[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I never said I new now how it feels. I do know killing a child will never result in everything being ok. [/quote]
Also, Also, Also,
Child: a human between the stages of birth and puberty
Let us from now on refer to this, in this thread, as a fetus; that way i wont think you are referring to the killing of this fictional 40lb human growing inside America’s pregnant women.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Take a pole of the women who were raped and that resulted in a pregnancy.[/quote]
Also x4
Your still missing my point(I’m beginning to think your doing this on purpose). As I said the method of pregnancy was irrelevant. However ignoring the cases of raped women because they are outnumbered strikes me as very offensive.
Not sure where you got your definition, lets go with wiki. That woud be the most universally accepted definition.
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
Using this definition it doesn’t even come close to explaining a mother/fetus relationship. And you cannot tell me the mother is irreverent. You are arguing a case for her! Second you can’t argue a case for a 13 year old when they account for less than two percent of the total. Most abortions are with girls between the ages of 20-24 (http://www.abortionfacts.com/Statistics/age.asp). Last time I checked those women can vote for the president and most can legally drink. Yet you want them to have a pass because they might not understand the implications of sex?! My God man, so when should people be held responsible for their actions?
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Who knows where the mother was. It is irrelevant. She could have been walking in a park when she was raped and impregnated. She could have been a 13year old having sex, not knowing exactly what she doing. The circumstances matter not to me.
Also,
Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host
[/quote]
Your definition defined a pregnancy exact. Further more I never claimed the mother was irrelevant. You quoted me so get this right, The method of pregnancy on the mother is irrelevant.
Also stop dismissing minority cases; it is growingly offensive.
And I don’t want to give women a pass on anything. Quite the to the contrary, I want them to have the same rights to defend their bodies as any other human. Stop thinking of pregnancy as such a magical thing. It is the implantation of the mothers own egg, with a fathers sperm into her womb. From there it leaches her body and grows inside her. That is pregnancy and it is not magical or religious or anything else. If a woman chooses not to let this, fetus, embryo, human grow inside her body that is her choice. And if this results in the death of a fetus, then it is a causality of its method of survival. Stop over complicating things with these preconceived notions of right or wrong. Bottom line is, it is the mother body. She can remove ANYTHING from HER BODY that SHE wants to.
I don’t think abortion is right, but it is her choice.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Your definition defined a pregnancy exact. Further more I never claimed the mother was irrelevant. You quoted me so get this right, The method of pregnancy on the mother is irrelevant.
Also stop dismissing minority cases; it is growingly offensive.
And I don’t want to give women a pass on anything. Quite the to the contrary, I want them to have the same rights to defend their bodies as any other human. Stop thinking of pregnancy as such a magical thing. It is the implantation of the mothers own egg, with a fathers sperm into her womb. From there it leaches her body and grows inside her. That is pregnancy and it is not magical or religious or anything else. If a woman chooses not to let this, fetus, embryo, human grow inside her body that is her choice. And if this results in the death of a fetus, then it is a causality of its method of survival. Stop over complicating things with these preconceived notions of right or wrong. Bottom line is, it is the mother body. She can remove ANYTHING from HER BODY that SHE wants to.
I don’t think abortion is right, but it is her choice.[/quote]
Why do you constantly get off on this magical quasi religious notion of right to self. You are a scientifically explainable grouping of cell in a sustained chemical reaction we label life. There is nothing magical about it. You can no more have “rights” of ownership to your body than a baseball has rights to the molecules that comprise it. Anything to the contrary is magical nonsense.
I apologized in my first post in this thread, and I am right. The arguments for abortion NEVER change. Not hard to catch up ; )
In regards to the “rape” case, both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating a violent act. As for a study involving pregnancy rates, in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose AGAINST abortion. (Mahkorn, “Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts) Good can and does come from evil. This is from ‘Jane Roe’ and the lawsuit of Roe vs Wade, she never had the abortion and became the “pawn” of two young and ambitious lawyers who were looking for a plaintiff who they could use to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion (An Interview with Norma McCorvey. Ann Scheidler, Chicago Pro-life Action League. April 20, 1996). Kind of ironic, no? jajaja : D
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
It was brought up and you jumped on the bandwagon! So where is this poll backing up what you are saying?[/quote]
[quote]Deorum wrote:
If you have no “rights” then this argument is defaulted to my case. The assumption of rights of man is what we base laws on, DoubleDuce.
[/quote]
I’m aware; in fact that was my point. I was mocking your mocking of “magic” concepts while using them yourself. A right is an entirely mystical illogical concept that we essentially base all our laws on. If you are going to get rid of the “magic” concepts, you have to throw everything away.
We apparently agree that being alive and being human grants you several “magical” concepts (life, liberty, property est.). We, I hope, can also agree that before and after life we do not afford these rights to that same grouping of matter even if it is in the exact same structural form (a dead body). If we can universally accept that, then there absolutely is a “magical” moment where a human life comes into being and is afforded those rights.
So get off your scientific high horse. You are no less a shaman than anyone else.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I get your point. And where was the mother during the creation of the life? Why is it the mothers choice to kill a defenseless child that does nothing to anyone? And don’t tell me the child is a parasite. A parasite will eventually kill the host, that has never happened with a baby. The natural place for a baby is with the mother. After a pregnancy. why do so many have an intimate bond with their child? Plus we aren’t talking about me sapping nutrients from YOU, don’t change the subject : )
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Your missing my point. I don’t care if you want to call it a living human being or not. It is a leaching entity on the mother and if the mother does not want to be taxed by this entity that is her choice. If your survival depended on sapping nutrients from my body and I didn’t provide them to you it is not murder. Much the same it is not murder when a mother decides to stop providing a host for an embryo in which to grow. She is entitled to defend and remove from her body any entity - foreign or native; human or otherwise.[/quote]
[/quote]
Who knows where the mother was. It is irrelevant. She could have been walking in a park when she was raped and impregnated. She could have been a 13year old having sex, not knowing exactly what she doing. The circumstances matter not to me.
Also,
Parasite: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host
Also, Also,
Many pregnancies result in the death of the mother. This is not by any stretch a rare occurrence.
[/quote]
If the scientific purpose of life is to continue life, and even more so to continue your genes, there is a huge scientific benefit to the mother of a Darwinian nature. That would make the relationship symbiotic, not parasitic.
My point was not a scientific one and it is clear you did not understand that. My point was all humans are assumed the same rights. Your fetus and my woman included. One of these rights if the right to defend ones body. A woman can defend her body from the invasion of a fetus by removing it from her womb even if that does result in the death of the fetus. It is really quite simple.
Edit: this should be the real argument: Does a woman have the right to defend and preserve her body at the cost of another’s life.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the scientific purpose of life is to continue life, and even more so to continue your genes, there is a huge scientific benefit to the mother of a Darwinian nature. That would make the relationship symbiotic, not parasitic.[/quote]
When the mother can die from the fetus it is not symbiotic. When the fetus can tax the mother beyond recovery it is not symbiotic. It is the mother who decides what this relationship is, not you or I.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
My point was not a scientific one and it is clear you did not understand that. My point was all humans are assumed the same rights. Your fetus and my woman included. One of these rights if the right to defend ones body. A woman can defend her body from the invasion of a fetus by removing it from her womb even if that does result in the death of the fetus. It is really quite simple. [/quote]
That sounds pretty cut and dry except for a few missing details. Did the woman consciously and knowing set into motion the events that lead to the death of another?
Lets say I drive a car at 100 miles an hour toward a brick wall (willingly and knowingly). Once I near the wall I have the right to preserve my body from becoming a grease mark on the wall right? Since I have the right to preserve my body, I swerve into a pedestrian killing him but saving myself. Are you content to say that I had the right to preserve myself even at the expense of an innocent human life or would you agree that there are other nuances when I set in motion the event?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the scientific purpose of life is to continue life, and even more so to continue your genes, there is a huge scientific benefit to the mother of a Darwinian nature. That would make the relationship symbiotic, not parasitic.[/quote]
When the mother can die from the fetus it is not symbiotic. When the fetus can tax the mother beyond recovery it is not symbiotic. It is the mother who decides what this relationship is, not you or I.[/quote]
Now you have gone and completely backtracked on your parasitic definition. Does that include after the child is born? Children can be a real drag on the health even out of the womb. Moms should be able to chop them up into pieces and place them on the street, if they can live completely dismembered on the street corner that’s their problem.
Ah my man, YOU used the exact phrase “[quote]method of pregnancy was irrelevant[/quote]” (which way are you going this time?) but it is the exact opposite. You are trying to make it sound like I am using one small part to argue a whole. Wrong. All abortions are wrong. Murder of a fetus is no different from the murder of a child/adult. The differences are just size, location, environment and dependency. Those traits define every person in the world today!!
And who says the minority cases are growing?!? Where is your sources? Where did the woman get the right to kill the fetus?
Your right, women deserve the same rights that men have. What about the fetus? Don’t they deserve rights too? If you deny the fetus rights, where do you draw the line? Next you’ll want to kill senior citizens because they are in the way sometimes! Abortion is not a right by the definition of the law. I cannot say it better than Ronald Reagan “Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right.”
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Your definition defined a pregnancy exact. Further more I never claimed the mother was irrelevant. You quoted me so get this right, The method of pregnancy on the mother is irrelevant.
Also stop dismissing minority cases; it is growingly offensive.
And I don’t want to give women a pass on anything. Quite the to the contrary, I want them to have the same rights to defend their bodies as any other human. Stop thinking of pregnancy as such a magical thing. It is the implantation of the mothers own egg, with a fathers sperm into her womb. From there it leaches her body and grows inside her. That is pregnancy and it is not magical or religious or anything else. If a woman chooses not to let this, fetus, embryo, human grow inside her body that is her choice. And if this results in the death of a fetus, then it is a causality of its method of survival. Stop over complicating things with these preconceived notions of right or wrong. Bottom line is, it is the mother body. She can remove ANYTHING from HER BODY that SHE wants to.
I don’t think abortion is right, but it is her choice.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the scientific purpose of life is to continue life, and even more so to continue your genes, there is a huge scientific benefit to the mother of a Darwinian nature. That would make the relationship symbiotic, not parasitic.[/quote]
When the mother can die from the fetus it is not symbiotic. When the fetus can tax the mother beyond recovery it is not symbiotic. It is the mother who decides what this relationship is, not you or I.[/quote]
In my opinion if both have conflicting rights in a situation, the one that had a choice in creating the situation should have theirs superseded.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
My point was not a scientific one and it is clear you did not understand that. My point was all humans are assumed the same rights. Your fetus and my woman included. One of these rights if the right to defend ones body. A woman can defend her body from the invasion of a fetus by removing it from her womb even if that does result in the death of the fetus. It is really quite simple. [/quote]
That sounds pretty cut and dry except for a few missing details. Did the woman consciously and knowing set into motion the events that lead to the death of another?
Lets say I drive a car at 100 miles an hour toward a brick wall (willingly and knowingly). Once I near the wall I have the right to preserve my body from becoming a grease mark on the wall right? Since I have the right to preserve my body, I swerve into a pedestrian killing him but saving myself. Are you content to say that I had the right to preserve myself even at the expense of an innocent human life or would you agree that there are other nuances when I set in motion the event?
[/quote]
Interesting point. I would say killing the pedestrian would be outside of your rights and punishable by law.
However to expand, If the mother is not knowing or willing in the process of impregnation should she then have the legal right to defend herself from the growing fetus?
[quote]Deorum wrote:
My point was not a scientific one and it is clear you did not understand that. My point was all humans are assumed the same rights. Your fetus and my woman included. One of these rights if the right to defend ones body. A woman can defend her body from the invasion of a fetus by removing it from her womb even if that does result in the death of the fetus. It is really quite simple. [/quote]
That sounds pretty cut and dry except for a few missing details. Did the woman consciously and knowing set into motion the events that lead to the death of another?
Lets say I drive a car at 100 miles an hour toward a brick wall (willingly and knowingly). Once I near the wall I have the right to preserve my body from becoming a grease mark on the wall right? Since I have the right to preserve my body, I swerve into a pedestrian killing him but saving myself. Are you content to say that I had the right to preserve myself even at the expense of an innocent human life or would you agree that there are other nuances when I set in motion the event?
[/quote]
Interesting point. I would say killing the pedestrian would be outside of your rights and punishable by law.
However to expand, If the mother is not knowing or willing in the process of impregnation should she then have the legal right to defend herself from the growing fetus?
[/quote]
In the event of rape? I would say yes, though I would not agree with it. It is, in this case that both the mother and the baby are innocent in the creation of the situation. It isn’t an “invading” fetus if the mother put it there in the first place.
Sorry man, I took a neurobiology class two years ago so I understand the human brain better than you realize. Regardless of personal experience. At the very most, it’s still a best guess as to how the brain functions and develops. You going to argue that point?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why don’t you study and learn for yourself how and why the brain is the seat of consciousness?[/quote]