American's More Pro-Life

[pat]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Makavali wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Makavali, the number seems directly proportional to your anger. Am I wrong? heh.

I’m not angry. I find it hilarious that you think you have the right to legislate what a woman does with her body.

Please for the love of God don’t use this argument. This is a terrible argument to make and can easily be turned back on you. The baby/fetus is NOT part of her body. It is not her tissue, it has a unique genetic code and a self-directed development. It is DEPENDENT on her body, it is inside of her body, but it is not PART of it.

You can argue it isn’t a person, you can argue that it is a person but doesn’t deserve full protection under law, but you cannot successfully argue that it is not a unique individual organism separate from the woman and to attempt to do so will expose a rather large ignorance of biology.

I know it’s a popular rhetorical line to throw out, but please for the love of all that is science or is holy (your choice) don’t make that pathetic argument.

Here’s an idea: Get a uterus and save all those poor little babies![/quote]

You do not have to prove that you think human life is cheap and can be destroyed purely out of whim. We already know that.

[pat]

Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

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.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

[/quote]

If you are willing to kill it, it may be handy to be damn sure what it is you’re killing. What if you killed it and then discovered it was a person you just killed?

Would you have an abortion with your female counterpart?

[orion]

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

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.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

If you are willing to kill it, it may be handy to be damn sure what it is you’re killing. What if you killed it and then discovered it was a person you just killed?

Would you have an abortion with your female counterpart?[/quote]

I an afraid that that would mean that I would run into some technical difficulties.

[tGunslinger]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Get over it. It’s not going to ever be banned. You lost. Be done.

Lost?

I must’ve slept through all those state questions where people in each state got to vote on whether or not abortion is legal in their state.

How’d those turn out?

Is it not still legal in all 50?[/quote]

That’s the point.

The states did not get to decide for themselves. Nine un-elected old guys in robes pulled a “floating prenumberance” out of the sky, and declared abortions to be legal, everywhere in America. They had no authority to do this, as the document they are supposed to be interpreting has nothing to say on the issue. Yet this same document does have specific instructions to follow when an issue is not directly addressed, and these instructions were NOT obeyed.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion. The entire document is wholly silent on the issue, explicitly and implicitly. That same document is wholly explicit on another issue, though: “if it’s not listed herein, the Fed’s can’t do it.” Period.

Abortion is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by the states on an individual basis. There is merit to both sides of the debate, and anybody who cannot see that is a hand-in-the-sand lunatic, and the federal government has no authority to decide the matter.

To me, abortion is similar to gay marriage. I really don’t care whether it’s legal or not, the actual ends just don’t raise my dander. The means used to arrive at those ends, however, anger me a great deal. With gay marriage, the will of the people being governed is obviously not an input in the process. With abortion, an issue that is inarguably a state-by-state issue was decided by an un-elected federal court.

If the will of the people is irrelevant, and we do not have a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we have nothing. We have a tyrannical government motivated solely by furthering its own agenda, with powers reigned in by nothing.

While you may applaud it now – “‘Progress’ at ANY cost!” – you will someday find yourself on the wrong side of an issue far more important than abortion or gay marriage. That’s a guarantee, and that day we “right-wing loonies” won’t seem quite so loony.

[katzenjammer]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Get over it. It’s not going to ever be banned. You lost. Be done.

Lost?

I must’ve slept through all those state questions where people in each state got to vote on whether or not abortion is legal in their state.

How’d those turn out?

Is it not still legal in all 50?

That’s the point.

The states did not get to decide for themselves. Nine un-elected old guys in robes pulled a “floating prenumberance” out of the sky, and declared abortions to be legal, everywhere in America. They had no authority to do this, as the document they are supposed to be interpreting has nothing to say on the issue. Yet this same document does have specific instructions to follow when an issue is not directly addressed, and these instructions were NOT obeyed.

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion. The entire document is wholly silent on the issue, explicitly and implicitly. That same document is wholly explicit on another issue, though: “if it’s not listed herein, the Fed’s can’t do it.” Period.

Abortion is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by the states on an individual basis. There is merit to both sides of the debate, and anybody who cannot see that is a hand-in-the-sand lunatic, and the federal government has no authority to decide the matter.

To me, abortion is similar to gay marriage. I really don’t care whether it’s legal or not, the actual ends just don’t raise my dander. The means used to arrive at those ends, however, anger me a great deal. With gay marriage, the will of the people being governed is obviously not an input in the process. With abortion, an issue that is inarguably a state-by-state issue was decided by an un-elected federal court.

If the will of the people is irrelevant, and we do not have a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we have nothing. We have a tyrannical government motivated solely by furthering its own agenda, with powers reigned in by nothing.

While you may applaud it now – “‘Progress’ at ANY cost!” – you will someday find yourself on the wrong side of an issue far more important than abortion or gay marriage. That’s a guarantee, and that day we “right-wing loonies” won’t seem quite so loony.[/quote]

This is exactly right. Regardless of what you think about abortion, everyone should be against roe v. wade.

“floating” penumbra - hah, that’s good.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.[/quote]

It is human life from the conception, what else would it be? And it’s not a good idea to kill it, but as I see it, it is not a homicide to kill it. It isn’t a homicide if the baby has not been born. That line may seem arbitrary and I agree it isn’t particularly moral, but it is reasonably clear. If an unborn baby is killed against the mothers wishes it is a crime against the mother. The baby don’t have any human rights before it is born and is breathing with it’s own lungs.
What say you?

[anon41664405]

Hmm… I think it’s interesting that this is four pages of males giving their opinion… (sorry if I missed any female posting). Not saying you guys are not entitled to an opinion, but honestly, what does a guy know about having a baby? I’m sure some of you are fathers, and I’m sure guys can learn to be fathers. But having a baby doesn’t mean being a father.

There are fathers who have never had a baby and, sadly, guys who had babies and never became fathers. Please keep that in mind.

From this point of view, having a baby is a female thing. She can’t hide it, she can’t keep doing everything as she always did as if nothing was changing, she can’t keep her body from acting all sorts of crazy and her mind from becoming a new person, a mom.

First, if you think that an aglomerate of cells is life, I sure hope you’re quitting masturbation RIGHT NOW. And sex for reasons other than procreation as well. You’re throwing away all those cells that have the potential to become a precious snowflake human child. As for women, we should be mourning every period we get as the sign that yet another egg was wasted, deprived of it’s chance to become a child.

Seriously?

Now to the more important part. Do any of you guys every think about pregnancy from a woman’s perspective? Saying that abortion is giving them the choice of what to do with their bodies is an understatement. It’s giving them the choice of what to do with their whole lives, and probably their families’ lives, more than simply their bodies.

It also means giving them the choice of not putting in this world one more child that won’t have a real sense of family, or love, or whose family simply cannot care for, all of which, in my opinion, are horrible options.

I don’t think that women should think of abortion as an option all the time. I do think that contraception is more important. I think that if we want women to not have abortions, we need to teach both girls and boys how to avoid pregnancy. Oh yea, we need to stop thinking that it’s all the girl’s responsability too, it takes two to tango. But forcing a girl to keep an unwanted baby, because of our own morals? Geez, how is that for “land of freedom”?

I’ve never had an abortion, never even had to use Plan B or anything. I’ve always been careful. But what if I had gotten pregnant at 16? Would I have to drop out of school? Would I have to skip all the experiences a young person should go through? Would I have to be a mom without having the foundation to even take care of myself properly?

What kind of life would I give that kid? How is that fair, that I would be a horrible mom, not to mention I wouldn’t have how to sustain that baby, just because I, sellfishly, couldn’t live with the guilt and the weight of my own choices?

I also don’t have kids, and don’t want a baby at least for the next 5 years, and I’m not even sure if I’ll ever want one. But if I got pregnant now, that would be a whole different story. Now that I’ve finished college, done most of the stupid things young people are supposed to, and got married, if my husband and I had an “accident”, I wouldn’t have an abortion just because “I don’t feel like having a baby”. I would keep it, love it, and learn how to be a mom, somehow.

What I’m saying is, everything has circumstances to be taken in consideration, and something as huge as having a baby also includes a whole new future that needs to be thought of before making a decision. And just saying that “this is right and this is wrong” and deciding what people can or cannot do is too simplistic and irrelevant.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

It is human life from the conception, what else would it be? And it’s not a good idea to kill it, but as I see it, it is not a homicide to kill it. It isn’t a homicide if the baby has not been born. That line may seem arbitrary and I agree it isn’t particularly moral, but it is reasonably clear. If an unborn baby is killed against the mothers wishes it is a crime against the mother. The baby don’t have any human rights before it is born and is breathing with it’s own lungs.
What say you?[/quote]

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm

In technical terms, when a woman has been pregnant for 7 weeks, the fetus is considered 5 weeks old. That’s because in the first two weeks it’s just an embryo - a bunch of cells. At 5 weeks a heartbeat can be detected, and in my opinion that’s when things start to get shady.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:

In technical terms, when a woman has been pregnant for 7 weeks, the fetus is considered 5 weeks old. That’s because in the first two weeks it’s just an embryo - a bunch of cells. At 5 weeks a heartbeat can be detected, and in my opinion that’s when things start to get shady. [/quote]

That’s the problem with the question what constitutes human life. There are no clear cut lines. Conception and birth are the only points that are somewhat clear.

[Growing_Boy]

I had no clue BetaBerry was a real person. Good lookin’

[pat]

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Hmm… I think it’s interesting that this is four pages of males giving their opinion… (sorry if I missed any female posting). Not saying you guys are not entitled to an opinion, but honestly, what does a guy know about having a baby? I’m sure some of you are fathers, and I’m sure guys can learn to be fathers. But having a baby doesn’t mean being a father.

There are fathers who have never had a baby and, sadly, guys who had babies and never became fathers. Please keep that in mind.

From this point of view, having a baby is a female thing. She can’t hide it, she can’t keep doing everything as she always did as if nothing was changing, she can’t keep her body from acting all sorts of crazy and her mind from becoming a new person, a mom.

First, if you think that an aglomerate of cells is life, I sure hope you’re quitting masturbation RIGHT NOW. And sex for reasons other than procreation as well. You’re throwing away all those cells that have the potential to become a precious snowflake human child. As for women, we should be mourning every period we get as the sign that yet another egg was wasted, deprived of it’s chance to become a child.

Seriously?

Now to the more important part. Do any of you guys every think about pregnancy from a woman’s perspective? Saying that abortion is giving them the choice of what to do with their bodies is an understatement. It’s giving them the choice of what to do with their whole lives, and probably their families’ lives, more than simply their bodies.

It also means giving them the choice of not putting in this world one more child that won’t have a real sense of family, or love, or whose family simply cannot care for, all of which, in my opinion, are horrible options.

I don’t think that women should think of abortion as an option all the time. I do think that contraception is more important. I think that if we want women to not have abortions, we need to teach both girls and boys how to avoid pregnancy. Oh yea, we need to stop thinking that it’s all the girl’s responsability too, it takes two to tango. But forcing a girl to keep an unwanted baby, because of our own morals? Geez, how is that for “land of freedom”?

I’ve never had an abortion, never even had to use Plan B or anything. I’ve always been careful. But what if I had gotten pregnant at 16? Would I have to drop out of school? Would I have to skip all the experiences a young person should go through? Would I have to be a mom without having the foundation to even take care of myself properly?

What kind of life would I give that kid? How is that fair, that I would be a horrible mom, not to mention I wouldn’t have how to sustain that baby, just because I, sellfishly, couldn’t live with the guilt and the weight of my own choices?

I also don’t have kids, and don’t want a baby at least for the next 5 years, and I’m not even sure if I’ll ever want one. But if I got pregnant now, that would be a whole different story. Now that I’ve finished college, done most of the stupid things young people are supposed to, and got married, if my husband and I had an “accident”, I wouldn’t have an abortion just because “I don’t feel like having a baby”. I would keep it, love it, and learn how to be a mom, somehow.

What I’m saying is, everything has circumstances to be taken in consideration, and something as huge as having a baby also includes a whole new future that needs to be thought of before making a decision. And just saying that “this is right and this is wrong” and deciding what people can or cannot do is too simplistic and irrelevant.

kaaleppi wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

It is human life from the conception, what else would it be? And it’s not a good idea to kill it, but as I see it, it is not a homicide to kill it. It isn’t a homicide if the baby has not been born. That line may seem arbitrary and I agree it isn’t particularly moral, but it is reasonably clear. If an unborn baby is killed against the mothers wishes it is a crime against the mother. The baby don’t have any human rights before it is born and is breathing with it’s own lungs.
What say you?

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm

In technical terms, when a woman has been pregnant for 7 weeks, the fetus is considered 5 weeks old. That’s because in the first two weeks it’s just an embryo - a bunch of cells. At 5 weeks a heartbeat can be detected, and in my opinion that’s when things start to get shady. [/quote]

I am sorry but that is a tired old, excessively flawed argument. On determining whether a fetus is a person, it is irrelevant whether or not a man or a woman is doing the talking. This is not a perspective thing. The fetus either is, or is not a human being. There is no grey area where it is sort of or kind of a person. I can tell what a person is being a man; it’s not a problem really.
If the child in your womb is a person then killing it deliberately is an act of murder. It does not matter what your circumstance or where you are in life or how you feel. A person is a person.
Your life style, how you got pregnant, how much money you have, where you live and how you live has absolutely no bearing on the definition of life.
The only two discernable breaks in the human life cycle is conception and death. Everything in between is part of the normal human growth cycle of human. Nobody has ever made a valid argument that various parts of gestation graduate the fetus to personhood.

[pat]

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

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.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

Is it acceptable for the mother to kill the baby after a few weeks of breast feeding because she’s decided she doesn’t want to support this “something,” and doesn’t want to be forced to do so?

No, but it is acceptable to stop caring for it.

Serious question - I really do want to know what you think. Suppose no one wants to adopt the baby. Is it okay for her to allow the child to die? To leave him/her in a dumpster, for example?

That is a strawman though because we do not agree that a fertilized egg is a “child”-

Which is the crux of the whole problem. You think it is, I think it is not and you want to ram your definition down my throat with the use of force if need be.

This is a highly personal question that everybody has to answer for him or herself.

I haven’t mentioned anything about a fertilized egg. I do observe, though, that at a certain point you see that this “something” acquires rights - when it has become “a child.” When does this happen?

I do not know, for it is a matter of how you define things. I will not force someone else to do something just because my cut off point is slightly different from his.

If you are willing to kill it, it may be handy to be damn sure what it is you’re killing. What if you killed it and then discovered it was a person you just killed?

Would you have an abortion with your female counterpart?

I an afraid that that would mean that I would run into some technical difficulties.

[/quote]

Damn man, what happened to your uterus?

[Standard_Donkey]

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Hmm… I think it’s interesting that this is four pages of males giving their opinion… (sorry if I missed any female posting). Not saying you guys are not entitled to an opinion, but honestly, what does a guy know about having a baby? I’m sure some of you are fathers, and I’m sure guys can learn to be fathers. But having a baby doesn’t mean being a father.

There are fathers who have never had a baby and, sadly, guys who had babies and never became fathers. Please keep that in mind.

From this point of view, having a baby is a female thing. She can’t hide it, she can’t keep doing everything as she always did as if nothing was changing, she can’t keep her body from acting all sorts of crazy and her mind from becoming a new person, a mom.

First, if you think that an aglomerate of cells is life, I sure hope you’re quitting masturbation RIGHT NOW. And sex for reasons other than procreation as well. You’re throwing away all those cells that have the potential to become a precious snowflake human child. As for women, we should be mourning every period we get as the sign that yet another egg was wasted, deprived of it’s chance to become a child.

Seriously?

Now to the more important part. Do any of you guys every think about pregnancy from a woman’s perspective? Saying that abortion is giving them the choice of what to do with their bodies is an understatement. It’s giving them the choice of what to do with their whole lives, and probably their families’ lives, more than simply their bodies.

It also means giving them the choice of not putting in this world one more child that won’t have a real sense of family, or love, or whose family simply cannot care for, all of which, in my opinion, are horrible options.

I don’t think that women should think of abortion as an option all the time. I do think that contraception is more important. I think that if we want women to not have abortions, we need to teach both girls and boys how to avoid pregnancy. Oh yea, we need to stop thinking that it’s all the girl’s responsability too, it takes two to tango. But forcing a girl to keep an unwanted baby, because of our own morals? Geez, how is that for “land of freedom”?

I’ve never had an abortion, never even had to use Plan B or anything. I’ve always been careful. But what if I had gotten pregnant at 16? Would I have to drop out of school? Would I have to skip all the experiences a young person should go through? Would I have to be a mom without having the foundation to even take care of myself properly?

What kind of life would I give that kid? How is that fair, that I would be a horrible mom, not to mention I wouldn’t have how to sustain that baby, just because I, sellfishly, couldn’t live with the guilt and the weight of my own choices?

I also don’t have kids, and don’t want a baby at least for the next 5 years, and I’m not even sure if I’ll ever want one. But if I got pregnant now, that would be a whole different story. Now that I’ve finished college, done most of the stupid things young people are supposed to, and got married, if my husband and I had an “accident”, I wouldn’t have an abortion just because “I don’t feel like having a baby”. I would keep it, love it, and learn how to be a mom, somehow.

What I’m saying is, everything has circumstances to be taken in consideration, and something as huge as having a baby also includes a whole new future that needs to be thought of before making a decision. And just saying that “this is right and this is wrong” and deciding what people can or cannot do is too simplistic and irrelevant.

kaaleppi wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

It is human life from the conception, what else would it be? And it’s not a good idea to kill it, but as I see it, it is not a homicide to kill it. It isn’t a homicide if the baby has not been born. That line may seem arbitrary and I agree it isn’t particularly moral, but it is reasonably clear. If an unborn baby is killed against the mothers wishes it is a crime against the mother. The baby don’t have any human rights before it is born and is breathing with it’s own lungs.
What say you?

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm

In technical terms, when a woman has been pregnant for 7 weeks, the fetus is considered 5 weeks old. That’s because in the first two weeks it’s just an embryo - a bunch of cells. At 5 weeks a heartbeat can be detected, and in my opinion that’s when things start to get shady. [/quote]

I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.

[Aragorn]

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

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.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

[/quote]

I’m not arguing anything in this thread. The only two things I’ve repeatedly stated is that the fetus is not “part of the mother’s body”, it is in fact a different biological organism from the mother, inside the mother—and that I freaking hate it when people say or imply that it is not a distinct human organism.

So far I haven’t said jack shit about whether it’s a person, whether it deserves protection under law, whether it has rights, or anything else. And I don’t intend to do so.

I’m surprised at you orion. I kinda thought by now you would recognize that I’m not taking sides in these kinds of arguments (creation/evo, pro life/choice, etc). I am, however, trying to elevate the level of argumentation by pointing out stupid arguments.

[Aragorn]

Three things I’d like to point out to people involved:

1. to orion–the pro-life crowd views abortion as murder. While in normal circumstances I think that your stance is admirable (“what I do in private life and what I would be willing to force on others is vastly different”), surely you can see why they are upset right? I mean, if you witness the systematic murder of 40 million people, and you did NOTHING, you would not have any respect from me. This is why I don’t hate on pro-lifers, unless they’re also terrorists.

They’re just following through on their viewpoints. It’s annoying sure, but I hope that you can at least see the consistency here.

2. to pat-- [quote]“One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it.”[/quote] Actually, you can argue that very thing based on a certain set of rules. That’s what this whole thing is about. It takes a different worldview than one you have, but it can be done.

3. to betaBerry–I’ve liked your posts on all the forums so far. You seem like an interesting individual to be around (not to mention a cute one :)) But you make several assumptions in your post that I feel need to be addressed.

-------a) I see the point you are trying to make, but going back to what I said to orion, abortion is pretty much an ethics debate. Guys are 100% qualified to have opinions on ethics. So while I see the point that the woman has to carry this thing for 9 months and it changes everything, the experience is not more important than the ethics. Every one capable of rational thinking can have an opinion on ethics.

If that weren’t true, then the 9 old guys in robes that legalized abortion didn’t have the right to do so because they weren’t women.

as I said before to orion–anyone who sees abortion as murder is de facto obligated to try and fight it. I wouldn’t respect anyone who thought it was murder but was too chickenshit to advocate based on “not forcing their views on anyone”. You know what they call that in law? Being an accomplice. Murder is murder.

-------b)an agglomeration of cells is in fact life. Whether it deserves protection under law and whether it is in any recognizable form a “person” are different questions entirely. Bacteria = 1 cell. But they are considered alive. Same with multi-celled microscopic organisms.

-------c) neither sperm nor egg is a life, nor has the potential to become one BY ITSELF. It really has no basis in biology, and that’s kind of a foolish argument to try and make. If that were true, then periodically women would randomly become pregnant for no other reason than that one of their eggs decided it was time to hatch.

[debraD]

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.[/quote]

From a perspective of rights and personal autonomy, the question isn’t relevant. No being, human, grown, embryonic or otherwise has an entitlement to the use of another’s body without their consent. Now you can argue the premise of consent (is sex consent?) and that is fair enough but the actual development of the fetus/embryo/whatever is quite irrelevant from an purely ethical standpoint. It is only relevant in terms of personal ‘ickiness,’ squeamishness and discomfort, but for comparisons sake, it is also disconcerting that someone may die because I did not offer my organs/blood/bone marrow to prevent their death.

You could even argue that the killing of the fetus is only a side effect of terminating the pregnancy or removing the fetus, since it couldn’t survive otherwise.

[orion]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:

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.

there is no “parasite one”.

You are forcing her to support someone or something else against her wishes for 9 months.

You only do that because your definition of “person” is different from hers.

Unacceptable.

I’m not arguing anything in this thread. The only two things I’ve repeatedly stated is that the fetus is not “part of the mother’s body”, it is in fact a different biological organism from the mother, inside the mother—and that I freaking hate it when people say or imply that it is not a distinct human organism.

So far I haven’t said jack shit about whether it’s a person, whether it deserves protection under law, whether it has rights, or anything else. And I don’t intend to do so.

I’m surprised at you orion. I kinda thought by now you would recognize that I’m not taking sides in these kinds of arguments (creation/evo, pro life/choice, etc). I am, however, trying to elevate the level of argumentation by pointing out stupid arguments.[/quote]

What you posted does not change that the embryo in and of itself is not able to live.

Therefore you would force the mother to carry it out.

Should that ever change I might change my position.

[orion]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Three things I’d like to point out to people involved:

1. to orion–the pro-life crowd views abortion as murder. While in normal circumstances I think that your stance is admirable (“what I do in private life and what I would be willing to force on others is vastly different”), surely you can see why they are upset right? I mean, if you witness the systematic murder of 40 million people, and you did NOTHING, you would not have any respect from me. This is why I don’t hate on pro-lifers, unless they’re also terrorists.

They’re just following through on their viewpoints. It’s annoying sure, but I hope that you can at least see the consistency here.
[/quote]

Sure.

If they were able to see that one does not necessarily have to share that position and, and this is important, you cannot decide who is right with violence.

Especially if there is no right or wrong, just opinions on when “human life” actually becomes a “person”.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Hmm… I think it’s interesting that this is four pages of males giving their opinion… (sorry if I missed any female posting). Not saying you guys are not entitled to an opinion, but honestly, what does a guy know about having a baby? I’m sure some of you are fathers, and I’m sure guys can learn to be fathers. But having a baby doesn’t mean being a father.

There are fathers who have never had a baby and, sadly, guys who had babies and never became fathers. Please keep that in mind.

From this point of view, having a baby is a female thing. She can’t hide it, she can’t keep doing everything as she always did as if nothing was changing, she can’t keep her body from acting all sorts of crazy and her mind from becoming a new person, a mom.

First, if you think that an aglomerate of cells is life, I sure hope you’re quitting masturbation RIGHT NOW. And sex for reasons other than procreation as well. You’re throwing away all those cells that have the potential to become a precious snowflake human child. As for women, we should be mourning every period we get as the sign that yet another egg was wasted, deprived of it’s chance to become a child.

Seriously?

Now to the more important part. Do any of you guys every think about pregnancy from a woman’s perspective? Saying that abortion is giving them the choice of what to do with their bodies is an understatement. It’s giving them the choice of what to do with their whole lives, and probably their families’ lives, more than simply their bodies.

It also means giving them the choice of not putting in this world one more child that won’t have a real sense of family, or love, or whose family simply cannot care for, all of which, in my opinion, are horrible options.

I don’t think that women should think of abortion as an option all the time. I do think that contraception is more important. I think that if we want women to not have abortions, we need to teach both girls and boys how to avoid pregnancy. Oh yea, we need to stop thinking that it’s all the girl’s responsability too, it takes two to tango. But forcing a girl to keep an unwanted baby, because of our own morals? Geez, how is that for “land of freedom”?

I’ve never had an abortion, never even had to use Plan B or anything. I’ve always been careful. But what if I had gotten pregnant at 16? Would I have to drop out of school? Would I have to skip all the experiences a young person should go through? Would I have to be a mom without having the foundation to even take care of myself properly?

What kind of life would I give that kid? How is that fair, that I would be a horrible mom, not to mention I wouldn’t have how to sustain that baby, just because I, sellfishly, couldn’t live with the guilt and the weight of my own choices?

I also don’t have kids, and don’t want a baby at least for the next 5 years, and I’m not even sure if I’ll ever want one. But if I got pregnant now, that would be a whole different story. Now that I’ve finished college, done most of the stupid things young people are supposed to, and got married, if my husband and I had an “accident”, I wouldn’t have an abortion just because “I don’t feel like having a baby”. I would keep it, love it, and learn how to be a mom, somehow.

What I’m saying is, everything has circumstances to be taken in consideration, and something as huge as having a baby also includes a whole new future that needs to be thought of before making a decision. And just saying that “this is right and this is wrong” and deciding what people can or cannot do is too simplistic and irrelevant.

kaaleppi wrote:
pat wrote:
Here is a question for the pro-abortion folks only. At what point does the child with in the womb become human and from what point would it be considered the killing of a human life?

One thing you cannot argue is that it is a human life, but it’s still ok to kill it…I want to know when it’s wrong to kill the unborn…Most people don’t agree with partial-birth or 9th month abortions, so that is why I am asking.

It is human life from the conception, what else would it be? And it’s not a good idea to kill it, but as I see it, it is not a homicide to kill it. It isn’t a homicide if the baby has not been born. That line may seem arbitrary and I agree it isn’t particularly moral, but it is reasonably clear. If an unborn baby is killed against the mothers wishes it is a crime against the mother. The baby don’t have any human rights before it is born and is breathing with it’s own lungs.
What say you?

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/earlyfetaldevelopment.htm

In technical terms, when a woman has been pregnant for 7 weeks, the fetus is considered 5 weeks old. That’s because in the first two weeks it’s just an embryo - a bunch of cells. At 5 weeks a heartbeat can be detected, and in my opinion that’s when things start to get shady. [/quote]

Well said. Don’t let the crazies chase you off the forum.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:

I just dont understand why everyone must be relieved of their responsibilities. It is truly the liberal way.

why engage in an action if you are incapable of dealing with all of the possible consequences?

maybe all those teenage girls should stop slutting around and act as though they have some semblance of dignity and self respect. Maybe they should keep their fucking panties on at prom.

in case you didn’t notice, this is a man’s discussion, nobody cares what you think get your ass back in the kitchen.[/quote]

Boy how funny! I just can’t understand why right-wingers are seen as complete nutcases. (Not to mention misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic, etc, etc)