you are SO right!! How could I be so fucking dumb!?!.004 is “common” across the world. And the US has a rate of, make sure you are sitting down!! .00011 percent. Massive groups of people to argue your point for!! By the way those numbers are from '05 so they are probably even lower as of now.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Many pregnancies result in the death of the mother. This is not by any stretch a rare occurrence.
[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
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]
[/quote]
…no, i won’t argue that point. However, you can’t argue against the brain being an organ a human can’t live without. That physical and chemical changes to/in the brain [can] have a profound effect on the character and perception of the person involved. That without brain activity there is no person to speak of…
http://prolifetraining.com/WMV/Gordon-low.htm#
I don’t have the right plug-in for windows 7 and firefox, but the message is still there ; ) NSFW doesn’t apply, but click if you feel comfortable with seeing the lives lost through abortion.
As for your brain argument, there are a number of organs the body can’t live without. Like the heart/lungs/blood/digestive system/etc,. I do see your point about the consciousness though. Yet I do have to say that humans don’t understand how the embryo develops. They have an educated guess. Nothing more!! Ask any neurobiologist if they know all the steps of the beginning stages of life. The most current data I could find says that organ development starts as early as 3 weeks!! (Delivery - Women's Health Issues - Merck Manuals Consumer Version) Your 16 week cut off doesn’t work. The best scientists don’t know how the cells already know what/where/how to do things. Again, from Ronald Reagan:
* We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life 'the unborn' without diminishing the value of all human life.
* If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
* The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life?
Sorry to quote the man so often, he is just so damn diligent and clear about his thoughts!! Nothing but respect for the best presidents of my short life. Here is his quote page, again ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…no, i won’t argue that point. However, you can’t argue against the brain being an organ a human can’t live without. That physical and chemical changes to/in the brain [can] have a profound effect on the character and perception of the person involved. That without brain activity there is no person to speak of…[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
[/quote]
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…
I have posted this already, in this thread!!
The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by NO means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
The girl in the original roe v. Wade case never even had an abortion! Ironic, no? The lawyers just used her to get what THEY wanted.
You have yet to say why the cut off of <16 weeks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I have posted this already, in this thread!!
The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by NO means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
The girl in the original roe v. Wade case never even had an abortion! Ironic, no? The lawyers just used her to get what THEY wanted.
You have yet to say why the cut off of <16 weeks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…[/quote]
[/quote]
…it’s often difficult to pinpoint the moment of conception and therefore difficult to establish how old the fetus is. The chances of survival outside of the womb increases exponentially after 23 weeks. Having the cut-off point at 16 weeks prevents mishaps…
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I have posted this already, in this thread!!
The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by NO means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
The girl in the original roe v. Wade case never even had an abortion! Ironic, no? The lawyers just used her to get what THEY wanted.
You have yet to say why the cut off of <16 weeks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…[/quote]
[/quote]
And yet it is still a bunch of guys argueing over what happens inside a womans body…
Intersting
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I have posted this already, in this thread!!
The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by NO means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
The girl in the original roe v. Wade case never even had an abortion! Ironic, no? The lawyers just used her to get what THEY wanted.
You have yet to say why the cut off of <16 weeks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…[/quote]
[/quote]
And yet it is still a bunch of guys arguing over what happens to an innocent child…
Intersting[/quote]
fixed.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I have posted this already, in this thread!!
The decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by NO means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
The girl in the original roe v. Wade case never even had an abortion! Ironic, no? The lawyers just used her to get what THEY wanted.
You have yet to say why the cut off of <16 weeks?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i value, and your Supreme Court agrees with me, the established life [and rights] of an adult [fertile] woman more than the potential of life of a <16 week old fetus…[/quote]
[/quote]
And yet it is still a bunch of guys arguing over what happens inside a womans body…
Intersting[/quote]
fixed.[/quote]
yep it is.
That’s why the moment of conception is the starting point, the age of the fetus doesn’t mean anything. Scientists don’t understand everything with the creation of life, and you want to set limits on it already. It is a life like you and me, with 4 different characteristics of size, location, environment and the degree of dependency. Those characteristics define every person in the world today. Do you want to set limits and have the ability to kill them as well?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…it’s often difficult to pinpoint the moment of conception and therefore difficult to establish how old the fetus is. The chances of survival outside of the womb increases exponentially after 23 weeks. Having the cut-off point at 16 weeks prevents mishaps…[/quote]
Interesting how a man has to provide the sperm (half the equation), yet you think he doesn’t have [b]ANY[/b] rights? How about the child? You make it sound like they don’t matter! They are the reason why it’s wrong for abortion. Ask every kid alive if they wish their mother would of had an abortion. Want to guess the results? Do wish YOUR mother would of had an abortion?
A woman simply provides half the genetic makeup and the environment for the child, nothing more. If she doesn’t want to get pregnant, that’s easy to figure out how to avoid the pregnancy.
When people play with a loaded gun, they don’t bitch until they shoot themselves. Then everyone is supposed to pay for their medical bills. Fucking liberals!!
Also interesting how you still can’t spell in the modern age jajaja
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
And yet it is still a bunch of guys argueing over what happens inside a womans body…
Intersting[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So then we’ll ban abortion and let women seek the back alleys to get them from a guy in Vermont with a stump hand.
Or better yet, we’ll outlaw women having periods, because the egg should really be considered alive. Women should never have periods, they should get pregnant straight away and not murder that poor egg.
And men should only have 1 sperm in their ejaculate and make damn sure that the 1 sperm they give up makes it to the egg.
The fact remains that the armchair critics of abortion DO use emotion, and yes it is entirely possible to be rid of emotion in this issue.
I also don’t get why MALES are legislating on something that is such a FEMALE issue. What right do you have to fucking legislate on a uterus? Things like this are best discussed on a case by case basis. Making blanket decisions on things like this is what creates such friction.[/quote]
Ok, so my girlfreind get’s pregnant and i do not want to have children. She does not want to have an abortion and has the child. Now I am legaly forced to pay child support.
On the other hand I have a girlfreind i’ve been with for many years (we’ll say 7) and i have a medical issue that makes it difficult for me to concieve children. but my girlfreind and i have been trying any way. It along with other issues (financial, family, whatever) have put a strain on our relationship. We broke up. Only she’s pregnant with my child and is getting an abortion. I have no say in the matter, even though i was told i had a 1% chance of ever having a child.
Having or not having children affects everyone, man and woman. and arguing that i shouldn’t have had sex with the girl if i didn’t want a child is the same argument that’s been shot down in women not having the choice of abortion.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Scott Peterson is in prison for double murder…One of the murders was his unborn son.
how does that work now? If you want it, it’s a life, but if you don’t, it’s not a life.
It is a paradox of the law…Terminating a pregnancy out side the haven of an abortion clinic, can get you prosecuted for murder…So technically, you can only off your offspring in designated areas legally.
Go punch a pregnant woman in the gut hard enough to kill her baby and see what you get in a court of law. [/quote]
…it’s not a paradox at all Pat. A woman has every right to decide what happens with her fetus within a certain time frame. It’s not for someone else to decide what happens to it. That’s why you’re prosecuted if you willingly
caused an involuntary abortion…
[/quote]
no wait. now this logic doesn’t make sense. you’re arguing within a certain time fram “it” (to be neutral) is a fetus not a living human. So if you terminated a fetus against the will of the mother (terminology?) it should not be “murder” but damage of property maybe even battery, but you technically then did not kill a person.
you can’t make the argument that it would of become a human because there was no certanty that the fetus would of lasted (again terminology?) long enough to become human even without the vandalism/battery.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m not sure why this even gets to a debate of consciousness. We know that we’re talking about a human already in they’re own life cycle. [/quote]
…it’s life cycle is, upto a certain point, dependant on the host, the mother. If you want to be consistent with this argument, you’d have to outlaw male masturbation aswell. While you’re at it, unfertilised ovulation should then be unacceptable too. Good luck with that (-:
[/quote]
that is really a silly statement and i have enjoyed reading your arguments up to this point. an unfertilized egg will not ever develop into a human being under any sercumstances. niether will a spirm. each is only half the DNA for a person. that in no way compares to a fertilized egg with the full human compliment of DNA and the verry real posibility that it could develop into human being (past 24 weeks by your definition) be born grow old and die if no direct aciton is taken against it.
and agian a born human being (a baby) is dependant on the mother to feed it and care for it, is that really so different from an umbilical cord? some one else could take care of a baby i suppose but an embryo can be implanted in some one else to be taken care of.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Interesting how a man has to provide the sperm (half the equation), yet you think he doesn’t have [b]ANY[/b] rights? How about the child? You make it sound like they don’t matter! They are the reason why it’s wrong for abortion. Ask every kid alive if they wish their mother would of had an abortion. Want to guess the results? Do wish YOUR mother would of had an abortion?
A woman simply provides half the genetic makeup and the environment for the child, nothing more. If she doesn’t want to get pregnant, that’s easy to figure out how to avoid the pregnancy.
When people play with a loaded gun, they don’t bitch until they shoot themselves. Then everyone is supposed to pay for their medical bills. Fucking liberals!!
Also interesting how you still can’t spell in the modern age jajaja
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
And yet it is still a bunch of guys argueing over what happens inside a womans body…
Intersting[/quote]
[/quote]
Let’s see I overlooked your spelling your errors in previous post so I’d shut my pie hole if I were you on that one.
Also fucking liberal?? I’m assuming you’re going down that road from my avatar? It’s called pride in my job shithead not my fucking political affiliation.
Edit: I had made a personal attack on here and after thinking for a moment changed my mind and removed. Just decided I’m not going to stoop to the same level.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
This WILL change for the lives of the future!! Why are we even discussing current times? Laws will change to protect ALL life!! So why is it you believe 16 weeks is the magic time instead of 23 weeks? How about the fact that from the moment of conception is the start of reactions that result in a person.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…within a limited legal timeframe the fetus’ rights can’t supercede the women’s right to selfdetermination. I wouldn’t mind if that legal timeframe is lowered to 16 weeks instead of 23 weeks, but within those first four months what happens to the fetus is up to the woman, and the woman alone…
[/quote]
[/quote]
…at 16 weeks the fetus can’t survive outside the womb, and as such it’s brain is insuffiently formed to be [self] aware. This cut-off point is arbitrary, and just to make sure you understand; i’m not pro-abortion but pro-choice. After the first 16 weeks, barring valid medical reasons, the mother can’t abort the pregnancy…
…i’m not going to go over this again tbh. How i feel about this issue is all in this thread…
[/quote]
ok your arguing that one reason a fetus is not a human is that it can’t survive outside the womb. but i do not understand how that is a different argument from, “you are not human because you can not survive at the top of mount everest” (as most people do not have the biology to survive at high altitudes while others do). additionally u can not survive in alaska without shelter and food.
A fetus may be dependant on the mother for life but only for a short time. If you have some one on life support with a loss of conciouseness or awarness and you know in 9 months they will regain conciouseness and awarness and come off life support would it not be wrong to take them off life support?
also you argue that a fetus is not living because it is not self aware which you say happens when their is enough brain activity so support such biological action. But what about the surgical patient who is technically dead with no brain activity who is revived after surgery?
i don’t feel you’ve made a clear or strong arguement for why yoru definition of when human life starts is clear cut and objective.
do you balieve that given enough knowledge and time everything can be boiled down to objective variables? do you not balieve in subjective variables?
…this song and dance routine can, and will, go on forever because i won’t change my mind, and you won’t change your’s on this subject. So what’s the point?
[quote]poplawsj wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
So then we’ll ban abortion and let women seek the back alleys to get them from a guy in Vermont with a stump hand.
Or better yet, we’ll outlaw women having periods, because the egg should really be considered alive. Women should never have periods, they should get pregnant straight away and not murder that poor egg.
And men should only have 1 sperm in their ejaculate and make damn sure that the 1 sperm they give up makes it to the egg.
The fact remains that the armchair critics of abortion DO use emotion, and yes it is entirely possible to be rid of emotion in this issue.
I also don’t get why MALES are legislating on something that is such a FEMALE issue. What right do you have to fucking legislate on a uterus? Things like this are best discussed on a case by case basis. Making blanket decisions on things like this is what creates such friction.[/quote]
Ok, so my girlfreind get’s pregnant and i do not want to have children. She does not want to have an abortion and has the child. Now I am legaly forced to pay child support.
On the other hand I have a girlfreind i’ve been with for many years (we’ll say 7) and i have a medical issue that makes it difficult for me to concieve children. but my girlfreind and i have been trying any way. It along with other issues (financial, family, whatever) have put a strain on our relationship. We broke up. Only she’s pregnant with my child and is getting an abortion. I have no say in the matter, even though i was told i had a 1% chance of ever having a child.
Having or not having children affects everyone, man and woman. and arguing that i shouldn’t have had sex with the girl if i didn’t want a child is the same argument that’s been shot down in women not having the choice of abortion.
[/quote]
In both your situations, you made bad decisions. Use a rubber or some form of contraception if you don’t want kids, or find a female that wants kids. This kind of thing lies with BOTH parties, not just the one.
If your story was meant to tug at my heart, it really didn’t. It just makes you (the hypothetical you) sounds like a first class fuckwit.
I might not change your mind, however other people will read the posts and determine on their own which side they want to be on. With that note in mind, where is the science that says a new life does NOT begin at the moment of conception?
It’s also funny how you ask the below question and will still reply to this pointless routine ; )
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…this song and dance routine can, and will, go on forever because i won’t change my mind, and you won’t change your’s on this subject. So what’s the point?[/quote]
I was NOT making any kind of reference to your job. My bad if you took it that way. Was I wrong? I called you a liberal because you think I have no reason to say anything about the abortion topic. You are one hundred percent wrong!
Was slavery a clearly defined occupation in the moral code of the times? Sure as fuck NOT! This country went to war over the topic!! The same will be true if need be in regards to abortion. Abortion is ALWAYS wrong!! Murder is murder, no matter what color you draw it with.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
. . . . from my avatar . . . . pride in my job shithead . . . .[/quote]