What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?
Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.
I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).
Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.
I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.
[/quote]
the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.
If you don’t abort an unwanted foetus the born baby or children will end up being miserable or dead anyway.
Yeah defend the foetus, but who is gonna take care of the baby? With all the social programs in the Usa, you bet he is gonna end up dying of hunger. Or if he is born on the third-world it is even worst.
Just abort the foetus. There is population on the earth.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Yes, I know these are your views. You are the one expressing them right? Or are you distinguishing THIS “me” from that OTHER “me” who keeps saying things without your consent?
BTW, this is the second time you’ve dropped your mic. Have you informed your nurse about this side effect of your meds? [/quote]
lol! Fucking cartoon fox bastard. That truly made me laugh. Cheers
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
If you don’t abort an unwanted foetus the born baby or children will end up being miserable or dead anyway.
Yeah defend the foetus, but who is gonna take care of the baby? With all the social programs in the Usa, you bet he is gonna end up dying of hunger. Or if he is born on the third-world it is even worst.
Just abort the foetus. There is population on the earth.[/quote]
You’re not too sharp. Abortion is much more a method of birth control for middle class women than it is a form of killing fetuses who “will wind up dead anyway.” Planned Parenthood’s own stats confirm this.
[quote]John S. wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Get over it. It’s not going to ever be banned. You lost. Be done.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. People are beginning to see that massacring babies is wrong. I know you haven’t quite figured that out yet but I still have faith that you will.[/quote]
I would be pretty fucking sure about it. Massacring babies… anti-abortion people are fucking loons, the worst of the worst, the dragging ass of the GOP. I would be embarrassed to even say I shared a party with you people.
The best part is that no matter how much you cry and bitch, Roe vs. Wade isn’t getting reversed. So once again, this matter has been settled.
Although it’s been shown that 51 percent can certainly demolish a country, it won’t in this case.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
tedro wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
A fucking fetus isn’t a fucking human being.
Uhhh…by what definition? I challenge you to find any reputable source with a definition of a human being that would exclude a fetus.
It doesn’t have a sense of being.
Neither does a 2 year old.
Fucking Christians always sticking their finger in everything. I say mass produced them, make they available to labs in order to make greater leaps in the unlocking the human genome. So one day we can look up and say, “We don’t need you.”
The pro-life stance transcends religion and the argument need not depend on Christianity. Take your religion bashing elsewhere.
An embryo 4-5 days past fertilization is a living breathing human being to you? Yeah a 2 year old doesn’t have a sense of being but for you to consider something on a petri dish and a living, breathing human child as equal is idiotic at best. Religion is at the very forefront of the pro-life movement. So I firmly stand by my views. What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body? If she was the victim of rape on behalf of her father, uncle, brother, etc should the abomination be given the opportunity at life? No woman should be forced to bring forth an unwanted child. For the sake of all parties involved.
Lastly, I will unleash my religion bashing wherever I may please. Just like the overly zealous street preacher condemming the way I live my life has the right to do so, I have the right to curse his teachings as nothing more than the ramblings of a madman trying to interpret the writings of a group of madmen. In real life and on the forums I exercise this right. [/quote]
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
If you don’t abort an unwanted foetus the born baby or children will end up being miserable or dead anyway.
Yeah defend the foetus, but who is gonna take care of the baby? With all the social programs in the Usa, you bet he is gonna end up dying of hunger. Or if he is born on the third-world it is even worst.
Just abort the foetus. There is population on the earth.[/quote]
Whoa there Jimmy, check your spelling or they will tear you a new one.
What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?
Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.
I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).
Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.
I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.
the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.[/quote]
Most humans are parasites their entire lives…
in all seriousness, infants feed off the host until they move onto solid food.
What gives us the power to determine what a woman wants to do with her body?
Once again, can we please throw this argument on the trash heap? It is not part of her body, it is IN her body, dependent yes, but as a separate biological organism.
I find your argument that it is not a person as much more compelling (you said ‘human being’, but I think mean ‘person’–correct me if I’m wrong. It is clearly human).
Hell, I’d even find the argument that the fetus is a parasite more persuasive than what you just wrote. I’d still find that particular argument fetid but at least it would be on a higher level.
I am afraid that that argument is still valid for you force her to support an embryo with her body against her wishes.
the parasite one? maybe, pretty hole filled but it’s better than the first one. My whole point is that it is a separate biological organism from the mom. People can debate rights and personhood and all that, but the basic biological truth can’t be ignored.
Most humans are parasites their entire lives…
in all seriousness, infants feed off the host until they move onto solid food.
so the parasite “argument” is null as well.[/quote]
Host? Parasite? Where in science is the parent and child relationship defined in such terms? Is this medically and scientifically sound? No personal definitions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Host? Parasite? Where in science is the parent and child relationship defined in such terms? Is this medically and scientifically sound? No personal definitions. [/quote]
A child is more or less a parasite living off the host (the parent) until it grows old enough to keep feed and house itself. It can’t get no more black and white than that.
[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Host? Parasite? Where in science is the parent and child relationship defined in such terms? Is this medically and scientifically sound? No personal definitions.
A child is more or less a parasite living off the host (the parent) until it grows old enough to keep feed and house itself. It can’t get no more black and white than that. [/quote]
But it can get black and white, right? There is an objective medical/scientific definition of the relationship between the offspring organism and the parental organism, no?
Why do you keep elevating an unborn baby to human like status. Self awareness is what supposedly what separates us from animals (in non religious terms). Unborn babies are not self aware.
I oppose killing babies once they are born (and still not self aware) because there is no advantage to that, adoption is clearly better. I do think there are advantages for a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to have an abortion.
Abortions will still happen even if you ban it. It will just lead to the deaths of more women.
And to the people on this board who think that they are in the majority, then actually look at the statistics. There are more people who think abortion should be either legal in all cases or in most cases than people who think abortion should be illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases (in America).
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.
Edit: I wonder how often man has referred to a classification of humankind as parasites, in order feel like they’re actually doing the world a favor? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to be a frequent theme.
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Why do you keep elevating an unborn baby to human like status. Self awareness is what supposedly what separates us from animals (in non religious terms). Unborn babies are not self aware.
I oppose killing babies once they are born (and still not self aware) because there is no advantage to that, adoption is clearly better. I do think there are advantages for a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to have an abortion.
Abortions will still happen even if you ban it. It will just lead to the deaths of more women.
And to the people on this board who think that they are in the majority, then actually look at the statistics. There are more people who think abortion should be either legal in all cases or in most cases than people who think abortion should be illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases (in America).[/quote]
As much as I hate Pharrell, I’m glad that someone else see that as well.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.[/quote]
Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?
[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Because it is a individual human organism. No self awareness? Well yeah, it’s an indiviual human killed before he/she could develop it’s faculties. Death will do that.
Each of your sperm has a potential to produce a child. Why are you depriving that potential child of developing its faculties?[/quote]
We’re not talking potential living humans. The embryo is one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle. The cycle of the same individual organism. Like a chain. Break a link, you’ve broken the chain. You’ve taken a human life.