off of my blood and my nutrients, and my air it's a part of my body -an unnecessary part of my body- and if I don't want it, nobody is going to stop me from getting rid of it.

-an unnecessary part of my body- and if I don't want it, nobody is going to stop me from getting rid of it.
But at some point it is no longer part of your body. Some time between ages 1 second to eighteen years old. When is a matter of debate.

I don't see the relevance. The same could be said about a hospital patient in a coma. Nobody would advocate killing all coma patients simply because they are unaware of the act.

First, at some point a coma patient was a being, and second, no one actually advocates killing ALL foetuses, or we'd, like, y'know, go extinct. Plenty of patients in a vegetative state have the plug pulled after some time, though, and I certainly advocate allowing that, as do most reasonable people.

The woman is defending herself against an unwanted parasite. Self-defense indeed.

And I've never got how people can say they are pro-life for the 'innocent' foetus, but are quite willing to give out the death penalty and support unnecessary wars.

last time i checked an unborn child never murderd anyone! last time i check an unborn child never rallyed for jihad against the united states! the death penalty does not kill innocent babies! the war's aim is to destroy terrorism not kill innocent babies! your view is very sterotypical of christians.

and its fetus not foetus! and a bit of history for all you pro choice people fetus means little one in greek. so when you say "its not human its just a fetus" you are condridicting your selves!

First, at some point a coma patient was a being, and second, no one actually advocates killing ALL foetuses, or we'd, like, y'know, go extinct. Plenty of patients in a vegetative state have the plug pulled after some time, though, and I certainly advocate allowing that, as do most reasonable people.

It's only unplugged if there's no way they can save the patient.

Who says it's not human? Well, you, of course, and a few people on this site, but many would disagree. The matter of whether or not this unborn baby is a being before you can see them moving, blinking, bouncing, is highly debateable, but when that starts to happen, when they start moving, I can't see why anyone would think that wasn't a human.

I can understand why someone would be pro-choice before we came out with the ability to watch the baby in the womb, but after that? I don't understand.

last time i checked an unborn child never murderd anyone! last time i check an unborn child never rallyed for jihad against the united states! the death penalty does not kill innocent babies! the war's aim is to destroy terrorism not kill innocent babies! your view is very sterotypical of christians.

and its fetus not foetus! and a bit of history for all you pro choice people fetus means little one in greek. so when you say "its not human its just a fetus" you are condridicting your selves!


Indeed.

And Extreme Ironing, I had to laugh when I read this, for I was just about to post the same thing (except reversed).


I don't understand why pro-choice people are all against killing guilty people, but are fine with killing innocent ones.

(If anyone is curious, I don't neccessarily support the death penalty. I am not against it nor for it)

(If anyone is curious, I don't neccessarily support the death penalty. I am not against it nor for it)
I'm against both, in what I admit is a selfish attempt to get the "living" vote.

Indeed.

And Extreme Ironing, I had to laugh when I read this, for I was just about to post the same thing (except reversed).


I don't understand why pro-choice people are all against killing guilty people, but are fine with killing innocent ones.

(If anyone is curious, I don't neccessarily support the death penalty. I am not against it nor for it)

I'm against the death penalty and am pro-choice but it has to do with my understanding of what it means to be a living human-being, which revolves around psychological interaction. Pretty much, until a fetus develops the capacity to psychologically interact with its surroundings, it is not human. While when a fetus/embryo/baby/fucking haermonculi develops this (seriously, can we end the idiotic semantic arguments about terms when we all know what the hell each other is talking about? What fetus means in the original Greek is irrelevant and does nothing for the discussion) is debatable, the fact that a criminal has this capacity cannot be argued for obvious reasons.

Being against the death penalty easily fits within an ethical framework that allows for abortion.

The primary stage following conception, after which the fertilised egg implants itself in the wall of the uterus is the embryonic stage. It is first a blastocyst before becoming a zygot then an embryo. Foetus is the second phase, which beings at the 10th week.

I hope that helps. :) (If I got it wrong, correct it).

Probably not going to help me anymore than the people who correct me on Lucas/Speilberg.

Indeed.

And Extreme Ironing, I had to laugh when I read this, for I was just about to post the same thing (except reversed).


I don't understand why pro-choice people are all against killing guilty people, but are fine with killing innocent ones.

As has been repeatedly stated pro-choice people are not in favor of killing people, as fetuses and embryos are not yet people. At most they are potential people. Which of course also makes them potential serial killers . . .

{Edit} Did you possibly mean Irony? <Tries to envision Ironing as an extreme sport . . .>

I'm against the death penalty and am pro-choice but it has to do with my understanding of what it means to be a living human-being, which revolves around psychological interaction. Pretty much, until a fetus develops the capacity to psychologically interact with its surroundings, it is not human. While when a fetus/embryo/baby/fucking haermonculi develops this (seriously, can we end the idiotic semantic arguments about terms when we all know what the hell each other is talking about? What fetus means in the original Greek is irrelevant and does nothing for the discussion) is debatable, the fact that a criminal has this capacity cannot be argued for obvious reasons.

Being against the death penalty easily fits within an ethical framework that allows for abortion.

It's a simple biological fact, really. A human fetus is a living human organism. This is not debatable, and attempts to debate it are foolish and void of logic, as has been demonstrated here.

With acceptance of that biological fact, we can intellectually debate the parameters for exterminating human life. We can reasonably determine that certain humans are not worthy of life, based on whatever criteria we decide as a society. We do this routinely with issues like war, and the death penalty. We can't, however, revert to a position devoid of logic and fact, and classify a fetus as not human, or not living.

You are entitled to "think" anything you like.... if you want to believe that fetuses are not living organisms or are not human, you can do that, but you are factually inaccurate in your belief. I can believe that you are not a human being, because you lack the humanity required of the species. See how easy it is to play with semantics? However, if we stick to scientific and biological facts, a fetus is a living human organism, in a state of being, therefore it is a human being.

It's a simple biological fact, really. A human fetus is a living human organism. This is not debatable, and attempts to debate it are foolish and void of logic, as has been demonstrated here.

I don't believe this is true. However, I admit I do not know when a fetus becomes human, and do not support abortion for that reason (better safe than sorry).
My rule of thumb: if it's big enough a pill won't take care of it, it's too late.

All I hear is the same idiotic argument over and over.
"fetuses are not people" ... "fetuses are not living" ..."clump of cells" ... "can't support itself, therefore it's not a life" ... "not human life" ... "fetuses are not human beings"

All these statements are just factually and logically inaccurate. But when they are challenged, all you hear is a repeat of the same illogical points. It's almost like a segment of society has simply brainwashed itself into believing falsehood, and is incapable of understanding science and biology.

A human fetus is a living organism, it is human and can't be any other life form. It is in a state of being, and can't be in any other state of existence and physically reside in our world. Like it or not, a fetus is a HUMAN BEING!

The truth can hurt.

How do you think alive vs. not alive is determined? There are various definitions of life in biology, and all of them rely on certain criteria that the organism must meet - certain characteristics that it must have. Generally used criteria are things like metabolism, response to stimuli, excretion of wastes, growth and development. Depending on where you look, you may see other criteria as well.

If you define a human life as anything which has human DNA, your excrement is a human life. Each individual organ is a human life. The cells I have growing in the next room are human lives. And so on....

Now, there is certainly argument over how an embryo does or does not meet the criteria to be considered an organism and you're welcome to argue your side. But you make yourself look utterly ignorant when you loudly proclaim things about biology that simply aren't true.
Dixieanna hasn't gotten the point. This has already been pointed out to him but he's still operating on the idea that if he says it enough times and stamps his feet it will be true.

I don't believe this is true. However, I admit I do not know when a fetus becomes human, and do not support abortion for that reason (better safe than sorry).
My rule of thumb: if it's big enough a pill won't take care of it, it's too late.


Wikipedia has some in-depth information on how reproduction works, and how conception takes place. It is not debatable, a living human organism is started at conception, all that is needed is time, but the organism is living at that point, and it is human.

A human fetus is always human, it can't be any other species, unless you know of some bizarre case of a woman giving birth to a monkey or something. I think science is fairly universal on that point. Organisms which host a fetus, generally host a fetus of like species. Again, this is not debatable.

"Alive means that this being is growing, developing, maturing, and replacing its own dying cells. It means not being dead."

This is a quote from the website Abortion Facts. There are quotes and statistics for both sides.

All I hear is the same idiotic argument over and over.
"fetuses are not people" ... "fetuses are not living" ..."clump of cells" ... "can't support itself, therefore it's not a life" ... "not human life" ... "fetuses are not human beings"

All these statements are just factually and logically inaccurate. But when they are challenged, all you hear is a repeat of the same illogical points. It's almost like a segment of society has simply brainwashed itself into believing falsehood, and is incapable of understanding science and biology.

A human fetus is a living organism, it is human and can't be any other life form. It is in a state of being, and can't be in any other state of existence and physically reside in our world. Like it or not, a fetus is a HUMAN BEING!
Guess what, YOU haven't challenged it! YOU have been repeating the same lines over and over and over and over again with out anything to back you up, and getting it wrong to.

If anyone is having problems understanding biology, it's you.

If you define a human life as anything which has human DNA, your excrement is a human life.

Hmm? No, I don't think that contains DNA...

All I hear is the same idiotic argument over and over.
"fetuses are not people" ... "fetuses are not living" ..."clump of cells" ... "can't support itself, therefore it's not a life" ... "not human life" ... "fetuses are not human beings"

All these statements are just factually and logically inaccurate. But when they are challenged, all you hear is a repeat of the same illogical points. It's almost like a segment of society has simply brainwashed itself into believing falsehood, and is incapable of understanding science and biology.

A human fetus is a living organism, it is human and can't be any other life form. It is in a state of being, and can't be in any other state of existence and physically reside in our world. Like it or not, a fetus is a HUMAN BEING!

*sigh* throughout this thread every time you present criteria that declares an embryo or fetus as a human being, it has been countered. Human DNA? Lots of things have that. Uniqueness? Twins are not unique but are decidedly human beings. Ability to develop on its own? Embryos simply cannot do that and the cloning thought experiment points out the flaw there; be it nature or human technology, a fetus requires assistance to develop into its *potential*. You keep espousing biology as stating, with absolute certainty, that upon conception it becomes a human being. It doesn't say that and there is much debate among scientists as has been pointed out.

Look, I'm not saying you've no right to your own opinion, as unsound as I may find it. But what I am opposed to is your general demeanor and attitude towards debate. Your asinine remarks, ad hominem attacks and blind repetition of the same phrase again and again as if it was a god damned Buddhist mantra is simply detrimental to this entire thread.

Guess what, YOU haven't challenged it! YOU have been repeating the same lines over and over and over and over again with out anything to back you up, and getting it wrong to.

If anyone is having problems understanding biology, it's you.

Scroll back a couple of pages and read the in-depth article posted. I have indeed supported everything I have said. You and your idiot minions have not supported any of your illogical and irrational viewpoints. You continually contradict yourselves, stating first, it is not alive, then saying it is alive, just not viable, then back to 'not alive' again. Then you say it isn't human life, but can't tell us what kind of living organism it would be. None of your points make any sense, from a scientific standpoint, or from a logical standpoint. And I venture to bet, about 90% of the 'argument' here from your side, is coming from adolescents who don't have the first clue about science or biology. You are just parroting pro-abortion pablum you've read somewhere, and refusing to acknowledge basic biological facts.

If you define a human life as anything which has human DNA, your excrement is a human life.

This is nothing more than an end-run around logic. No one has stated that the definition of human life is the presence of human DNA. Human DNA indicates something is of human origin, which means, the LIVING ORGANISM we are debating, is HUMAN!

You and your idiot minions have not supported any of your illogical and irrational viewpoints. You continually contradict yourselves, stating first, it is not alive, then saying it is alive, just not viable, then back to 'not alive' again. Then you say it isn't human life, but can't tell us what kind of living organism it would be. None of your points make any sense, from a scientific standpoint, or from a logical standpoint. And I venture to bet, about 90% of the 'argument' here from your side, is coming from adolescents who don't have the first clue about science or biology. You are just parroting pro-abortion pablum you've read somewhere, and refusing to acknowledge basic biological facts.
Please do not insult people on the forum. NERVUN could be completely wrong, but calling him an "idiot minion" does not prove this at all.

Foestuses have original sin, thus they go to hell.

That is one major misspelling.

If we can agree that a woman has the right to say 'no' to sexual intercourse (an act required to produce a human life-form (barring IVF)), then why can we not agree that a woman has the right to say 'no' to gestating (also an act required to produce a human life)?

Besides, this very debate is fruitless (no pun intended ;) ), as I believe what I believe, and you won't change my mind. And I'm fairly certain that the reverse is true as well (but that's up for all the 'you's to say).

All I hear is the same idiotic argument over and over.
"fetuses are not people" ... "fetuses are not living" ..."clump of cells" ... "can't support itself, therefore it's not a life" ... "not human life" ... "fetuses are not human beings"

All these statements are just factually and logically inaccurate. But when they are challenged, all you hear is a repeat of the same illogical points. It's almost like a segment of society has simply brainwashed itself into believing falsehood, and is incapable of understanding science and biology.

A human fetus is a living organism, it is human and can't be any other life form. It is in a state of being, and can't be in any other state of existence and physically reside in our world. Like it or not, a fetus is a HUMAN BEING!

Awww, still with the personal attacks is it?

Sorry, but your opinion on whether a fetus is a person is not a fact.

And the fact that something is "in a state of being" does not, in and of itself, impose a legal requirement that its "state of being" be maintained.

A braindead person in a coma can be taken off life support and left to die. This is not deemed murder and is done at the discretion of it's legal guardian.

A braindead fetus, removed from its life support system (the womb) faces the similar fate. Clearly the woman is the legal guardian of said fetus.

So, how about we keep the playing field level and make the legal requirement that all distinct groupings of human protoplasm capable of maintaining life on their own be allowed to do so and that the guardian be required to ensure such life is adequately protected.

Like, perhaps, I don't know.....how about limiting abortion to the early period of the pregnancy where that situation prevails.

Kinda exactly what the law is right now....

This is nothing more than an end-run around logic.

Is it just me, or does this statement, in response to a comment about excrement, just seem so wrong? ;)

PS Yes, I know feces aren't excrement, but hey...

And the fact that something is "in a state of being" does not, in and of itself, impose a legal requirement that its "state of being" be maintained.

A braindead person in a coma can be taken off life support and left to die. This is not deemed murder and is done at the discretion of it's legal guardian.

A braindead fetus, removed from its life support system (the womb) faces the similar fate. Clearly the woman is the legal guardian of said fetus.


Not to mention, a cabbage is 'in a state of being', as is a carrot, or a potato, or this copy of 'The Path of Daggers'.

Of course - unlike the book - the cabbage, carrot and potato, assuming that they haven't been picked yet, are also alive (I can't be the only one who was taught MRS GREN back in school).

Why did you make a abortion thread!? WHY!?

Just as valid as it was on the 12th post.

A braindead person in a coma can be taken off life support and left to die. This is not deemed murder and is done at the discretion of it's legal guardian.

This braindeed person's life is over. Up. Done. The life support is just giving them a little extra time. A unborn baby's life is just beginning. They're not dying, they're growing.

This braindeed person's life is over. Up. Done. The life support is just giving them a little extra time. A unborn baby's life is just beginning. They're not dying, they're growing.

Legally speaking - which is where this debate has largely centered - so what?

And I say this as a parent of two children who is personally against abortion of any being that I sire.

I just don't happen to think that I have the legal right to impose that viewpoint on everyone else.

Let's postulate for a second that a foetus is complete human being in every way of the term, even if some people and indeed some scientists do not agree.

If a stranger needs a blood donation and I am compatible, can he demand I give him some of mine? No, he cannot.

If my neighbour is dying for lack of a kidney, and I am the only available donor, can he force me to give him one of mine? Of course not, despite him being a complete human being.

If a family member is in need of a blood marrow donation or else they won't survive, am I under obligation to donate some of mine to save them? I am not, despite them being complete human beings and dependent on me for survival.

Why should a foetus be any different? In no case can someone ever demand from another human being to be given access to your blood or organs against your will. Sure, they can plead and explain to you that you might save their life by doing so, but under no circumstances can someone override your own sovereignty over your own body.

Seems to me, then, that women are also entitled to say "no, I'm not lending you my uterus, I'm not feeding you off my own body, I'm not potentially putting my health at risk for you" if she does not desire to do these sacrifices for a baby. Even if you argue that life begins at conception, a zygote being a full human being does not allow it to override a woman's self-governing of her own body any more than any of the situations I described above. While abortion might not necessarily desirable, and while some people feel like we should generally try to convince women not to do it, it is completely undefendable and unforgivable to try to decide in their stead by making it illegal, for example. Just like trying to make blood, organ, or bone marrow donations compulsory goes against the very most basic liberty human beings possess: the right to be the sole master of their own body.

[/rant]

Please do not insult people on the forum. NERVUN could be completely wrong, but calling him an "idiot minion" does not prove this at all.

I didn't call NERVUN an idiot minion, read it again. And it is not an insult if it is true. People who want to argue that something living is not yet a life, are idiots. People who claim a living organism inside a human womb is not human, are idiots. I can't help that, I am just stating the truth about them. NERVUN is indeed wrong, but the others who have made the ridiculous statements outlined above, are idiots.

Seems to me, then, that women are also entitled to say "no, I'm not lending you my uterus, I'm not feeding you off my own body, I'm not potentially putting my health at risk for you" if she does not desire to do these sacrifices for a baby.
The difference is that the man who needed a kidney does not depend exclusively on you for his life to continue. A fetus does (as far as I know. I'm pretty sure fetuses cannot be removed and put in a new woman. I would appreciate any correction if I am wrong in thinking this).

Awww, still with the personal attacks is it?

Sorry, but your opinion on whether a fetus is a person is not a fact.

And the fact that something is "in a state of being" does not, in and of itself, impose a legal requirement that its "state of being" be maintained.

A braindead person in a coma can be taken off life support and left to die. This is not deemed murder and is done at the discretion of it's legal guardian.

A braindead fetus, removed from its life support system (the womb) faces the similar fate. Clearly the woman is the legal guardian of said fetus.

So, how about we keep the playing field level and make the legal requirement that all distinct groupings of human protoplasm capable of maintaining life on their own be allowed to do so and that the guardian be required to ensure such life is adequately protected.

Like, perhaps, I don't know.....how about limiting abortion to the early period of the pregnancy where that situation prevails.

Kinda exactly what the law is right now....

Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know the debate was what the law says. In that case, you win, the law allows abortions up until the newborn is half out of the birth canal. This is not debatable, and I have no argument with that point.

I thought this was a debate on the practice of abortion, and whether a fetus is a human being. In THAT debate, I am beating your brains out, because you can't seem to post anything to contradict a word I've said. It's really difficult to refute the truth, especially when it is backed by science universal. About the best you can manage to do, is lie and obfuscate, and dance around the topic with lame far out examples that are irrelevant.

As I said earlier, if we can be intellectually honest enough to admit we are talking about extermination of human life, then we can move forward in debating the parameters under which that is done. I am fine with that, but it seems a lot of people want to remain in denial of basic biological facts, and refuse to acknowledge that a fetus is a human being.

The difference is that the man who needed a kidney does not depend exclusively on you for his life to continue. A fetus does (as far as I know. I'm pretty sure fetuses cannot be removed and put in a new woman. I would appreciate any correction if I am wrong in thinking this).

My analogy still stands for bone marrow donations. Oftentimes, the only viable donors are one, maybe two family members. Yet one cannot be legally bound to submit to the donation procedure.

Even if a foetus does indeed depend on a single woman as a potential "donor" in terms of survival, it does not grant it the right to override a woman's exclusive ownership of her own body. Nothing does. Ownership of your own body is the basis, hell, the very FOUNDATION of every chart of rights of all the western democracies. If you remove that right, you open the door again to slavery, and you open it to organ harvesting as well.

Making abortion illegal is simply not a solution that can be logically reconciled with everything our basic rights and freedoms as known in the western world stand for.

EDIT: Like I said, one could argue that it is not a desirable thing, and try to convince women not to resort to it, but the fact remains that the only person that ought to be able to have the final word is the woman whose body would have to be borrowed for the foetus to grow. Nobody else's opinion should really matters.

And I say this as a parent of two children who is personally against abortion of any being that I sire.

Why do people refuse to question the law? Just because it's legal does not mean it's good or right.

If my neighbour is dying for lack of a kidney, and I am the only available donor, can he force me to give him one of mine? Of course not, despite him being a complete human being.

Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know the debate was what the law says. In that case, you win, the law allows abortions up until the newborn is half out of the birth canal. This is not debatable, and I have no argument with that point.

I thought this was a debate on the practice of abortion, and whether a fetus is a human being. In THAT debate, I am beating your brains out, because you can't seem to post anything to contradict a word I've said. It's really difficult to refute the truth, especially when it is backed by science universal. About the best you can manage to do, is lie and obfuscate, and dance around the topic with lame far out examples that are irrelevant.

As I said earlier, if we can be intellectually honest enough to admit we are talking about extermination of human life, then we can move forward in debating the parameters under which that is done. I am fine with that, but it seems a lot of people want to remain in denial of basic biological facts, and refuse to acknowledge that a fetus is a human being.

So far, you have failed completely to prove anything - save perhaps in your own mind. Such a wonderous place that must be.

But at least you seem to be over your all-caps fixation of last night when you - also erroneously then - were insisting that the underpinning of the law was morality.

A fetus at minute 1 may satisfy your definition of what it is to be a human being. You are NOT, however, supported by consesus on that fact - despite what you may think.

Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy. There is no law on the books which even espouses that point of view. So really that example does not work.

Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

GOOD ONE!!

Why do people refuse to question the law? Just because it's legal does not mean it's good or right.


I question many laws. Don't get me started on the Patriot Act for example.

In this case, however, I agree with it. And I'm not going to question it our of some perverse knee-jerk naysaying for the sake of being seen to question ALL laws.

Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

Fallacious argument. Consent to sex does not equate with consent to host a growing human being for nine months anymore than driving a car equates consent to car accidents.

Repeat after me:

I will not try to control women's sexuality by threatening them with unwanted pregnancies. It is wrong. Women have the right to have sex.

I'm curious as to why Christians are against abortion.

Seems like if someone is too young to sin, they go straight to heaven. Therefore, aborted fetuses should go to heaven. Which means that all this arguing about saving them is really inhumane as it is asking to not only live a lifetime of suffering on earth, but might even cheat them of the heaven they would have gotten if their parents had gone through with the abortion.

So shouldn't abortion be a good thing?

Christians are against abortion because it gives women control over their bodies. It's the same reason they're against premarital sex, and why men sleeping with young teenage girls is a mental illness that people should be castrated for and grown women sleeping with young teenage boys is hot.

Yes, but biology says a human fetus is a human being. Science dictates, it can't be anything other than human, and it is living, so it is in a physical state of 'being' and can't possibly be in another state. You have not contradicted this, and the fact of the matter is, you can't.

You don't know the definition of the word "being", do you. A being is not something that is. A being is something that qualifies as sentient. A tree is not a being, because it cannot differentiate between itself and other things. An embryo or a fetus cannot differentiate between itself and other things, as it lacks a functioning brain. (Which, by the way, appears at 26 weeks, well after the cut-off point for elective abortions.) As such, it is not sentient, and thus not a being. It is a human, but it is not a human being.

And actually, biology says that a human fetus isn't even life. It doesn't meet the independence qualification.

You don't know the definition of the word "being", do you. A being is not something that is. A being is something that qualifies as sentient. A tree is not a being, because it cannot differentiate between itself and other things. An embryo or a fetus cannot differentiate between itself and other things, as it lacks a functioning brain. (Which, by the way, appears at 26 weeks, well after the cut-off point for elective abortions.) As such, it is not sentient, and thus not a being. It is a human, but it is not a human being.

And actually, biology says that a human fetus isn't even life. It doesn't meet the independence qualification.

I would like to tweak one point there. It is human, but it is not a human. If I cut off my hand, it is not a human, but it is still a human tissue sample, or tissue sample that is human.

Much like if I paint my house red, it is a red house. But it is not a red that houses things.

Christians are against abortion because it gives women control over their bodies. It's the same reason they're against premarital sex, and why men sleeping with young teenage girls is a mental illness that people should be castrated for and grown women sleeping with young teenage boys is hot.

Not where I come from.

Fallacious argument. Consent to sex does not equate with consent to host a growing human being for nine months anymore than driving a car equates consent to car accidents.

Repeat after me:

I will not try to control women's sexuality by threatening them with unwanted pregnancies. It is wrong. Women have the right to have sex.

But if they grow up thinking that it's ok to have sex in a loving and pleasurable manner then how are closeted gay men going to get their wives to give them anal?

But if they grow up thinking that it's ok to have sex in a loving and pleasurable manner then how are closeted gay men going to get their wives to give them anal?

Easy: The closeted gay men will get out of their closet and have hot, pleasurable gay sex with other gay men. Preferably me if they're good looking enough.

Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

And since when does consent to sex require consent to carrying a fetus to term?

Many activities have potential consequences. The fact that consequences exist does not imply a fixed and solitary subsequent decision on how to deal with them?

I consent to engage in gardening and dig up a fresh plot of previously barren earth and enhance it with peatmoss, compost, and manure. By this action I might risk a tree seed gaining root where before it would have landed on unsuitable earth and not taken root.

Has the act of starting a garden require me to let the tree grow? To accept all weeds? Or, having noticed the new tree may I be permitted to rip it out and toss it in the trash?

I think not....

And don't scream "false analogy - a fetus is NOT a tree". I know that.

But since when do potential consequences require a single outcome when clearly there are options? And no, the fact that you personally feel that only one option is acceptable does not make it so. IT only means that there is only one acceptable option for you!

Consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy. There is no law on the books which even espouses that point of view. So really that example does not work.

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.


Christians are against abortion because it gives women control over their bodies. It's the same reason they're against premarital sex, and why men sleeping with young teenage girls is a mental illness that people should be castrated for and grown women sleeping with young teenage boys is hot.

This can be proven false, because many Christians are against abortion but not against condoms.

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.

No it equals the possibility of a child not the possible responsibility of one. If it equaled that one wouldn't be able to give them up for adoption because they would be responsible for it.

To use another analogy much like Silliopolous' one to demonstrate a point. Lets say I live in a one story house. I decide since it is hot out that I'm going to open a window and then go for a walk. Now just because I acknowledge that there is a "possibility" of someone going in through that window and stealing my stuff does not mean I consent to said thing happening. If someone was to climb in and steal stuff I'd have legal recourse even though I knew there was the possibility of someone breaking into my house.

Lesson here is that while one can acknowledge the possibility of something happening that does not mean that they consent to it.

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.

No. It means a possible pregnancy unless one uses appropriate protection, but even so accidental pregnancies sometimes occur. And a pregnancy does not even equal bringing a baby to term, seeing how many pregnancies end before the baby is born.

Just because an outcome is possible does not mean it is inevitable, nor does it mean that we should make it be so.

Or consent to the possibility of having to go get an abortion.

Good point.

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.

Or consent to the possibility of having to go get an abortion.

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.

By that logic is also equals possible miscarriages and horrid screaming agonizing death. Both of those can happen with pregnancy. Hell, the former is more likely than giving birth.

Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know the debate was what the law says. In that case, you win, the law allows abortions up until the newborn is half out of the birth canal. This is not debatable, and I have no argument with that point.

I thought this was a debate on the practice of abortion, and whether a fetus is a human being. In THAT debate, I am beating your brains out, because you can't seem to post anything to contradict a word I've said. It's really difficult to refute the truth, especially when it is backed by science universal. About the best you can manage to do, is lie and obfuscate, and dance around the topic with lame far out examples that are irrelevant.

As I said earlier, if we can be intellectually honest enough to admit we are talking about extermination of human life, then we can move forward in debating the parameters under which that is done. I am fine with that, but it seems a lot of people want to remain in denial of basic biological facts, and refuse to acknowledge that a fetus is a human being.

Ad hominem.
Honestly, your tactic seems to be "my opinion is fact, if you disagree you're an idiot, I'm not listening to you and I am winning!"

Not very mature.

I have a dumb question.

There is a pattern between poverty and abortion.

Why not spend the effort and money to reduce poverty?

Why do people refuse to question the law? Just because it's legal does not mean it's good or right.



Pro-choice users on here keep repeating this argument, but it's not legit. What this analogy is missing is the consent to sex. So, a more accurate analogy would be ''if you give your neighbor your kidney, and they put it in them through surgery, and a few weeks later you sneak up one night and rip it out of them, your entitled to give it back, or at least, go to jail.'

No, rather "if I lend my neighbor my car on one instance, he can't keep it for his private use for nine months, even though he claims it's his ONLY means of getting to work and therefore surviving."

I have a dumb question.

There is a pattern between poverty and abortion.

Why not spend the effort and money to reduce poverty?

Don't be ridiculous. Why bother helping others when we can do so much to keep them down?

Consent to sex does equal possible responsibility of a child.

And one way of being responsible is aborting if one is not physically, mentally, or financially able to support said child.

And I've never got how people can say they are pro-life for the 'innocent' foetus, but are quite willing to give out the death penalty and support unnecessary wars.
And I've never got how people can call themselves pacifists, or say that they are anti-war, or come out against any type of violence, even for selfdefence, or be so opposed to capital punishment. Yet at the same time, turn around and proudly proclaim that they are pro-abortion/choice.

Don't be ridiculous. Why bother helping others when we can do so much to keep them down?

Like forcing them to support another child we've forced them to have, when they can barely support themselves?

And I've never got how people can call themselves pacifists, or say that they are anti-war, or come out against any type of violence, even for selfdefence, or be so opposed to capital punishment. Yet at the same time, turn around and proudly proclaim that they are pro-abortion/choice.

This has been covered multiple times throughout the thread.

Scroll back a couple of pages and read the in-depth article posted. I have indeed supported everything I have said. You and your idiot minions have not supported any of your illogical and irrational viewpoints. You continually contradict yourselves, stating first, it is not alive, then saying it is alive, just not viable, then back to 'not alive' again. Then you say it isn't human life, but can't tell us what kind of living organism it would be. None of your points make any sense, from a scientific standpoint, or from a logical standpoint. And I venture to bet, about 90% of the 'argument' here from your side, is coming from adolescents who don't have the first clue about science or biology. You are just parroting pro-abortion pablum you've read somewhere, and refusing to acknowledge basic biological facts.
Once again, just saying things over and over again doesn't work. Here's the problems.

1. Your article does NOT state what you say (I read it and no where does it state that life begins at conception).

2. Wikipedia is NOT a vetted source.

3. You ignored my reply that science does not have a working definition of life in the first place (Making it very hard to say when it actually begins).

4. What we CAN say of life, embryos fail.

5. All your other arguments have been answered.

Ad hominem.
Honestly, your tactic seems to be "my opinion is fact, if you disagree you're an idiot, I'm not listening to you and I am winning!"

Not very mature.


Well tell me what isn't fact, Mr. Maturity?

A human fetus is human... FACT!
A living human fetus is alive.... FACT!
It is in a state of being.... FACT!

What the hell is "my opinion" about this? It seems to me, "my opinion" is common sense and logic, and you want to differ from that. This is fine, let's just put you on record disagreeing with common sense and logic! I have no problem with that! My points have been well made, and backed with plenty of credible information, your points... well, don't even make sense, and defy logic and science.

Once again, just saying things over and over again doesn't work. Here's the problems.

1. Your article does NOT state what you say (I read it and no where does it state that life begins at conception).

2. Wikipedia is NOT a vetted source.

3. You ignored my reply that science does not have a working definition of life in the first place (Making it very hard to say when it actually begins).

4. What we CAN say of life, embryos fail.

5. All your other arguments have been answered.

1. Yes, the article goes into great detail of how reproduction works and when living organisms are formed. If you didn't read it, you didn't want to read it, but it says it.

2. Wikipedia seems to otherwise be a fine source for liberal pinheads when they are making other points. Besides, the Wikipedia article cited a number of well-respected medical and scientific sources. THOSE are the source, not Wikipedia.

3. Science does indeed have a definition of life, you moron.

4. We can say of embryo's, they are a form of living organism.

5. None of my points have been refuted.

*pull out the popcorn*

Well there's ONE conversation here likely to be short-lived!

You're either anti-abortion because you're prolife, or just a blabbering idiot who doesn't believe in women's rights
Pot calling the kettle black from what I've seen so far.


Parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.


So yes, it's official, a fetus is a parasite. Period.
Um.....

parasite- an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.


The bottom line is that ever since abortion was legalized in the 70s, the crime rate has gone down.

I don't care that it's in effect, taking away a life. I don't care how nasty those aborted baby pictures look. And I really don't give a rat's ass about what a bunch of bitching Christians have to say about it.

If it makes the crime rate drop without any serious repercussions, then I'm all for it.
Speculation at best, but much more likely, pure bullsh!t.. desperate bullshit

1. Yes, the article goes into great detail of how reproduction works and when living organisms are formed. If you didn't read it, you didn't want to read it, but it says it.

2. Wikipedia seems to otherwise be a fine source for liberal pinheads when they are making other points. Besides, the Wikipedia article cited a number of well-respected medical and scientific sources. THOSE are the source, not Wikipedia.

3. Science does indeed have a definition of life, you moron.

4. We can say of embryo's, they are a form of living organism.

5. None of my points have been refuted.

Since you seem to love Wikipedia so much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists

Well tell me what isn't fact, Mr. Maturity?

Mr. Maturity is Mrs. Maturity.

A human fetus is human... FACT!

Actually it has the potential to be a functioning human.

A living human fetus is alive.... FACT!

I missed the punch line.

Is that like

A non-living human fetus is dead.... FACT!

Also not true. Miscarriages happen all the time.

It is in a state of being.... FACT!
A state of being? Bit of a stretch....

What the hell is "my opinion" about this? It seems to me, "my opinion" is common sense and logic, and you want to differ from that.

Actually your opinion is an Ad hominem.

This is fine, let's just put you on record disagreeing with common sense and logic!

Ad hominem.

I have no problem with that! My points have been well made, and backed with plenty of credible information, your points... well, don't even make sense, and defy logic and science.

Again Ad hominem.

You have me curious about "your science" let me back track and see "your science."

You have me curious about "your science" let me back track and see "your science."

Don't bother. "Your science" is a single wikipedia article, the last bastion of absolute knowledge for "liberal pinheads" and "morons" everywhere!

You know, given how dreaded this topic (among others) is, it's a little surprising to see just how many people are willing to jump into the breach.

Perhaps, along with all those basic Maths (yes, Maths, not Math, after all, it's Mathematics, and abbreviations of plurals tend to incorporate the plural), Science and English requirements, we should encourage people to learn how to refrain from requiring the last word!

Just a thought.

Oh, wait, Maths, Science and English are UK basics. What are the US ones?

You know, given how dreaded this topic (among others) is, it's a little surprising to see just how many people are willing to jump into the breach.

Perhaps, along with all those basic Maths (yes, Maths, not Math, after all, it's Mathematics, and abbreviations of plurals tend to incorporate the plural), Science and English requirements, we should encourage people to learn how to refrain from requiring the last word!

Just a thought.

Oh, wait, Maths, Science and English are UK basics. What are the US ones?

Ebonics, weapons maintenance, and Intelligent Design!

:D

You know, given how dreaded this topic (among others) is, it's a little surprising to see just how many people are willing to jump into the breach.

Perhaps, along with all those basic Maths (yes, Maths, not Math, after all, it's Mathematics, and abbreviations of plurals tend to incorporate the plural), Science and English requirements, we should encourage people to learn how to refrain from requiring the last word!

Just a thought.

Oh, wait, Maths, Science and English are UK basics. What are the US ones?

Same thing, except we call it Math.