Making murder illegal doesn’t end the practice.
Abortion is never safe for the aborted.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Aragon â?? Condoms interrupt the natural mechanics of biology. What would a girl do after the condom fails? The answer is obvious.
As for birth control in all other forms, the hormone still allows the ovum to be released. If exposed to sperm fertilization takes place and the fetus fails to implant in the uterine wall so the pregnancy is ended, killing an innocent child. Birth control does NOT stop the ovum from being released. When an egg is released, nothing is in place to stop the little sperm while the egg travels to the site of fertilization…
So you know, address the words I use. You can actually learn something, or I could be proven wrong. That has happened under other subjects before, just never on the case for LIFE.
smh_23 â?? Life does NOT begin after an eight inch journey down the birth canal. I appreciate the help pat gave me, yet like I said to Aragon you cannot claim you defeated me when I have a life outside of educating you and learning along the way on my own. Please address the words I use in this discussion.
H factor â?? Abortion is NOT regulated anywhere in the world except Ireland, Chile or Poland; only in these countries are the procedures banned. America is just starting to wake up to the fact that Roe v Wade was only passed because the court failed to understand that abortion will never help women in the long run, ever.
sufiandy â?? Would you provide evidence for your claim? PP makes billions in profit, long before getting help from the government. You still need to provide evidence that another person can ever kill another human.
beans â?? read the portion to Aragon, then let me know if you still lack the understanding of what I am trying to say.
Dr.Matt581 â?? birth control is zero different than any abortion; here we agree. There is no â??potential life,â?? life begins at the moment of conception. LIFE does not begin after the embryo implants in the uterine wall, roughly eight to ten days later after the ovum is fertilized.
The ovum is only available a few days every cycle to be fertilized. If a couple wants to create life, a choice is shared by the couple to create life. A simple choice to not partake in the activities known to create life is had and together they make that choice.
The following article is a very GOOD summation of the position I hold, my better part helped me find it.
[i] Recently, I was browsing the forums on a website that belongs to an indie band I like. In one of the forum discussions, a fan suggested that this Texas band â?? which has several female members â?? should move to a state that supports women’s rights. This comment quickly inspired a debate about abortion. When I expressed my pro-life views in the debate, I was accused of imposing my “religious beliefs” on women. Even though I never mentioned religion, the other debaters assumed that since I was pro-life I must also be religious.
Though I am a Catholic, my pro-life stance is not based on a “the-Bible-tells-me-so” attitude. You don’t have to be religious to be pro-life. In fact, I’m convinced it’s the only rational position for someone who believes in science and human rights.
The central issue in the abortion debate is human rights. If a fetus is not a person, it has no legal rights â?? it’s simply a part of a woman’s body, and she should be free to remove it just like a cyst or tumor. However, if a fetus is a person, then it has legal rights â?? including a right to life. No one, not even the mother, can take away that right.
But how do we know whether a fetus is a person or not? What counts as personhood? Is it an innate quality, or is it developed later? In my opinion, there are only two reliable criteria for determining personhood, and those criteria rest on scientific and medical evidence. The first criterion is the presence of life, and the second is the possession of a human genome. If something is a living organism and possesses a human genome, then it is not someTHING but someONE â?? a person with a right to live.
When we attempt to determine the personhood of a fetus, we need to start with this question:
Is a fetus a living organism?
The answer, quite simply, is yes. No biologist would dispute the claim that a fetus is alive. In biology, there are seven criteria for determining whether something is a living organism, and a fetus meets all of those criteria:
Like all living organisms, a fetus maintains an internal equilibrium by producing various chemicals and bodily effects (homeostasis).
Like all living organisms, a fetus is organized, meaning it is composed of at least one cell.
Like all living organisms, a fetus has a metabolism â?? it can transform chemicals into cellular components and break down complex substances for energy.
Like all living organisms, a fetus can adapt to changes in its environment.
Like all living organisms, a fetus develops reproductive features.
Like all living organisms, a fetus responds to stimuli.
Like all living organisms, a fetus grows.
Based on this evidence, there is no reason not to view a fetus as a living organism. As Dr. Hymie Gordon, the Chairman of the Mayo Clinic’s Department of Genetics, explains it, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
However, just because a fetus is living is not enough reason to view it as a person. It must also be human, which brings us to our second question:
Is a fetus human?
Once again, the answer is yes.
According to the laws of biogenesis, every species reproduces its own kind. Alligators give birth to alligators, bacteria give birth to bacteria, chickens give birth to chickens, and dogs give birth to dogs. No dog will ever give birth to an alligator, and no chicken will ever give birth to a bacteria. It’s biologically impossible. Every organism can only reproduce its own kind.
Based on this scientific fact, it should be evident that when a human male’s sperm fertilizes a human female’s ovum, the resulting embryo cannot be anything other than human. If you doubt that, just look at the genetics.
Every adult human possesses a unique genetic code that consists of 23 pairs of chromosomes. A fetus possesses this code as well. Therefore, since the fetus possesses a human genome, it cannot be anything other than human. This is not a subjective opinion; it’s a scientific fact. As Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the “father of modern genetics” puts it, “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion â?¦ it is just plain experimental evidence.”
Of course, someone might object by claiming that DNA doesn’t make something human since biological samples like toenail clippings and pieces of hair also contain human DNA. Though it’s certainly true that a toenail clipping does contain human DNA, there are two obvious differences between a toenail and a fetus.
First, the DNA in a toenail matches the person it came from. If a geneticist removes a cyst from a pregnant woman, she will find that the DNA contained in the cyst matches woman’s DNA. However, if she examines the fetus’s DNA, the geneticist will find that it is not identical to the mother’s. Every fetus possesses its own unique DNA that shows it is not part of the mother the same way her bodily organs are.
Second, a toenail is not a living organism. Unlike the fetus, it does not meet the biological criteria for determining life.
A fetus is alive and human? So what?
Scientific evidence makes it clear that a fetus is both living and human. This is beyond dispute, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. “That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed â?¦ We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge,” writes the atheist and activist Christopher Hitchens.
Nevertheless, most abortion activists refuse to accept this evidence because it would lead to the conclusion that a living human organism is a person with rights. Consider this statement by abortion activist Joyce Arthur:
“(U)ltimately, the status of the fetus [as human] is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman. For example, a happily pregnant woman may feel love for her fetus as a special and unique human being â?¦ But an unhappily pregnant woman may view her fetus with utter dismay, bordering on revulsion.”
Similarly, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry created a controversy recently when she claimed the answer to the question “When does life begin?” is not provided by science, but by a mother’s “powerful feeling.” According to Harris-Perry, a woman’s emotional state trumps scientific and medical opinion.
Let’s suppose, for a moment, that these ladies are right â?? the personhood of a fetus is not determined by objective scientific evidence; it’s a subjective concept. If this is the case, though, then why isn’t the personhood of children (or even adults) a subjective concept as well? Why can’t a mother kill her newborn child if she suddenly develops a “powerful feeling” that the child is actually a nonliving, nonhuman burden for her?
According to some pro-choice activists, a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on its mother while a child is not. For them, independence counts as a mark of personhood. But let’s consider that logic. From a biological perspective, there is little difference between the dependency of a fetus and the dependency of a newborn. Though the newborn is no longer living inside the mother’s body, it is still completely dependent on her (or a surrogate) to meet all its biological needs. In fact, the complete and utter dependency of newborns is so obvious that Peter Singer, a Princeton bioethicist, argues mothers should be allowed to kill their newborn children. “Many people find this [idea] shocking,” Singer says, “yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion â?¦ From the point of view of ethics rather than law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.”
Hopefully, most people will be appalled by Singer’s claim. Yet, his logic is consistent with the premise that dependency robs a living human being of his or her right to live.
If we accept Arthur and Harris-Perry’s claim that the personhood of a fetus is a subjective concept, then there is little to prevent us from eventually accepting Singer’s claim that the personhood of children is also a subjective concept. Once we reach that point, though, where will we stop? What traits do adults possess that make them worth respecting as people? Ultimately, there does not seem to be much difference between the logic of abortion activists and the logic of the Supreme Court when it ruled in the infamous Dred Scott case (1857) that African Americans, though human, belonged to an “inferior order” and therefore had no legal rights.[/i] Or what about the rights of the Jews during the Nazi Reich? How about women and their suffrage before being allowed to vote?
[i]If we reject the notion that personhood is determined by a very simple formula (life + humanity = personhood), then we must find an alternative definition of what makes someone a person. The question is, however, whether we can find any definition that provides a reliable, objective basis for human rights. I don’t believe such a definition exists.
That’s why I’m pro-life.[/i]
http://www.denisonforum.org/morality/801-why-i-am-pro-life[/quote]
If an unborn child has rights, from where do they come? The argument that an unborn child has rights presumes that the child’s mother has none.
A pregnant woman is not a slave to the child inside her. NOBODY has a right to another.
A woman owns her body, and a child must have her consent to remain inside her. If she withdraws her consent, for any reason, and the child doesn’t leave her property, she must have the right to use force to defend her property.
Signed, Someone who is 1,000,000% opposed to abortion, and thinks it is possibly the most vile practice in existence(I believe it is murder-murder of a completely innocent human; however, I must oppose its criminalization, because morality can’t be legislated. Additionally, the child’s rights end where the woman’s begin, so she must be allowed to kill her child while it’s inside her(the consequences of legislating otherwise would be far worse).)
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Making murder illegal doesn’t end the practice.
Abortion is never safe for the aborted.[/quote]
If A is true why is one arguing to make abortion illegal? It won’t end the practice and will make the woman who undergoes it do it in a safe manner. Is two dead lives better than one? Unwanted children will still happen and some women will still seek out abortion. History has shown us this over and over and over again. At what point do we actually learn from it?
Ignoring the above, being anti-contraceptive is flat illogical if one is trying to limit the amount of abortions. I won’t get in the inane arguments about if jacking off is murder or anything else childish and fantasy based. You want to raise the amount of abortions in the United States ban condoms and birth control.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
sufiandy â?? Would you provide evidence for your claim? PP makes billions in profit, long before getting help from the government.
[/quote]
PP is also responsible for birth control methods to prevent the need for abortion in the first place. Using example numbers…
PP
- 2 unwanted pregnancies prevented via birth control
- 1 ended via abortion
No-PP
- 3 pregnancies
- Up to 3 women may seek abortion at some other location
Billions in profit… their entire budget is barely 1billion and they are a non profit. How do you net billions when you gross 1 billion? Please tell me I would like to know for my personal finances.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
If an unborn child has rights, from where do they come?[/quote]
Same place as yours.
It doesn’t presume that. Just that there is no right to abortion.
And the child inside her isn’t a disposable slave, either. Ok, so let’s allow the with-holding of nutrition for infants and small children. The child has no right to make the adult units (formerly called parents in moral world) obtain and provide sustenance. Or, to drive them to a hospital when sick.
By extension no one expect expect emergency care workers to enter someone’s private property in order to aid a different individual, if the property owner won’t consent.
Son of a…Did you just turn it into a damn property dispute? It isn’t a trespasser! It is exactly where a brute fact of nature puts it! Oh, and it will, eventually, leave. You have a right to shoot me–because, say, I slip on a patch of ice on the sidewalk, land in your front yard, knocking myself out on a rock–because I’m not off of your property in some arbitrary amount of time? How long should I be given? No time? 5 minutes? Or, until I safely exit your property…
Yeesh.
[quote]H factor wrote:
If A is true why is one arguing to make abortion illegal? [/quote]
The question is, why aren’t you arguing for murder being legal.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Making murder illegal doesn’t end the practice.
Abortion is never safe for the aborted.[/quote]
If A is true why is one arguing to make abortion illegal? It won’t end the practice and will make the woman who undergoes it do it in a safe manner. Is two dead lives better than one? Unwanted children will still happen and some women will still seek out abortion. History has shown us this over and over and over again. At what point do we actually learn from it?
Ignoring the above, being anti-contraceptive is flat illogical if one is trying to limit the amount of abortions. I won’t get in the inane arguments about if jacking off is murder or anything else childish and fantasy based. You want to raise the amount of abortions in the United States ban condoms and birth control. [/quote]
Neither the Catholic Church, nor Santorum (I’ve seen him correct people on this), are talking about banning your condoms. Contraceptive use is more like sex outside of marriage, in the sense that it is a moral wrong committed upon the self. Abortion, murder, the wrong/the crime is directly put upon another, hence the applicability of the law.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Same place as yours. [/quote]
-Nope. To kill me, one has to invade my body. An unborn child is in another’s body. The unborn child is the invader.
[quote]
It doesn’t presume that. Just that there is no right to abortion.[/quote]
-What right can exist if the right to one’s own body does not?
[quote]And the child inside her isn’t a disposable slave, either. Ok, so let’s allow the with-holding of nutrition for infants and small children. The child has no right to make the adult units (formerly called parents in moral world) obtain and provide sustenance. Or, to drive them to a hospital when sick.
By extension no one expect expect emergency care workers to enter someone’s private property in order to aid a different individual, if the property owner won’t consent. [/quote]
-The child is a slave to his mother’s will. The child does not own his own body while he is inside his mother’s. I agree that the child has no right to make his mother obtain or provide sustenance. In that situation, maybe you should offer the mother a bit of cash and bring the child home with you.
[quote]
Son of a…Did you just turn it into a damn property dispute? It isn’t a trespasser! It is exactly where a brute fact of nature puts it! Oh, and it will, eventually, leave. You have a right to shoot me–because, say, I slip on a patch of ice on the sidewalk, land in your front yard, knocking myself out on a rock–because I’m not off of your property in some arbitrary amount of time? How long should I be given? No time? 5 minutes? Or, until I safely exit your property…[/quote]
-Yes, all rights are property rights. The child is a trespasser if his host no longer wants him. The local drunk who stumbles into and has a seat in a downtown restaurant will also eventually leave, but he has no right to sleep off his drunk if the owner doesn’t want him there. I have a right to my property, so, yes, I have the right to shoot you if I find you on my property. I don’t have to, but I have the right to.
-You’ll have to explain your “yeesh.” A person could not be more strongly opposed to abortion than me. I oppose it in any situation. I oppose abortion even if a ten-year-old girl’s father rapes her, and the child will be born with Polio, AIDS, and a guaranteed five-hour lifespan-even if allowing that child to be born will result in the death of the ten-year-old mother.
I am even more strongly opposed to giving the government the power to regulate what one does with his body/property, or the power to deny him the right to defend his property.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
-Nope. To kill me, one has to invade my body. An unborn child is in another’s body. The unborn child is the invader.[/quote]
Your rights. Their rights come from the same place. And it’s not an invader. It’s not breaking and entering, for crying out loud. If this is what it takes to be a good anarchist…the reducing of the unborn into trespassers…
Ahem, um, abortion is a fatal and permanent revocation of this right.
Well, if we have to turn this into a slavery thing, then the child has been placed into this position without its consent. And, it is that individual life which is subjected to the ultimate act of other-ownership. Disposal.
It’s not close to a parasite. It is offspring, from the result of reproduction, one of defining features of life, including our own.
And you say this knowing that I was speaking of infant and small children? The born?
And so ends anarchism, not with a bang, but a whimper. And it’s a parent, not a host. A parasite has a host.
You just got done making the unborn out to be burglars.
I apparently edited my previous post while you wrote your last one. I edited the parts about the unborn child being a parasite, and answered your question about infants and small children before I knew you asked it.
I did not make unborn children out be burglars. You seem to have confused my legal belief for my personal belief.
a. Abortion is legally prohibited:
-one can have a claim on the life and liberty of another
b. Abortion is allowed:
-a woman can defend herself with force, if necessary
c. Abortion is allowed in some cases:
-one’s rights are dependent upon others’ circumstances
H factor - so how many women die each year because of the filth in the clinics? Abortion always kills the child, almost without exception. Please do not be so inept that you believe abortion to be safe for women. Find the figures of women killed each year during and after an abortion. Guess how many girls have died this year, before January is over.
Birth control does NOT stop the ovum from being fertilized; it also does not allow the embryo to implant in the uterine wall.
LIFE begins at the moment of conception. That fact is supported by logic, science and reason.
NickViar - if a woman does not want to get pregnant, that is easy, do not partake in the activity know to create life. Where does this right to erase an earlier choice come from? Where else in life does this exist? Nothing in life allows me to erase an earlier choice and go forward with no regard for the past or anyone else.
The moment a woman makes the choice to partake in an activity known to create life and a new life results in those actions, her rights are to now sustain and help that LIFE she helped to create.
Morality cannot be legislated? Wrong, yes it can! Morality defines all laws. When laws define morality society has a short life. Look to history if you doubt me.
While talking to Sloth you claimed the fetus was a parasite. A parasite is [i]A DIFFERENT SPECIES[/i] than the host, therefore you are trying to redefine words to justify your support of abortion. When you claim to be opposed to abortion, you cannot support abortion while being opposed to the act.
sufiandy - you just told me that a non-profit makes billions in PROFIT. Do you understand that a non-profit should make zero profit?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Making murder illegal doesn’t end the practice.
Abortion is never safe for the aborted.[/quote]
If A is true why is one arguing to make abortion illegal? It won’t end the practice and will make the woman who undergoes it do it in a safe manner. Is two dead lives better than one? Unwanted children will still happen and some women will still seek out abortion. History has shown us this over and over and over again. At what point do we actually learn from it?
Ignoring the above, being anti-contraceptive is flat illogical if one is trying to limit the amount of abortions. I won’t get in the inane arguments about if jacking off is murder or anything else childish and fantasy based. You want to raise the amount of abortions in the United States ban condoms and birth control. [/quote]
Neither the Catholic Church, nor Santorum (I’ve seen him correct people on this), are talking about banning your condoms. Contraceptive use is more like sex outside of marriage, in the sense that it is a moral wrong committed upon the self. Abortion, murder, the wrong/the crime is directly put upon another, hence the applicability of the law.
[/quote]
Do you read the whole thread before you post? You are in a thread where OP stated that right off the bat. That’s why I am talking about it and others are in this thread. You really shouldn’t start posting in a thread until you have read it. There is a reason we were talking about those things…It was the very thing OP put in the first post.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
beans â?? read the portion to Aragon, then let me know if you still lack the understanding of what I am trying to say.
[/quote]
lol, I didn’t even address you.
Don’t flatter yourself. Not only do I understand you, but I learned long ago trying to actually have a conversation with you is fruitless.
This morning I went outside to get the paper and I ran into my neighbor. She said, “Hi.” I said, “Morning.” Then I got my paper and walked back inside. Did I just abort a fetus by not jogging over to her and giving her the business? Am I aborting a fetus right now?
[quote]H factor wrote:
Do you read the whole thread before you post? You are in a thread where OP stated that right off the bat.[/quote]
So, where’s the part about banning it? I never actually saw him say that much.
Keeping this spot warm.
Where?
Where’s the banning part? He might, but I don’t see him outright saying it yet. Then the thread shifted to abortion quickly, so it’s a bit mashed together anyways, now.
But, how would that affect my response, anyways? I specifically brought up the Church and Santorum. I.e. there isn’t any real movement to legally ban contraception.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
their entire budget is barely 1billion and they are a non profit. [/quote]
Funny really the massive misconceptions that come with “non-profit” status.
All nonprofit status really does is change the reporting (compliance) status of the entity, and restrict the activities of the entity. (It can engage in just about anything, but will pay tax on UBTI, unrelated business taxable income.) There are also certain distinctions that allow donations to the entity to be tax deductible for the giver, but not all nonprofits have this.
In the short and skinny of it, yes a nonprofit can, and often do have profit at the end of the year. What they can do with the profits is subject to their charter, activity and any “self imposed” restrictions.
For example, Romney donates 10m to a scholarship fund upon his death that sends 4 kids to Stanford every year from Compton. Well, that initial 10m will be put into an investment account, and will have earnings on the principle. Some of those earnings will be taxable, and the nonprofit will be paying tax on those. However, outside of paying taxes and giving out scholarships, those funds are restricted to those uses. So the entity, the Mitt to Stanford Scholarship FUnd, can’t turn around and buy up the local pizza shop or donate to March of Dimes, the funds are restricted to scholarships.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
sufiandy - you just told me that a non-profit makes billions in PROFIT. Do you understand that a non-profit should make zero profit?
[/quote]
Business 101 materal is not something you can copy and paste from a anti-abortion website so its understandable that you don’t grasp these simple concepts. If your going to read whatever I say as the opposite its kind of a waste of time replying to you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
their entire budget is barely 1billion and they are a non profit. [/quote]
Funny really the massive misconceptions that come with “non-profit” status.
All nonprofit status really does is change the reporting (compliance) status of the entity, and restrict the activities of the entity. (It can engage in just about anything, but will pay tax on UBTI, unrelated business taxable income.) There are also certain distinctions that allow donations to the entity to be tax deductible for the giver, but not all nonprofits have this.
In the short and skinny of it, yes a nonprofit can, and often do have profit at the end of the year. What they can do with the profits is subject to their charter, activity and any “self imposed” restrictions.
For example, Romney donates 10m to a scholarship fund upon his death that sends 4 kids to Stanford every year from Compton. Well, that initial 10m will be put into an investment account, and will have earnings on the principle. Some of those earnings will be taxable, and the nonprofit will be paying tax on those. However, outside of paying taxes and giving out scholarships, those funds are restricted to those uses. So the entity, the Mitt to Stanford Scholarship FUnd, can’t turn around and buy up the local pizza shop or donate to March of Dimes, the funds are restricted to scholarships. [/quote]
My point was really more of the net vs gross part of it. The non-profit part was really more of a general statement that whoever runs the organization is not living life like a billion dollar private company owner.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nick…dude…your thoughts on this matter are seriously flawed.
Also, I think those (Sloth? and Kneedragger) who might be equating contraception with abortion have serious intellectually flawed thinking as well. This is coming from one who has as vigorously wrestled against abortion as anyone here over the past decade.[/quote]
I don’t think that Sloth is equating birth control with abortion, even though he is against it, but not supporting a ban on contraceptives that do not involve destroying a fetus. which is perfectly fine. In my opinion, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and morals up until the point where their said morals and actions based on their opinions and morals start affecting others in a real way (i.e. one does not just get to say that someone getting an abortion affects them because they think abortion is wrong, a real affect must be shown and that it is worse then allowing the fetus to be aborted). This creates some interesting topics for debate in the context of this thread.
For example, arguing against abortion based on morals is great, but if one wants to enforce a ban on abortions on others, then it must first be shown that a person getting an abortion has an adverse affect on another person to a higher degree than the affect of not getting an abortion would have on the parents* The argument has been made that a fetus is a human, and science seems to back it up. I accept this as a valid argument against abortions in most cases because this means that destroying a fetus is terminating a human life. This trumps any inconvenience placed on the parents short of the death of one of the parents.
The same argument can not be made for individual sperm or unfertilized eggs being human beings and as such any form of birth control that takes effect before a fetus is formed falls squarely in the realm of personal choice. This means that if someone’s personal morals prohibit the use of any form of birth control, wherever those morals may originate from, then fine. That person can and should be able to abstain from using birth control. The other side of this also holds: If a person is not against birth control that takes effect before a fetus is formed and chooses to use it, then there is no valid reason (at least not one that I am aware of) for prohibiting their use of it.
Now, kneedragger has claimed that he believes all birth control is on the same level as abortion. He has even shown a profound misunderstanding of the different types of birth control with statements such as:
This is just so profoundly incorrect that kneedragger either does not understand the differences in the different kinds of contraceptives, or he does and is willfully ignoring facts.
*Yes, I used the plural on purpose. One person, male or female cannot create a fetus on their own, regardless of whose body is used bring it to term and both parents are legally responsible for a child once it has been born as far as I know in America, so the whole process inherently involves both parents from the moment of conception until the child has died (or one of the parent’s legal responsibility has been terminated).