[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger.
Take it out of the womb and see how long it self-sustains.
[/quote]
Is this really what we’ve come to?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Unless you have a vagina, you have zero right to an opinion on this topic.[/quote]
I am looking for one now on OnlineBootyCall.com
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Great fuckin day in the morning, I honestly, seriously thought you were a smarter man (mass of tissue?) than this. Ideologically warped but nonetheless sharper than the butter knife in my kitchen drawer. Now I’m having to reevaluate that metaphor. You’re in the same bin as the spoons.
Well, until you’re able to identify sarcasm and not mix up who’s making what point in an argument,…
There’s the pot calling the kettle black.
[/quote]
that’s racist
[quote]pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger.
Take it out of the womb and see how long it self-sustains.
Well we sustain off of the earth…Get off the earth and see how long you last.[/quote]
Every time we have this discussion, you end up taking away the planet. If the planet goes, I think the abortion issue is moot.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
There is a self sustaining mechanism with in the little buger.
Take it out of the womb and see how long it self-sustains.
Well we sustain off of the earth…Get off the earth and see how long you last.
Every time we have this discussion, you end up taking away the planet. If the planet goes, I think the abortion issue is moot.
[/quote]
I am just illustrating the point that we as adults are dependant on things for survival. Born children are as dependent on the parents as in utero children.
[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
so do you alot the same rights to a rat as a developing fetus? They have higher brain functioning if that is what you are basing it on.
Sorry, I don’t debate with PETA clowns.
[/quote]
You are the true epitimy of a moron,
I hate PETA they are a disgraceful organization, but you had even half of a brain you would be able to decyfer that from my avatar.
By your own definitions we should be able to terminate you as you have no higher brain function, you are like a parrot spitting out useless facts and thinking they are argument.
You state higher brain function = human rights, given that fact a rat should get human right, it has a cerebral cortex with critical reasoning capabilities.
Your argument is asinign, an embryo,a fetus a child are all human, and have done nothing to deserve termination.
You argue for abortion but probably think we can rehabilitate rapist and shild molesters instead of terminate their life.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
You are the true epitimy of a moron,[/quote]
Epitiwhat?
Decywhat?
You’re not contesting the clown part, I see.
Let’s see… Parrots and I have no higher brain function, but rats do?
Rats have critical reasoning ability? What’s your definition of reason?
(Alternatively, if you can post a video of a rat explaining the Pythagorean theorem, that would work too.)
Asiwhat?
What does “deserve” have to do with it? Tons of events happen to people who’ve done nothing to deserve them.
I’m not arguing for abortion. Ideally, they’d be zero abortion per year worldwide (except, of course, for the embryos nature flushes away pre-implantation and the miscarriages…)
I simply think that the alternative - forcing children to be born to parents who don’t want them and might not be able to care for them - is worse, on the long term, for society.
I also don’t think that terminating an embryo or a first trimester fetus is equivalent with killing a fully born child. You can disagree (or, in your case I guess that would be “dizhagry”) but you’re not going to change my mind by flopping around idiotically in your big red clown shoes.
[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
You are the true epitimy of a moron,
Epitiwhat?
I hate PETA they are a disgraceful organization, but you had even half of a brain you would be able to decyfer that from my avatar.
Decywhat?
You’re not contesting the clown part, I see.
By your own definitions we should be able to terminate you as you have no higher brain function, you are like a parrot spitting out useless facts and thinking they are argument.
Let’s see… Parrots and I have no higher brain function, but rats do?
You state higher brain function = human rights, given that fact a rat should get human right, it has a cerebral cortex with critical reasoning capabilities.
Rats have critical reasoning ability? What’s your definition of reason?
(Alternatively, if you can post a video of a rat explaining the Pythagorean theorem, that would work too.)
Your argument is asinign, an embryo,a fetus a child are all human, and have done nothing to deserve termination.
Asiwhat?
What does “deserve” have to do with it? Tons of events happen to people who’ve done nothing to deserve them.
You argue for abortion but probably think we can rehabilitate rapist and shild molesters instead of terminate their life.
I’m not arguing for abortion. Ideally, they’d be zero abortion per year worldwide (except, of course, for the embryos nature flushes away pre-implantation and the miscarriages…)
I simply think that the alternative - forcing children to be born to parents who don’t want them and might not be able to care for them - is worse, on the long term, for society.
I also don’t think that terminating an embryo or a first trimester fetus is equivalent with killing a fully born child. You can disagree (or, in your case I guess that would be “dizhagry”) but you’re not going to change my mind by flopping around idiotically in your big red clown shoes.
[/quote]
why not teach people to be responsible instead,
And the clown shoes are green.
I know I should probably start to proofread, but got a little upset, PETA makes me very angry, but that is another topic.
Have you ever done research with rats? They have a remarkable ability to learn, I was drawing a parallel because people use the higher brain functioning argument, but that isn’t what gives someone the qualities of being a human being, in is their genetic make up, those 23 paired chromosomes. And if a women does not want to have a baby she should take responsibility for ensuring her actions do not lead to having a baby, that should be the focus in our country. But no one will learn to be accuntble if we keep giving them free passes.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
why not teach people to be responsible instead, [/quote]
I’m all for that. In fact, my preferred way of reducing abortions is through education. Make people responsible and let them know how reproduction works.
Right now, there’s too many idiots going around who only know the Stork Theory of human reproduction.
I have guinea pigs who can learn very complex paths in their cage… they also associate the noise of plastic bags with feeding time. But I think those are more along the lines of conditioned reflexes (cf. Pavlov) than “critical reasoning”. Reason, at least the human one, entails thinking in the abstract; I don’t think many animals have that ability.
I’m not saying that higher brain functions make the human; it’s simply the criteria we apply to people who have been head injured to determine when “it’s ok” to unplug them.
I find that criteria more “valid” than either birth (too late) and conception (too early) to pick a time when a human life should be granted legal protection.
Maybe I should just let it drop, since I find myself in the amusing position of pissing off both the pro-choices (since I don’t support abortions after the 20th week) and the pro-lifes (since I’m grudgingly ok with it for those 19 first weeks).
But if someone is too dumb to use birth control, should they really be forced to care for a child? Doesn’t “quality” of life enter somewhere in the equation, and not simply quantity of life?
[quote]pookie wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I simply think that the alternative - forcing children to be born to parents who don’t want them and might not be able to care for them - is worse, on the long term, for society.
[/quote]
The parents dont have to care for them. Adoptive agencies?
Surely, growing up in a foster home is better than not growing up at all.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
The parents dont have to care for them. Adoptive agencies?
Surely, growing up in a foster home is better than not growing up at all.[/quote]
You’re right. That approach is great. The only problem is that the number of abortions per year far exceeds the demand for adoption.
Then there’s the “I want a perfect baby” factor to consider. Many parents who wish to adopt won’t be interested if the kid is from alcoholic or drug-using parents; or is not in perfect health.
Lastly, our adoption laws would need serious revision. Right now, it’s easier and cheaper to go adopt a Chinese baby than to try and adopt an American (or Canadian, in my case) one.
Unfortunately, there is a lot more effort being made trying to recriminalize abortion, rather than fix any of the above problems.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, which is why anti-abortionists value the lives of unborn children. If they’re sucked out of the uterus with a vacuum cleaner their “quality” of life tends to suffer.[/quote]
But what about quality of life after birth?
It’s the right to abort early in the pregnancy that I grudgingly concede - and only because I think that forcing so many unwanted babies on society is worse in the long run; not the fact that the fetus is human or alive…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Yep, which is why anti-abortionists value the lives of unborn children. If they’re sucked out of the uterus with a vacuum cleaner their “quality” of life tends to suffer.
But what about quality of life after birth?
Time to start offing all kinds of folks if that is a criterion of worthiness to live.
I will say this, Pookie darlin, at least you’re willing (grudgingly?) to concede that the fetus is a human and worthy of having its life protected after the second trimester begins. There are a lot of eggheads who think a child can be butchered right up until it’s breathing air.
It’s the right to abort early in the pregnancy that I grudgingly concede - and only because I think that forcing so many unwanted babies on society is worse in the long run; not the fact that the fetus is human or alive…
So “the fact that the fetus is human or alive” (rather intelligent and reasonable of you to admit that) is of less importance to you than whether or not society benefits by their presence?
Wow! A true honest-to-gosh Wow! You must have majored in Eugenics.
[Edit] It’s striking how much one can reveal about themselves in a conversation like this one.[/quote]
I didn’t get a chance to reply to him earlier, but I would have said about what you did.
This is the result once societies begin down the path to justifying death by design. I like ol Pookie, but this is really calloused.
What’s really insane is that a lot of these “it’s a right” types when discussing the intentionally caused death of an unborn child, become horrified and indignant if we suggest offing an adult that kills actually born children.
Or if we rough up a prisoner of war or GOD FORBID wear a fur coat. This is all somehow viewed as progress.
Passing the law is one thing.
But wait, THERES MORE
They will start pushing federal funding for abortions and more of YOUR tax dollars will pay for them.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
An embryo is not a human. It is human tissue, but not A human.
Of course it is. It needs only food, water, shelter and oxygen in order to grow into a human of a later stage of development, just like you.
It’s a human in an early stage of development. [/quote]
I don’t know of any human infants who can survive without a caregiver for food, shelter, and protection, so why can’t we kill kids up to a few years of age? A fertilized egg is genetically the same DNA wise as when the age is 18,21,65, and 100.
I don’t want to make an error when life starts. I assume it’s at conception.
Pisses me off the amount of people who use abortion as birth control. Why not try a condom or the pill instead of stopping a potential life?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So “the fact that the fetus is human or alive” (rather intelligent and reasonable of you to admit that) is of less importance to you than whether or not society benefits by their presence?
Wow! A true honest-to-gosh Wow! You must have majored in Eugenics.[/quote]
It’s funny how you guys appear incapable of considering more than one factor when evaluating a situation. First it’s looking at the pregnancy as if it occurred in a vacuum and had no impact on the mother or on anyone post-birth; then it’s latching on one factor I mention as if it was the only one I was using to reach my position.
If you want to consider only one factor, try this one: quality of life of the child. If you look at the demographics of who gets abortion, you’ll notice a disproportionate (compared to the general population) of poor people (lack of resources to care for the child); a high instance of drug and alcohol use and abuse (which have a good chance of harming the fetus during the pregnancy and make it very likely that the state will take away the child immediately after birth); a high number of single mothers - often paternity tests are needed to find the father - which certainly does not equate to a good family environment to raise a child.
So, is it really moral to force a child to be born in such a situation if its parents (or, more often, mother since the dad is long gone) judges that her situation is not right to raise a child?
Well if your current conclusion is anything to go by, there’s a lot of stuff you think people have revealed about themselves that’s just plain wrong.
Maybe you should give the pushing a break and try to thinkharder for a change.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
I don’t know of any human infants who can survive without a caregiver for food, shelter, and protection, so why can’t we kill kids up to a few years of age? A fertilized egg is genetically the same DNA wise as when the age is 18,21,65, and 100.[/quote]
So having DNA is your criteria? Do you save every skin cell that flakes off you during the day because it’s a human life? They each have the same DNA you do.
Life starts 3.7 billion years ago. The ovum and sperm are quite alive before they meet. It’s all alive. There’s no “not alive” part anywhere in the cycle of life reproducing itself.
If you assume that a “new human life” begins at conception, then you must reconciliate that with the fact that about 60% of fertilized eggs will either never implant, or will implant but will be flushed away when the menses start anyway. It’s just one of those fun nature facts.