American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer 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.

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it :wink:

Personally I would not agree to an abortion but I can hardly force a woman to carry out a child.

I have enough money though.

That would change if the embryo should show any signs of genetic defects.

In that case I could not force a woman to abort that embryo either, I would just highly recommend it.

Anyway, as a libertarian I have mastered an awesome trick, I keep my private and public opinion separate.

What I would do and what I would force other people to do via government are highly unrelated subjects.

Well, I guess the same is true for most politicians but you get my drift.

Why would you not personally agree to have an abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it then why wouldn’t you have one?..Or have your woman have one, even for the hell of it, or just to score some hydrocodone?[/quote]

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

122

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Who’s winning the argument so far? Baby loving Christians? or my team? [/quote]

Well if you you consider useless, self aggrandizing drivel as winning then your side is winning. If you are talking about pure logic and as to when a human life begins in the purest of terms you are failing miserably.

123

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer 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.

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it :wink:

Personally I would not agree to an abortion but I can hardly force a woman to carry out a child.

I have enough money though.

That would change if the embryo should show any signs of genetic defects.

In that case I could not force a woman to abort that embryo either, I would just highly recommend it.

Anyway, as a libertarian I have mastered an awesome trick, I keep my private and public opinion separate.

What I would do and what I would force other people to do via government are highly unrelated subjects.

Well, I guess the same is true for most politicians but you get my drift.

Why would you not personally agree to have an abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it then why wouldn’t you have one?..Or have your woman have one, even for the hell of it, or just to score some hydrocodone?

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?[/quote]

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?

124

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
katzenjammer 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.

But I’m asking for your viewpoint. Not that you have to share it :wink:

Personally I would not agree to an abortion but I can hardly force a woman to carry out a child.

I have enough money though.

That would change if the embryo should show any signs of genetic defects.

In that case I could not force a woman to abort that embryo either, I would just highly recommend it.

Anyway, as a libertarian I have mastered an awesome trick, I keep my private and public opinion separate.

What I would do and what I would force other people to do via government are highly unrelated subjects.

Well, I guess the same is true for most politicians but you get my drift.

Why would you not personally agree to have an abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it then why wouldn’t you have one?..Or have your woman have one, even for the hell of it, or just to score some hydrocodone?

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?[/quote]

Be really, really pissed about it and try to make the best of it?

125

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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?

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.

Are you saying sperm isn’t one stage in every single individual human’s life cycle?[/quote]

I am saying it. It is not.

126

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:

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

Clearly my dear, you care. You care so much even posted a reply. And something tells me you’re going to reply to this one too. Which I appreciate, because it’s posts like yours that help me get my point accross: men, generally, simply lack the sensibility it takes to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and view things from a perspective that is not their own.

[/quote]

Haha Let me try this too. It’s posts like yours, sweeping negative generalizations of men, which helps me get my point across that women, generally, are envious of our penises and our slightly larger and more potent brains. It also shows thier lack of ability, if you will, to know the difference between satire and serious. These facts alone should preclude women from the argument about abortion along with the experience, or potential experience of bearing the child. Certtainly having such a negative experience with the weight gain, mood swings and painful birthing process is going to “tint” a womans perspective on the matter in a way which is detrimental to the ethical discourse of the subject matter. With no penis and a smaller brain it is unliklley very many if any at all women could overcome this negative prcondition to babies and birthing them. Thus it is my reccomendation that only MEN be allowed to discuss the matters of the ethics of abortion.

V

127

[quote]tom63 wrote:

Funny thing, I never knocked a girl up by accident. Guess I’m just one of those responsible asshole types. Or maybe I’m smarter and have more common sense. Or better impulse control.
[/quote]

Or, perhaps you’re just ugly?

128

[quote]debraD 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.

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.

[/quote]

Oh brother…Where you being serious? Did you ask your mother ahead of time if you could occupy her uterus for a spell?

129

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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.

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

How funny, you best argument is a diatribe of labeling and name calling…Whooptie do.

130

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
debraD 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.

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.

I love the consent argument . . . let’s see if I get this right . . .

You and another adult consent to have sexual intercourse both fully cognizant that the potential result of having this consensual sexual intercourse will be the birth of a human being . . . knowing the potential result of your consensual behavior - you do it anyways . . .

Once the consensual intercourse has been completed (hopefully to the satisfaction of both parties)- natural biology kicks into gear and an infant human being is created.

We know that the infant (left to natural process) will develop, be born and grow into an adult human being - no chance that it will be an elephant, donkey or aardvark (well, maybe an aardvark) - regardless, it is a life if left to natural course.

So, having consensually chosen to enjoy the act of intercourse (procreation) you willingly took the risk of having to give birth to another human being - now that the actual process has begun, you decide that you do not want the added responsibility, pain and suffering yada yada whatever . . . . SO - to avoid the natural consequence of your consensual act, you choose to end the natural process of allowing the infant human to develop to its natural potential . . .

No infant ever needs to asks for permission to use your uterus - the permission is implicit because you created the infant by your own volitional choice! You willingly undertook the act that resulted in the infant’s creation and then to avoid the consequence of that choice - you choose to end the life process of that infant . . .

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.[/quote]

If there is nothing wrong with it, why couldn’t they do it just because they want to?

131

[quote]BetaBerry wrote:
Aragorn wrote:

  1. 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.

Thank you. :slight_smile:
Aragorn wrote:
-------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.

You’re right. But my point is, ethics is highly influenced by circumstances, and I honestly don’t think that most men can imagine themselves in the circumstances that having an unwated child brings to a woman. I think most of us would agree that killing someone out of nothing is wrong, but what if that person poses a threat to your life, the ethic gets kind of blurry. And while an unwated baby is not likely to cause a woman to die, it does change her whole world upside down, in a way that simply will never happen to a man.

Aragorn wrote:

-------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.

Yes bacteria are life, so is sperm. My point was not that an early embryo is not “life”, but only that, if someone feels like an early stage embryo is a human being, then they should think the same about sperm and eggs - all just cells. An embryo has no potential to become a human being by itself either. That’s why we cannot carry out a pregnancy out of a woman’s womb.

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.

I’ve never said anything about being relieved of responsibilities. But the consequences don’t always limit to the person that you’d call reponsible for it. If a girl has a child that she’s unable to care for, and I don’t mean just money, I mean having the maturity it takes to be a mom, trust me, she’s not the one that is going to reap the worse consequences.

I’d like to know, were you fully capable of “dealing with the consequences” when you first started having sex? Because really, if you say yes, you’re an exception. Abstinence would be awesome if it happened in the real world. But truth is, it doesn’t. Now saying that having sex means “slutting around” is pretty much the worse way you can teach kids how to avoid unwanted pregancies.

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

Clearly my dear, you care. You care so much even posted a reply. And something tells me you’re going to reply to this one too. Which I appreciate, because it’s posts like yours that help me get my point accross: men, generally, simply lack the sensibility it takes to put themselves in someone else’s shoes and view things from a perspective that is not their own.

[/quote]

We’re all just a clump of cells if you want to be accurate about it.

132

[quote]orion wrote:

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?

Be really, really pissed about it and try to make the best of it?

[/quote]

Would you kill it if you couldn’t get caught?

133

[quote]pat wrote:
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).

Uh, how can you tell what is self aware and what is not? Is self awareness the definition of personhood?[/quote]

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

134

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?

Be really, really pissed about it and try to make the best of it?

Would you kill it if you couldn’t get caught?

[/quote]

No, but then you have to draw the line somewhere.

Where I draw mine is purely arbitrary and that is the whole point.

135

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.

I’m not arguing for or against abortion, just responding to your statement.
So I guess you just tripped, fell just right, and your cock slid right on in. I mean it was an accident, right?

exactly, I can’t stand when people know something can happen when they do something and they call it an accident. Not wanting a possible thing to happen is a wish. When it happens it is not an accident put a possibility come true.

Funny thing, I never knocked a girl up by accident. Guess I’m just one of those responsible asshole types. Or maybe I’m smarter and have more common sense. Or better impulse control.

but it’s really easy to not get a girl pregnant. Don’t have sex with her. Use your own contraception if you do. And accept you might end up with a kid if you do.
[/quote]

I never have either. But even when using contraception, shit happens.

It’s funny because once again there’s that self-righteousness in the douchebag camp, that people should never make mistakes because I didn’t make that mistake. Considering the fact that there’s always going to be 17 year old idiots having sex, I think it’s irrational to think that they’ll do it right every time. You know, cause they’re not you, you responsible man, you.

On top of this, abortions will always occur. Always. It’s just whether they’re safe, legal, and regulated or in secret and kill the woman on top. You people are wholly unrealistic about the issue.

But either way, as I said, it’s not changing. It’s the most brutally polarizing subject in the country at the moment, and when outlawing it will send 49 percent of the population into fits, it’s not going to happen.

Especially with Obama appointing justices.

136

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?

Be really, really pissed about it and try to make the best of it?

Would you kill it if you couldn’t get caught?

No, but then you have to draw the line somewhere.

Where I draw mine is purely arbitrary and that is the whole point.

[/quote]

The line is not arbitrary, that’s the whole point. Life begins somewhere, does it not make sense to find out where before you start taking it and plain hoping your right. What if you do it and find out your wrong?

137

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Never heard of something called an accident huh?

I think 98 percent of the anti-abortion camp is full of self-righteous douchebags who don’t realize the effect having an abortion has on a woman. It’s not like its something they want to be doing.

But alas, we should all just abstain from sex, because everyone knows that’s natural and healthy.

I’m not arguing for or against abortion, just responding to your statement.
So I guess you just tripped, fell just right, and your cock slid right on in. I mean it was an accident, right?

exactly, I can’t stand when people know something can happen when they do something and they call it an accident. Not wanting a possible thing to happen is a wish. When it happens it is not an accident put a possibility come true.

Funny thing, I never knocked a girl up by accident. Guess I’m just one of those responsible asshole types. Or maybe I’m smarter and have more common sense. Or better impulse control.

but it’s really easy to not get a girl pregnant. Don’t have sex with her. Use your own contraception if you do. And accept you might end up with a kid if you do.

I never have either. But even when using contraception, shit happens.

It’s funny because once again there’s that self-righteousness in the douchebag camp, that people should never make mistakes because I didn’t make that mistake. Considering the fact that there’s always going to be 17 year old idiots having sex, I think it’s irrational to think that they’ll do it right every time. You know, cause they’re not you, you responsible man, you.

On top of this, abortions will always occur. Always. It’s just whether they’re safe, legal, and regulated or in secret and kill the woman on top. You people are wholly unrealistic about the issue.

But either way, as I said, it’s not changing. It’s the most brutally polarizing subject in the country at the moment, and when outlawing it will send 49 percent of the population into fits, it’s not going to happen.

Especially with Obama appointing justices.

[/quote]

If not wanting to kill people makes me a self righteous douche bag then I am guilty as charged.
Circumstances are irrelevant to whether or not a person is a person, or not. There is not kinda-sorta. Human life begins at some point and it does not matter how it got there. It’s still a person and killing a person is wrong.

138

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
pat wrote:
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).

Uh, how can you tell what is self aware and what is not? Is self awareness the definition of personhood?

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.[/quote]

A person knocked out isn’t self aware, I would even go as far as saying a sleeping person isn’t self aware, much less say a person in a comma. This same argument could justify eugenics (not that they are vastly different from modern day abortion).

139

[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:

Did I not post that I readily would if the child to be was handicapped?

Why not for the hell of it? Why not do it just to see what it’s like?

What would you do if the child was born handicapped and nobody caught it?

Be really, really pissed about it and try to make the best of it?

Would you kill it if you couldn’t get caught?

No, but then you have to draw the line somewhere.

Where I draw mine is purely arbitrary and that is the whole point.

The line is not arbitrary, that’s the whole point. Life begins somewhere, does it not make sense to find out where before you start taking it and plain hoping your right. What if you do it and find out your wrong?
[/quote]

Well then the line depends on your definition which is arbitrary.

Same thing really.

140

[quote]pat wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
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.

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

How funny, you best argument is a diatribe of labeling and name calling…Whooptie do.[/quote]

How funny! Mr. Donkey made a horrible joke, I made a horrible joke to “counter” (how witty and ironic!! eyes roll), and Pat misunderstands BOTH jokes, thinking they are “arguments.”

Well done sir, well done.