[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:Why does the woman decide? If I remember correctly, the common reason is it is her body right? Well since I have already ad nauseum proven without a doubt the fetus is in no way shape or form, her body, I will not accept that as a reason for murder. But if you have another reason why a woman can decide to murder I will hear you out.
V
…it’s her womb. The fetus depends on her blood, her nutrients for growth. She is the only one that has a say in this matter. Your opinion is irrelevant.
So Says you, So Says You. By that argument, I can starve a 1 year old because it relies on my nutrients for it’s development. It lives in my house.
V
…anyone can feed the child. No-one but the pregnant woman can feed the fetus. Try again.
[/quote]
So if more then one person can feed a child its alive.
What if the mother lives in a remote region with only the child, then does she have the right to not feed it? Again I ask you to rework your argument.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
John S. wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:Would you still be able to do physical harm to the very most defensless and innocent form of human life? V
…within the first 16 weeks: yes.
Why?
…we’re still talking about abortion, remember? I do not share the same sentiments Vegita has on life and when it starts. So abortion within the first 16 weeks is fine by me because all women should have that option available to them, simple as that.
What if someone else killed the fetus within the first 16 weeks, since in your eyes it is not a life, should they be prosecuted? Is it similar to stepping on a bug? What if I kicked a pregnant lady in the stomach and she was in her 15th week? do I get charged with assault or assault and murder or manslaughter? Why can’t the husband decide? Does the mother own the fetus? Can one human Own another Human?
V
You will find in the law that if you where to do that you would get charged with murder. And if the women owns the child then the child is slave. This debate will continue to go around in circles, you will find that the ones who claim science is the end all will quickly ignore it if it goes against there ideas. These people are not rational they are driven by the desire to watch everything get destroyed. They claim to love human life but will take it away at it’s beginning. They are nothing more then wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Any science I have looked at, seems to view a single cell human embryo as a human life. I don’t know how this would translate into science backing abortion. But I hear you. It is rarely an argument or discussion that changes a persons mind. At one time I was pro abortion, and had even considered what I would do had the mother of my 8 year old daughter consider abortion. I cannot without hesitation say I would have said I was against it back then. I am very glad however that that decision was not made. I think I would be having a hard time living with myself had it occured and I was complacent with the decision.
V[/quote]
Science calls the child human. Science can with out a doubt be used to back pro-life and only pro-life.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
…I just have to point out that the whole pro-life stance is one huge emotional factor in itself. Who would be interested in the whole subject if it wouldn’t touch emotions?
Of course emotions are involved! We’re talking ending the life of an innocent human being! How do anyone discuss this without the emotional factor?
For example, let’s talk about one of Tiller’s victims, a baby/fetus in his/her eighth month of gestation. If that baby were killed, say, during a Wichita convenience store robbery the criminal could and should be charged with the murder of the baby. However, if this were the day before and the woman strolled into Tiller’s Wichita office, he, Tiller, would have vacuumed that same baby out of the womb after plunging a sharp metal object into his/her’s cranium. Legally.[/quote]
I must say that the first scenario is more horrifying to me. In the second case I think what an idiot and what a wanker. I honestly can not feel deeply sorry for the stll unborn baby who wasn’t even close to waking up to consiousness.
Well it really can be very emotionless. I believe I have the right to life. I believe that all humans have that right, else I would have no problem with someone killing me or one of my family members for someone elses convenience, like say I took a parking spot they wanted. But since I value my right to life, and I am a fair and just person, I also have to value the right of every other human being, including those who are one cell in size. See you have to be selfish to want your right to life to be respected by other people, but not in turn respect every other persons right to life. And thus we are back to… What is a person. I have clearly defined it as the human organism, with it’s unique DNA from the moment it exists as one cell to the moment it perishes. Again, you can take or leave my definition of a human being, but science would probably back me up.
V
You are fair and just and I’m selfish, gotcha
I did actually do some quick reading about abortions since I started following this thread. It’s seems to be so, that the amount of abortions in a society correlates weakly with the legal status it happens to have, but strongly with unintended pregnancies in general. I admit that I’m a cold-hearted bastard and hardly care if someone has an abortion. But, if I cared, I would look closely on the causes for unintended pregnancies.
I say that you want to have abortions outlawed just because it would make you feel good. [/quote]
Well if you are admitting to being a cold hearted bastard, I hardly think my definition of selfish is that far off. But besides that, I wasn’t trying to call names or anything. However, I am not saying that if abortion was made illegal the sun would come out and the birds would start singing. I understand the complexities of a massive society. But, at least it would be a good starting point with consequences for peoples irresponsible actions. Obviously things like places to care for unwanted babies would be needed and a better effort done for safe sex education, along with the resources to make those things happen. Teaching people personal responsibility along with giving them more freedoms, and letting them feel failure if they screw up are a few things that would also help.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:Would you still be able to do physical harm to the very most defensless and innocent form of human life? V
…within the first 16 weeks: yes.
Why?
…we’re still talking about abortion, remember? I do not share the same sentiments Vegita has on life and when it starts. So abortion within the first 16 weeks is fine by me because all women should have that option available to them, simple as that.
Looks like I have to ask it again. Why?
…because you don’t have the right to deny a woman an abortion within those 16 [or 21 in real life] weeks if she chooses to have one…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Vegita wrote:Why does the woman decide? If I remember correctly, the common reason is it is her body right? Well since I have already ad nauseum proven without a doubt the fetus is in no way shape or form, her body, I will not accept that as a reason for murder. But if you have another reason why a woman can decide to murder I will hear you out.
V
…it’s her womb. The fetus depends on her blood, her nutrients for growth. She is the only one that has a say in this matter. Your opinion is irrelevant.
So Says you, So Says You. By that argument, I can starve a 1 year old because it relies on my nutrients for it’s development. It lives in my house.
V
…anyone can feed the child. No-one but the pregnant woman can feed the fetus. Try again.
[/quote]
Wrong, a mother and father can have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate mothers womb. The fetus does not rely on the DNA mother 100% of the time. Therefore you have created a situation where a surrogate mother has the right to abort the baby, which was implanted in her by the DNA parents of the child. And I would even venture to go as far as saying, in the next 10-20 years we may very well see a partially developed fetus, removed from a mothers womb, and still brought along in it’s development by either implanting it in a new mother, or nourishing it via artificial means.
We are still boiling down to your main point being, that even if it is a human life, the mother has the right to kill it because it may be inconvenient for her. So whatever, we are arguing with a person who does not value human life, So be it. Just admit it and we can stop arguing the merits of abortion. Obviously if you don’t value human life Abortion should be allowed.
But for those of us who do value human life, unfortunately you share a society with us, so we in fact DO have a say in who does and does not die and how.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ephrem wrote:
John S. wrote:What if the mother lives in a remote region with only the child, then does she have the right to not feed it? Again I ask you to rework your argument.
…if the mother does not have enough food for both her and her child, it’s not uncommon that the child is abandoned in favor of the mother’s survival…
What if it has nothing to do with “survival” but rather “convenience”?[/quote]
Haha does your head hurt yet? I got bits of Brick stuck in my forehead. I think we need a follow along popup book or something.
Well if you are admitting to being a cold hearted bastard, I hardly think my definition of selfish is that far off. But besides that, I wasn’t trying to call names or anything.
[/quote]
I know, but it was funny.
[quote]
However, I am not saying that if abortion was made illegal the sun would come out and the birds would start singing. I understand the complexities of a massive society. But, at least it would be a good starting point with consequences for peoples irresponsible actions. Obviously things like places to care for unwanted babies would be needed and a better effort done for safe sex education, along with the resources to make those things happen. Teaching people personal responsibility along with giving them more freedoms, and letting them feel failure if they screw up are a few things that would also help.
V[/quote]
I agree with everything except with your choice of starting point, and as should be obvious, I don’t think abortions should ever be made illegal.
You need some serious educating if you think a baby in its eighth month of gestation has no consciousness. If it is delivered right then and there prematurely either naturally or by Cesarean are you telling me it has no consciousness and therefore no right to exist?
WARNING, WARNING, WILL ROBINSON! Your argument is getting very, very tenuous. Abort now before it explodes and leaves you with massive amounts of egg on your face.[/quote]
You and your rights. It wasn’t an argument, it was an expression of emotion. You may well disagree, but I do see a huge, I mean huge difference between killing a child and killing an unborn baby.
You need some serious educating if you think a baby in its eighth month of gestation has no consciousness. If it is delivered right then and there prematurely either naturally or by Cesarean are you telling me it has no consciousness and therefore no right to exist?
WARNING, WARNING, WILL ROBINSON! Your argument is getting very, very tenuous. Abort now before it explodes and leaves you with massive amounts of egg on your face.
You and your rights. It wasn’t an argument, it was an expression of emotion. You may well disagree, but I do see a huge, I mean huge difference between killing a child and killing an unborn baby.[/quote]
I can’t get off this point because I don’t understand how there is a difference? Other than their location, nothing is different from the baby outside the womb and the one inside the womb 30 minutes prior. Biologically speaking it is the same entity. How can it’s death based on it’s location be a HUGE difference in someones mind. Please explain in as much detail as you can I really want to try and understand.
So I have to keep coming back to this. If I grow a baby in an artificial environment, which I fully expect us to be able to do in the very near future. When does it gain rights as a human? It will never leave any womb. I could choose to keep it in there as long as I needed to to make it easily survive as a normal human baby would. Basically it would need to be able to breathe it’s own air, and digest food through it’s digestive tract. You pro-abortionists do believe in human rights don’t you?
You and your rights. It wasn’t an argument, it was an expression of emotion. You may well disagree, but I do see a huge, I mean huge difference between killing a child and killing an unborn baby.
I can’t get off this point because I don’t understand how there is a difference? Other than their location, nothing is different from the baby outside the womb and the one inside the womb 30 minutes prior. Biologically speaking it is the same entity. How can it’s death based on it’s location be a HUGE difference in someones mind. Please explain in as much detail as you can I really want to try and understand.
V[/quote]
Some quick points:
I’m not talking about the immediate moments before and after conception. I don’t think a woman in labour can get an abortion legally, not even in America.
About the HUGE difference, I think it should be self-evident to every parent. What your child meant to you when she was not yet born and what she meant when she was an year old, not to talk about what she means now.
