PDA

View Full Version : Abortion


Reborn Outcast
01-09-2003, 08:47 PM
Hello every, this thread is on the topic of abortion and here are my thoughts... All I ask for is no flames, no spam just good discussion. Ok here we go...

Many people say that abortion is ok... many people say that it is wrong. I am steadfast with the people who hate abortion. One of the main reasons is that I am a Christian. Here is something to give you an idea... Note: The following Abortion Advocates and Pro-Life Advocate statements are not my ideas, they were taken from a magazine that had the intent of showing both sides of the story.

Abortion Advocates Say:
"A woman has the right to privacy over her own body. Anti-abortionists tug at our emotions, pointing to ghastly photos of non-breathing fetuses in buckets. Yet abortion is a safe medical procedure that doesn't murder a baby."

Pro-Life Advocates Say:
"Abortion kills a living, functioning human. Abortionists criticize pro-lifers for showing photos of dead babies in buckets, claiming they're didtorting facts with cheap tricks. But the truth is truth: A dead baby who is discarded is exactly what abortion amounts to."

Now here is a little story to get you thinking:

One doctor said to another, "I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?" "I would have ended the pregnancy," the second doctor said. "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." replied the first.

Now here are my beliefs:

1. A fetus is NOT just another part of a females body because a body part shares the same genetic code as the rest of the body. The unborn's genetic code differs from it's mother's. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.

2. An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue. From the moment of conception it is a living human being, unique. At 6 weeks old you can detect a heartbeat and at 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be seen.

3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.

4. Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted. Just because the woman who is carrying the baby may not want him/her, the list of couples wanting to adopt is millions long. And if we decide to kill or exclude from society anyone "unwanted" we would have to do that to AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, and many many others.


That's just a few of my beliefs but I have many more but it would make this thread very long so I will post them if need be.

What are your opinions?


I would like to thank Ryan Dobson, Michael Ross and Breakaway Magazine for helping me in my beliefs on this subject.

mercatfat
01-09-2003, 08:56 PM
I'll take the initiative.

I'm pro-choice, to a point. To me, an organism is only born and thus living when it can survive, ie get fed without a umbilical cord and breathe, by itself. Contradictory as it may seem, however, I believe that abortions should only occur during the first and most of the second trimester when the baby is still much too underdeveloped to be truly considered living. This is personal philosophy and should be taken as little else.

I believe adoptions are unfair to a point, due to the seperation from the parents, who are, genetically speaking, the people most like you and most likely to share in your traits, habits and thoughts. DNA contributes heavily to what you are, mind* and body, simple fact.

Then there's my issue of human stupidity. If a woman regularly has abortions, she's retarded. Use the damn pill at the very least.

We have enough humans already. I know it sounds mean, but it's not meant that way. Although we should certainly continue to have humans, if a child is unwanted, thus the reason for the abortion, I think it's okay in this era, especially with so many bastard children and teen pregnancies.

Also to keep in mind: Hitler's mother was told to get an abortion and didn't.

I won't be reading this thread again, so don't bother quote-arguing me.

*Yes, I realize cloning does not mean the thoughts will be cloned, for example if you clone Hitler, it doesn't mean he'll be like Hitler. However, it can certainly shape his tendencies, just as some people tend to be more prone to violence, crime and trouble and others to intelligence. The same holds true for parents and their children.

mercatfat
01-09-2003, 08:59 PM
Threads merged, apparently you were writing and posted while I was.

El Sitherino
01-09-2003, 09:11 PM
i think the woman should be able to do what she wants. but only if they take the proper precausions but something happens and whoops. or if she is raped. i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion. so of course im pro choice and i dont want any flames ok.:D

GonkH8er
01-09-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.



You're correct in saying life doesn't begin at birth, but your statement about science proving it begins at conception is quite wrong.

In medicine today, doctors use signals of no EKG activity or a flat EEG to be a very definite sign of when I person has stopped living. If this test for life is used for lack of life, then similarly we should be able to use this method to test for the very first presence of life in a foetus. This constant brainwave activity is not present in the unborn child until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and in most situations, abortion is illegal past this point, unless the baby is confirmed to be detrimental to the mother’s health. In most abortions, which take place in the 1st and 2nd trimesters, we can assume that the foetus is in fact not a human being, but rather a potential human being. Therefore abortion in its most common form (99% of abortions are 1st or 2nd trimester) cannot be classified as murder, because murder, as defined by the Webster dictionary, is “the unlawful killing of one human being by another”, and as we can see, the foetus is not a human being. To cause the death of a living thing is to put an end to its life, but if the object has no life, meaning that it is not living by modern legal and medical standards, then it has not life to have ended, and therefore also cannot be murdered. Dr Garrett Hardin, an American ecologist believes the foetus not to be a person, but a merely a blueprint of DNA of the person-to-be. The following quote is his opinion expressed in the words of Michael Crichton.

“It’s like a blueprint. The blueprint of a building is worthless, only the building has value and significance. The blueprint can be destroyed with impunity, for another can be easily made, but a building cannot be destroyed without careful deliberation.”


As in every medical procedure, there is a finite risk of death resulting from abortion. Many pro-life protestors or anti-abortionists use this as a means of putting across a point about abortion, but unfortunately for them, this argument has been proven useless, as it is now perfectly clear that the procedure has an incredibly low mortality rate.


Activity- Chance of Death in a year

Motorcycling 1 in 1000
Driving a car 1 in 6000
Power Boating 1 in 6000
Rock climbing 1 in 7500
Football 1 in 25000
Canoeing 1 in 100000

Pregnancy prevention-

Birth control pills 1 in 63000 (non-smoker)
1 in 16000 (smoker)
IUDs 1 in 100000
Sterilization 1 in 67000 (tubal ligation)
1 in 1600 (hysterectomy)
1 in 300000 (vasectomy)
Continuing pregnancy 1 in 11000
Terminating pregnancy by legal abortion 1 in 260000 (before 9 wks)
1 in 100000 (between 9 and 12 wks)
1 in 34000 (between 13 and 15 wks)
1 in 10200 (after 15 wks)


The chance of dying from a hospital abortion is incredibly small when compared to things such as driving or even carrying the baby to full term. It is now a well-known fact that properly done abortions can be anywhere down to a 20th as dangerous as keeping the baby. This means it is much safer to have an abortion than carry the child to full term.

“Hospital abortion must now be regarded as a relatively safe procedure, carrying a mortality rate roughly similar to a tooth extraction”


I object to people saying it's murder... and I object to people saying it's dangerous.

If you were to outlaw it totally, that wouldnt stop people, in fact the mortatlity rate or abortions would go up, because people would try and do it themselves with coathangers, like they used to do.

What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.

Many women also see abortion as a form of birth control, even though it is not advised to be used for this purpose. The point these women seem to make is that there is no essential difference between preventing conception and halting a process which has not resulted in a complete human being. They, along with myself, feel that a woman should not be forced to have a baby is she doesn’t want to, as it is her body and she can decide what she wants to happen with it.


Unless you've been in the situation, you can't say what's right or wrong. One of my best friends has always strongly said that she was a pro lifer since I met her in 98. She felt abortion was wrong and the mother should have to carry the baby to full term because she was foolish enough tog et pregnant in the first place.

Mid last year, she fell pregnant, and changed her whole view rather quickly. Actually being in the situation and having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy puts a whole new perspective on things.


I'm a pro-choice person. Women should be able to do what they want.

matt--
01-09-2003, 10:54 PM
What a convenient topic...we just had a discussion about this in history today.

Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion in the States, defined life as beginning the moment an unborn human can live outside the mother's womb. As technology and medicine become advanced enough (if they aren't already) to sustain a being from embryo to a natural time of birth, the time allowed for abortion will decrease and eventually be illegal as the current ruling is...this will of course be challenged many times over, but until it is, it remains the fact of the matter (to the extent of my paying attention in class).

I am personally pro-life, but I really don't think I have a say in the matter. It's really none of my business what a pregnant woman decides to do with her fetus, unless of course I'm the father.

In most cases, adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.

About rape victims: rape victims go to the emergency room and a chemical solution is used to neutralize sperm cells before conception. Side note: A rape issue was at the heart of Roe v. Wade, and 'Roe' later admitted that the rape story was fictional and her chilld was simply unwanted.

Reborn Outcast
01-10-2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
You're correct in saying life doesn't begin at birth, but your statement about science proving it begins at conception is quite wrong.

This constant brainwave activity is not present in the unborn child until approximately the 24th week after conception. This is the beginning of the 3rd trimester, and in most situations, abortion is illegal past this point, unless the baby is confirmed to be detrimental to the mother’s health.

But if a beating heart can be detected at 9 weeks, I belive that having an abortion at 10 weeks kills a living unique human being which is why I think it's wrong.

I don't fully understand waht you said though... did you mean that they DO use it to check on fetus's or they SHOULD use it to search for life. But if you destroy something with any signs of life, heartbeat etc. you are killing something living.

So your saying that the fetus is not living or unique until 24 weeks? I think that since a sperm cell contain different genetic code that the mother of the baby, the fetus also has a different genetic code, making it unique from conception. I will do some more research on the 24 week/ 9 week life thing.

Originally posted by GonkH8er
What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.

Many women also see abortion as a form of birth control, even though it is not advised to be used for this purpose. The point these women seem to make is that there is no essential difference between preventing conception and halting a process which has not resulted in a complete human being. They, along with myself, feel that a woman should not be forced to have a baby is she doesn’t want to, as it is her body and she can decide what she wants to happen with it.


Like I said, a pregnancy may be "unwanted" but a child NEVER is "unwanted" with the million of couples wanting to adopt. If your second paragraph in this quote is not talking about rape then these women should have been more careful or should not have had sex at all, but they should finish what they got themselves into. No matter how easy the way out looks, its going to have consequences. I say let them have the baby and then put him/her up for adoption because of the many loving people who would take him/her.

GonkH8er
01-10-2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So your saying that the fetus is not living or unique until 24 weeks? I think that since a sperm cell contain different genetic code that the mother of the baby, the fetus also has a different genetic code, making it unique from conception. I will do some more research on the 24 week/ 9 week life thing.


Yes, I'm saying it's not alive, but I'm not saying it's unique. Uniqueness has nothing to do with this. Sure, the foetus is unique, as is any cell from a different person, but it's just a foetus. Not yet a person. It's just a blueprint of the person to be.

Fine, if you want to say that they're alive at 9 weeks because of a heart beat, then so be it... But most abortions still happen prior to 9 weeks, so technically it's not alive in most cases.


People say "It's their own fault. They shouldn't have been so careless. They have to carry out the pregnancy to teach them a lesson."


.... well that's a bit harsh. I mean, that's a big lesson. Having a child is a big thing. A big 9 month long things. Most abortions are teenage pregnancies. Most of these young girls are still studying at high school or university. Carrying a baby to full term is just gonna munt up their whole studies.

"Oh, but they should have thought of that before they went and got knocked up"

Well they didn't, as in most cases.


If abortion is so damn immoral, then why doesn't the majority think so? I mean.... it's legal..... surely if more than half the population of a country thought it was wrong, which you clearly believe, then shouldn't it be outlawed?


Tell me, those of you who have girlfriends at the moment, the younger ones among you.... what if you were to accidentely get your girlfriend pregnant? What if, even though you used condoms, the pill, whatever..... what if she got pregnant... are you prepared for fatherhood? Are you prepared to begin working full time to support your child, at your current age? Once you have a child to support, your life changed forever. It's a big step. Abortion just helps delay that step until a time when you wish to have a family. As glib as it sounds, abortion is just another form of contraception, albeit a little later in the process.

STTCT
01-10-2003, 07:36 AM
I'm going to spare the quotes and stuff.

Me being pregnant - I think I am a little bit partial to all of this. I am pro-choice. I got pregnant unexpectidly and for those of you who say "use the damn pill for crying out loud" well, heh....that doesn't always work. Nothing is 100% preventative EXcept abstainance. So here's my story...

I'm 23 and in the middle of college. I have a full time job and at the time I got pregnant I was living on my own and supporting myself. My fiance (was my boyfriend then) and I have been together for 3 years. He just graduated college and we had planned on moving in together B4 we found out about the baby. It was a very scarey time, let me tell you. Many, many things run through your mind. Can you support the baby? Will I be a good parent? Is it fair to the baby to not be born in a marriage? Can I handle it emotionally? Will I be willing to make all the sacrifises bringing a child into the world takes? I wrestled with all these things. I could not support the baby on my own. I would need the support of my boyfriend, friends and family. Then that brought on other questions. Would they support me? I thought I'd be a good parent or at least I'd learn to be. I know that I would love my baby, but I would have to work full time - will it be fair to the baby? Emotionally could I handle it? I was definatly not sure. If my boyfriend had bailed...I would have had a problem. I was already emotional as far as being a single parent and being so young. And the sacrifices?? College was my main concern. While all my friends were graduating...I wouldn't be able to go to school in the Spring. I'd be stuck at my graveyard job! I wouldn't be able to go out and be just me. I'd always have this responsibilty at home. I wouldn't be able to drink like I used to (not bad or anything) but still a sacrifice. I wouldn't be the fun-loving 20 year old...I'd be the mommy 20 yearold. The one who had to find a babysitter for her baby or take him along. AHHHH.

So then I started thinking...abortion? adoption? raise him/her myself?? And all this happened within minutes of getting the plus sign right? It just rushes in your mind. You are a parent now? So I called my boyfriend we cried because it was a complete surprise. We both hadn't reached a point where we were really thinking about marriage and both of us had always held the ideal that you should only have children when your married. Here we had violated our own belief. We talked about abortion but got a resounding No definatly not. This was our baby, we would have to make sacrifices, it wasn't his fault he came a little early.

Then came telling our parents. I told mine first. I cried, I was afraid. What will they say??? Will they be upset about not being married?? No they were not. My mom was so happy she cried. She was excited. She knew my boyfriend and I had a strong relationship and had confidence in both of us. She is very religious and said that she was VERY happy we were choosing to have the baby rather than abort. I didn't tell her we had considered...but she just thought maybe that was running through our minds. It was the easy way out...you know.

Now his parents....oh my god. You could cut the silence with a knife. They were pissed to say the least. We were told to give the baby up for adoption. If we weren't going to get married. The baby deserved to be in a family. A married Family. We tried explaining that we were going to get married...but not for the baby, but for us and we wanted to do it when we were ready. Too many couples get married and it turns out badly. I did not want to put my child through that. It took a long time for his parents to calm down. We got screamed at for not being careful. Hello...like I told you all we were very responsible. We told them this and they didn't believe us. Okay how have we been together 3 years and this has never happened before? My dad explains it as well..."if you drive 90 miles an hour in a 45 mile an hour zone, eventually you will get caught, maybe not right away...but just once". I got called everything in the book and accused for "trapping" my boyfriend. As you can imagine...abortion looked like a pretty easy solution.

But we held firm. Here I am 8 months pregnant. I had to give up school but I am determined to be able to go back to school. My boyfriend and I got engaged. Not because of the baby, but because we do love eachother and feel that it is time. I have the full support of my parents, so that I can still work full time and they will watch my baby. My fiance is going for an interview for Edison in a couple days. He's trying to get a better job to support us. And we are doing just fine. I wouldn't trade my son for the world.

Now as far as my feelings on abortion. I am pro-choice for the simple reason that it should be every womans personal choice to have a baby or not. Even the boyfriends to - if he is commited to a child. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. Maybe people are not willing to make the commitments and sacrifices like my boyfriend and I have and are going to have to make. There are women out there who are just like me, young and going to school that have that one "oops" and maybe they need to make the choice to abort. For financial reasons, maybe family reasons. I guess my main point is. There is so much to consider - it is not a light-heartedly made decision like some "pro-lifers" are making it out to be. It would be the hardest decision in the world!!! It was for me and I didn't even choose to do that. But then you say...why not let another person adopt the child. Well...there are a lot of orphans out there waiting to be adopted and no one has adopted them...what make syou think this baby will be different? Can I sit there and wonder if he has a home? Its just so hard. I just can't imagine.

Even if I do not choose to abort myself - I believe others should have the right to consider it.

And look at what happens when people make it illegal...people do it anyways...or they leave their babies in trashcans. That is horrible.

BCanr2d2
01-10-2003, 07:41 AM
Gonk, you have raised an interesting issue there, when does life start....

If they use the term legally dead as having no brain activity, ie the EKG/EEG flatlines, why can't the same test be applied to begin it.

What I think Gonk is trying to get at is at what stage should we really considere a fetus to be more than just a developing embryo, and consider it something that is alive. Some people say conception, some say not until birth, and others somewhere in the 9 month period between.
Legally I think it is not exactly the clearest of situations, and nor has it probably been approached in a proper scientific manner, such as with Legally Dead, as to when someone is really not alive...

It seems like a valid arguement. Without the brain that provides the ability to do voluntary actions, is a fetus really considered alive, and able to function outside of the womb BEFORE the brain is properly developed?


I would tend not to think so, that until that fetus has brain activity, then it really is legally no different to someone with horrific head injuries. At no stage could either of them actually control their bodies major functions, including some of the involuntary ones most important to life.

Uniqueness has nothing to do as to when the fetus should be considered LEGALLY alive, and LEGALLY not alive. Then again, when does the fetus become legally a person, and gain all the legal rights assigned to being a person? Is it whilst still in the womb, at conception, or not until birth?

I do not understand, how that there are different ways to determine the beginning and ending of life, in a legal sense anyway. It would make more sense that they both have the same test, to make it less open to interpretation...

-s/<itzo-
01-10-2003, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
i think the woman should be able to do what she wants. but only if they take the proper precausions but something happens and whoops. or if she is raped. i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion. so of course im pro choice and i dont want any flames ok.:D

Saying a woman should be able to do what she wants makes it too easy to not have to take responsibility for decisions and actions. If you decide to have sexual relations, you should be prepared for anything that could happen. Even protection is not always a fail safe way to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, if you know you DON'T want a baby, don't take the risk that you may get pregnant. Today's society has made it far to easy for people to not have to be responsible for their actions. A baby is not disposable. A developing baby is most definately a living person, with a heartbeat. There are always millions of people waiting for a baby to adopt.

I understand there are circumstances you can't control, such as rape. But even if you get pregnant from rape, it is not the baby's fault. I know it might be hard for some women to raise a child who was conceived from a rape, but again, there is adoption.

But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.

GonkH8er
01-10-2003, 08:42 AM
A child does not have legal rights until birth. That's my understanding anyway...

You can say all you like that it has legal rights as soon as it's conceived, but honestly, it doesn't know that, it can't do anything with those legal rights. Techinally, as long as the child is within the mother's womb, it is classified as a parasite in ways. It's not exactly a symbiotic relationship.... it's detremental to the mother's physical wellbeing and only the foetus is gaining from the situation... sounds quite parasitic to me :)


And please don't tell me the foetus has a personality. It has the potential to have a personality. Personalities are shaped from birth. We learn to be the person we are. Some of it is genetically determined, but most isn't. The foetus hasn't shown any personality, not that its had the chance to :) and kicking is NOT a personality trait....

So, look at the facts....

Carrying the baby to full term is more dangerous than an abortion.
The foetus ISN'T alive at the time of abortion, in almost all cases...
It stops an unwanted child being brought into the world.

It's all there..... even the unwanted child part....


sure, theres millions of families who want to adopt.... but adoption is hard on both the biological parents and the child.

Giving up your own child, possibly to never see it again isnt a nice thought.

And it's ahrd on this child, not knowing who their parents were. A good friend of mine, who i used to date, is adopted. The law here says she can't find out who her biological mother is until she's 18, and that's if they kept the records, which they probably didnt. She desperately wants to know.

The feeling of being rejected by your real parents and shoved onto another 2 people..... being unloved.... given up becaus eyou were unwanted.... its not a nice thought, and it plagues her day in day out.

Luckily, she can find out this year.

STTCT
01-10-2003, 08:50 AM
I agree with Gonk. Adoption is a hard choice. You guys are saying that there are millions of families out there that want to adopt. And then there are millions of families who would rather have their own children. A lot of people don't even want to consider adopting. Some people feel that can't love a child that's not theirs. Or that the child will be a behavior problem. Most of these un-wanted children end up in foster homes or orphanages. Then also, how is this child going to feel - its a poor excuse to tell them "well I was young..and thought you would be better off with other people" and what are the usual responces to this??? So it isn't really selfish to have an abortion, if you take into consideration how this person would feel without a family. You take a chance with adoption. Is it a safe home? A good family? Will they even have a family?? Are they emotionally going to be able to handle being adopted??

GonkH8er
01-10-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
I understand there are circumstances you can't control, such as rape. But even if you get pregnant from rape, it is not the baby's fault. I know it might be hard for some women to raise a child who was conceived from a rape, but again, there is adoption.


Not only is it hard for women to raise a rape-child, its downright disgusting for them to have to... Having to carry the child of the man who sexually assaulted them to term? True, it's not the baby's fault, but the baby wont know. It won't feel it, as pain senses wont have developed yet. It wont even know. From my knowledge of embryotic development, pain receptors, conscious thought and memory cell development dont come about until late in the foetal stages, afaik. It's not exactly my field of expertise, but I'm quite certain the unborn 'child' is completely unaware of an abortion happening. It's just a bunch of human cells undergoing mitotic/meiotic reproduction with some cell differentiation here and there.

But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.

As stupid as it is, casual encounters are quickly becoming a thing of the here and now, and the future (excluding the promiscuous free love in the 60's). More people are just getting drunk and parties and having sex. Sex is enjoyable... that's why we do it, there's no question about it. Sure there's the occasional "We want to share our love with eachother and be physically close"..... but most of the time it's just "Oh yeah.... I'd go her.... she's a bit of alright, ay". It's true. The attitude towards sex these days is that it's the thing to do. It's no longer a special thing, which is a shame. We're being desensitized to it. Kids are having sex younger and younger. There's nothing we can do about it.

You can tell them to abstain from sex all you like, but most of the kids running round getting laid these days are too young to even know what abstain means... I admit, they're not as careful as they could be, but they ARE careful. Sometimes is just goes wrong, and the unfortunate outcome occurs. Sure, the morning after pill is more desirable than an abortion, but sometimes a girl can't get to the morning after pill within 72 hours, so she has an abortion that week, or the next week, or the next if she didn't yet know.

It's not desirable to terminate the pregnancy, but it's MORE desirable than screwing up your whole life. 1 silly mistake shouldn't cost you every opportunity you have on this earth. People deserve to try and get it right again.

STTCT
01-10-2003, 09:15 AM
actually - u can order the morning after pill online or go to a clinic and its really easy...

some people just are stupid and don't take advantage of things like that.

In cases of women raising children after being pregnant because of rape... since the child is unwanted and brings back such painful memories, the child may not get the attention he/she needs. The mothers may feel resentful, as well as the fathers. The baby may be rejected or a constant reminder of the rape! The baby could then become a victim of abuse or raised feeling like "something" is not quite right, he doesn't feel as loved as his brothers and sisters. And Carrying a baby is a LOT of hard work. You are asking a woman to give up school or pay for the baby. What if you don't have medical coverage? The state only pays so much...what if you do...and its not enough? I was sick throughout most of my pregnancy - to the point I couldn't go to school. Some people may not be able to do this. Some people get put on bed-rest and can't work. Maybe they can't afford to financially do this. State Disability only pays somewhere in the figure of 60% of your pay. It could jeoperdize your job. What if this guy is out there somewhere..the guy who raped the woman?? What if this man wants paternity rights?? or something crazy like that?? And adoption...just another un-wanted baby and if you think that a family is just going to open there arms to a baby with a history of his mom was a victim of rape by a mad-man. Or what if it was like...a rape of a white woman and a black man? I'm not against mixed babies...but....maybe this woman would have a hard time explaining a mixed race baby!

I could go on....and on...

GonkH8er
01-10-2003, 09:18 AM
Some people can't get to a clinic within 72 hours, eg- camping trip, school trip (yes, people have sex on school trips :)), remote community, etc. They should try, but it's not always possible.


And with the cases where they've been careful, they won't even know they're pregnant until

A) They miss their period

or

B) Morning sickness comes

STTCT
01-10-2003, 09:26 AM
ya I guess I can't imagine a mom sending a care package of EC pills to her daughter's camp. ;)

C'jais
01-10-2003, 09:36 AM
I hold the belief that you cannot possibly be taken completely serious on the "pro-life" stance, until you have tried a pregnancy yourself. Like STTCT said, every woman should have the right to decide on this. If a person decided that you should run the whole thing for 9 months, even if you desperately didn't want to, it'd severely think about hurting that person. It's called lack of empathy.

Now comes the question of morals regarding flings and marriage. The world is changed. Casual sex, skitzo, is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present, and I'd like to see you stop the current evolution of people's views regarding sex and love.
Marriage is a signed piece of paper for most. There is no "holyness" in any of it, to many in the western world. It's a social institution that's practical for many purposes, but I think the idea of waiting to have sex till after marriage is very skewed. It has its basis in religious dogmas, not common sense.

Now, for the so-called "pro-lifers":

You are not "pro-life". You are pro-human life and consciousness. Stress the part about human life. In the biological sense of things, life begins at conception. But then again, sperm and egg cells are alive as well, no? A fetus 3 weeks old is not human, unique or individual no more than a stone is unique from a different stone, and a plant is individual because they have a DNA code. It is not a seperate entity because it has no self, no human consciousness and is not unique. It is a piece of flesh. Everything is unique if you want to take it down that road. In my view, a human person is only unique once it is born, once it has thoughts that it can use outside a mother's womb. You are using the argument that one is killing the person it is going to develop into. Fact is, it is not yet a person, so there's no sense in talking about murder, just as there's no sense in talking about murdering an extracted DNA string.

And don't give me any crap about pro-"life" and showing disturbing footage of dead fetuses. Humans need to kill in order to survive. If we didn't kill anything, we wouldn't survive. I can accept the pro-human life, since that is what it really is. And showing very graphic images of dead fetuses is just cheap. It has nothing to do with anything, it's only reason is to instill a sense of sympathy in the observer. Heck, I could do the so to people who smoke, or eat roasted beef. Think of all the animals you're theoretically killing by consuming this!

Adoptation, though a good idea, doesn't appeal to as many as you think. It's not your genetic baby, it becomes devoid of any "holy connection" it once had. It becomes a signed piece of paper for the new parents.

I like the blueprint analogy very much.

STTCT
01-10-2003, 10:01 AM
Okay - Don't know if this has to do with the discussion but hear me out before you start saying it has nothing to do with it.

Have you read the news...if not read this article Missing Pregnant Woman (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/01/09/missing.woman/index.html) If you want a summary...

A pregnant woman about 8 months pregnant due Feb 10th is missing. Her husband is a suspect. He claims he went fishing the day she was missing...the day before christmas. Using sophisticated sonar the police believe they have found her body at the bottom of the lake that the man said he went fishing on. They just can't recover it because of bad weather.

So I guess he killed his wife and gave his son an abortion...the hard way. Pretty fricken sad if you ask me. I am curious to know if he will be charged on two counts of murder or just one. Considering the current skeptisism and etc about whether a fetus is living or not. I think that once a baby is able to kick and move...you should not be able to abort because it is considered a living thing now. A fetus....you can't feel...its nothing more than a little egg thing or a bunch of cells. But when you feel the baby swimming around in your stomach..that's a whole nother ball game. I forgot to mention before that I was against abortions after the 3rd month.

I thought this article was related because it just shows that this guy (if he did it) was obviously not fit to be a parent. He probably freeked out about the baby etc. This could happen to other woman and babies if the husband or man didn't want the baby or is pressured into something he isn't ready for.

-s/<itzo-
01-10-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by GonkH8er
As stupid as it is, casual encounters are quickly becoming a thing of the here and now, and the future (excluding the promiscuous free love in the 60's).

Casual sex, skitzo, is not a thing of the past. It is a thing of the present, and I'd like to see you stop the current evolution of people's views regarding sex and love.


you guys got me a all wrong. i didn't say casual sex is the thing of the past i said it should be. i'm implying that we need think more clearly before we get into sexual relationships.

i'm very aware of casual sex being an epidemic in today's society. i'm just saying for us to solve this problem we need to take responsibility of our own actions.

C'jais
01-10-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
you guys got me a all wrong. i didn't say casual sex is the thing of the past i said it should be. i'm implying that we need think more clearly before we get into sexual relationships.


Ahh, I got you wrong - sorry!

What I meant to mean is that you can't stop this "trend".

When your beliefs become a minority in today's society, it's easier for everyone if you change yours, than trying to change everyone's elses.

-s/<itzo-
01-10-2003, 11:03 AM
its not actually my belief, its simply a solution (big difference).

heck i can even say i'm for abortion just because it is a person right, its what they are in title to.

it can't always be black and white when you're talking about controversial issues. the answers doesn't always have to be broad because to some extent you can agree and not agree in the same time.

razorace
01-10-2003, 01:22 PM
Well, people just don't think things thru. We've wired for sex, period. Excepting most people to be able to resist is like expecting people not to eat. I don't like it ether, but it's the way it is.

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Note: The following Abortion Advocates and Pro-Life Advocate statements are not my ideas, they were taken from a magazine that had the intent of showing both sides of the story.

Bull****. It is immidiately appearant from the examples that they give that they let their own (anti-choice) opinion shine through.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Abortion Advocates Say:
"A woman has the right to privacy over her own body. Anti-abortionists tug at our emotions, pointing to ghastly photos of non-breathing fetuses in buckets. Yet abortion is a safe medical procedure that doesn't murder a baby."

Pro-Life Advocates Say:
"Abortion kills a living, functioning human. Abortionists criticize pro-lifers for showing photos of dead babies in buckets, claiming they're didtorting facts with cheap tricks. But the truth is truth: A dead baby who is discarded is exactly what abortion amounts to."

I have major points of criticism against that:

1) They name the pro-choice side "Abortion Advocates", while they label the anti-choice side "Pro-Life Advocates". That is BS. Pro-Life is an oxymoron, in terms of humans.

2) The pro-choice side is quoted while on the defensive, while the anti-choice side is quoted while on the offensive.

3) The exerp deliberately uses paragraphs where the pro-choice side uses more populistic BS than the anti-choice side, though in reality it is the other way about.

4) The anti-choice side is allowed to present false facts. Abortion does not kill a "living functioning human", and the anti-choice camp is allowed to use "who" on a fetus, thereby implying that it is an individual, which it is clearly not. What bull**** is that?

Now here is a little story to get you thinking:

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
One doctor said to another, "I would like your opinion about the termination of a pregnancy. The father has syphilis. The mother has tuberculosis. Of their first four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, and the fourth also has tuberculosis. What would you have done?"
"I would have ended the pregnancy," the second doctor said. "Then you would have murdered Beethoven." replied the first.

1) No, he would not have "murdered" anyone. A fetus is not a human yet.

2) If the parents didn't want the baby, then, well, too bad for Beethoven. It's their choice. This is what I don't like about anti-choice BS. It removes the choice.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Now here are my beliefs:

1. A fetus is NOT just another part of a females body because a body part shares the same genetic code as the rest of the body. The unborn's genetic code differs from it's mother's. Some of them are male, while their moms are female.

Medically speaking, you are wrong. It is a part of the mother. Ask GonkHater for details.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
2. An unborn human is NOT just a blob of tissue. From the moment of conception it is a living human being, unique. At 6 weeks old you can detect a heartbeat and at 12 weeks, eyes and hands can be seen.

Wrong again. Not human until birth. Parasite up to that point. Heartbeat does not make living. The braindead criteria leave the heart beating.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
3. Life does NOT begin at birth. Science has proven that it begins at conception. All genetic characteristics of a distinc individual are present from the moment of conception. Our recognition of birthdays is cultural, not scientific.

Life does NOT begin at conception. You are wrong. DON'T SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST HAD THE COURTESY OF CHECKING. I am a little touchy about that last part. The sperm is alive. The egg is certainly alive. Thus life begins not at conception, but some 4 billion years ago.

While all genetic characteristics of the individual are present, it is by no means an individual yet. Since the conciousness is in the central nervous system, which is not even remotely funktional before long into pregnancy, it is not an individual yet.

What does birthdays have to do with this?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
4. Since human life IS valuable, every human IS wanted. Just because the woman who is carrying the baby may not want him/her, the list of couples wanting to adopt is millions long. And if we decide to kill or exclude from society anyone "unwanted" we would have to do that to AIDS victims, the elderly, derelicts, and many many others.

False. On all counts. If people wish to adopt then they could adopt a child from a third world country where barbaric laws forbid abortion. Then they would truely save a child, as this child would most likely be gotten rid off in another way. Unless they don't like the colour black.

About killing derelicts, AIDS-patients, ect.: They are human. The fetus is not. End of story.

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by mercatfat
Then there's my issue of human stupidity. If a woman regularly has abortions, she's retarded. Use the damn pill at the very least.

P-pills have severe side-effects. Rather use condoms. Then there is also much less risk of contracting infectous diseases.

i dont like people taking advantage of it though like they just have unprotected sex and say oops im pregnant oh well i can get an abortion.

Trust me: That doesn't happen. Not in these AIDS-times... Babies aren't the worst thing that unsafe sex brings along. Oh, of course it could happen, I'm not naive enough to claim otherwise, but that problem usually solves itself.

What about women who are raped? You can't expect them to carry their rapist's baby to full term. And you can't just outlaw it and make exceptions for people who are raped. How does one then determine who can have an abortion and who cant? People would just be saying they were raped to get an abortion. It's silly.

And would bring eerie reminders of uncivilized places, where theocratic law is still in function (women are muredered for having unmarital sex, unless they can prove that it was rape, and that's almost impossible, due to gender-biased laws: One rule for those who have pull in the "justice" system, another for those who have not).

One of my best friends has always strongly said that she was a pro lifer since I met her in 98.

There is no such thing as "pro-life". There is only "anti-choice".

ShadowTemplar
01-10-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
Therefore, if you know you DON'T want a baby, don't take the risk that you may get pregnant. Today's society has made it far to easy for people to not have to be responsible for their actions.

You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
A developing baby is most definately a living person, with a heartbeat.

Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook...

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
There are always millions of people waiting for a baby to adopt.

*points up to the passage about third-world babies*

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
But in normal circumstances, a woman (and men) should take precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. Especially in this day and age!! With all the sexually transmitted diseases that you could get, casual encounters should be a thing of the past.

Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time.

Reborn Outcast
01-10-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by GonkH8er

It stops an unwanted child being brought into the world.

It's all there..... even the unwanted child part....


sure, theres millions of families who want to adopt.... but adoption is hard on both the biological parents and the child.

Giving up your own child, possibly to never see it again isnt a nice thought.


Just wondering but how, if giving up a child you have seen at birth is hard, how is it any less hard than knowing that that child could have been the greatest person to know? You could of just cancelled the birth of a "great leader", "superstar" "nobel prize winner". How is, knowing that you could have done that and will olny be able to see the "child" as a fetus, any less hard than letting it go after birth. If your saying it's easy to have an abortion I strongly disagree. To sum it all up...

If you have an "unwanted" pregnancy but you go through with letting the baby be born, have a family ready to take the baby in less than 2 weeks after birth, all the legalities are set and the baby is gone. Are you saying that the person who has had the baby, has seen him/her for a very short period of time and has just let him/her go that they're going to take it hard? I agree they will take it hard BUT... how is it any different from seeing a fetus on a sonogram for 10 minutes and knowing that that will be your child but then having an abortion and knowing that you will never see that "child" that you saw on the sonogram, in the flesh.

C'jais
01-10-2003, 02:54 PM
Reborn: Point is, you could say the same about any sperm and egg cell wasted: they had the potential to grow into something meaningful. But they didn't. It's just like the blueprint analogy presented by GonkH8er - You can only feel sorry for destroying something after it's been built.

I think it's pretty hard just to dismiss your child after carrying it around for 9 months. It must be hell. What's not very hard is seeing the fetus as what it really is - a lump of non-conscious cells. Dead in the human sense of it. It cannot live besides being a parasite.

Reborn Outcast
01-10-2003, 02:59 PM
If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... :)

-s/<itzo-
01-10-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool.

that's just absurd. how can you compare antibiotics, technology, etc... with abortion. just because it makes life easier it doesn't mean it has the same concept.

in the process of abortion we are removing a fetus not a disease.

and when did i say i totaly disaprove abortion. i just have combining taughts about it. i clearly mention that in my previous posts.

to me some women, they look for abortion as a way out. without thinking about consiquences, they make foolish decisions.

Have you failed to read any of GonkHater's posts on the subject. They are pretty hard to overlook...

how do you know for sure? you can't always go by what others said simply because they're not professionals in the field. therefore the information may not be 100% reliable. but if you can be more specific on that matter, then i'll reconsider. but till then you don't have the real facts to back that up so your opinion can't be held accountable.

*points up to the passage about third-world babies*

exactly third world.

simply because they can't afford it. if you think about it most likely rich, upper class parents from other countries will adopt a baby from a third world country.

Condoms are a good thing, yes. Use them. But if people like "casual encounters", then by all means, let them have their fun. That lust usually goes away with time.

i'm just saying think more clearly before what you're getting yourself into. think about the consiquences and take responsiblity especially if you're young. if you do get an unwanted pregnancy, you can't blame anybody else but yourself.

its like the old saying:
"If you can't do the time...
don't do the crime."

C'jais
01-10-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If a fetus is a parasite because it can't survive without help... then how is it any different from an infant who has to survive off his/her mother... is it a parasite also? Just wondering... :)

The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it.

Look at cancer cells. They're normal cells who are mutated to multiply at a dangerously fast rate. Once the lump of cancer cells have multiplied sizably, it's called a cancer tumor(sp?). Now this tumor is also a parasite. It feeds off the other cells, without them it would die. It is human in a twisted way; it bears much the same genetic code. Would you kill such an entity?

Getting off on a tangent here. - C'jais

griff38
01-10-2003, 03:41 PM
With few exceptions, those who oppose abortion rights are Christians, Jews & Muslims. (don't freak, i said there were exceptions). Opposition to abortion rights is directly related to how zealous you are about your beliefs.

I think the problem is, zealous orthodoxy does not allow any exceptions to their rules. This is foolish and destructive. There are always exceptions and variables to every rule or law humans have ever percieved.

Life is not precious, especially human life. We are 1 of the most abundant lifeforms alive today. In a world of limited resources and billions of people, perhaps we should place our energies into quality of life instead of quanity of life.

-s/<itzo-
01-10-2003, 03:56 PM
you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc...

to me it seems so hypocritical.

griff38
01-10-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
you know what really bugs me, are those pro-life advocates who disaprove abortion so much that they'll go to the measures of threats, murder, bombing, etc...

to me it seems so hypocritical.


YES, I think that's what they call "Not being able to see the forest because all those trees are in the way."

Toonces
01-10-2003, 07:25 PM
What I find hypocritical are those who are Pro-Abortion being against the Death Penalty, or those who are Pro-Life being for the Death Penalty. The taking of a human life is murder any way you slant it. Rationalise it anyway you like, but I beleive life IS a precious thing

I'm not a Religious person, I'm a Moral person

C'jais
01-10-2003, 07:41 PM
Yes Toonces, life is precious.

But so precious as to take away freedom from the mother?

What bugs me the most is that the pro-lifers can't seem to get that plants and cows are life too. Don't kill them either.

Is scientists artifically created a human DNA nucleus, would you advocate that it should live as well? If it was encased in a cell membrane? If it was able to multiply?

matt--
01-10-2003, 09:33 PM
I'm too lazy to use [quote]s, so bear with me.

-- Not human until birth. Parasite up to that point. Heartbeat does not make living. --
Ability to live outside the mother makes it legally alive.


-- Life does NOT begin at conception. You are wrong. DON'T SAY THAT SOMETHING IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE UNLESS YOU HAVE AT THE VERY LEAST HAD THE COURTESY OF CHECKING. I am a little touchy about that last part. The sperm is alive. The egg is certainly alive. Thus life begins not at conception, but some 4 billion years ago. --
Sperm and egg cells, nor the beings that produce them are alive 4 billion years. "Life" here obviously refers to the genetically unique cell that is a result of the union of sperm and egg.

-- False. On all counts. If people wish to adopt then they could adopt a child from a third world country where barbaric laws forbid abortion. Then they would truely save a child, as this child would most likely be gotten rid off in another way. Unless they don't like the colour black. --
(from my experience) there are a lot more adoptions involving children outside the country than there are where both the child and adoptive family.

-- You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. --
No, you couldn't. There are viable alternatives to abortion.
What is the alternative to antibiotics? leeches?
What is a non-technological alternative to the refrigerator?
There isn't one.



About the millions of people waiting to adopt...you're wrong...in NJ at least that is...unless they are all adopting outside the US.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Cjais
The baby can theoretically still survive without it's biological mother. A fetus cannot. But that's beside the point, your argument is that it's just as easy to give your child away for adoption as seeing it as a lump of emotionally, spiritually, humanly and consciously dead cells. It is not human. It is a blueprint - to be discarded at the will of the mother, since she's the one who's going to "build" it.[/i]

No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her?

C'jais
01-11-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
No, GonkH8er stated in one of his posts... (which I quoted) that it is very hard to give your baby to another family for adoption... I said, why isn't it just as hard to know that you destroyed a (quoting you) "blueprint" (end quote) or living thing that had a lifetime of opportunities ahead of him/her?

The difference is, an adopted child you had the burden of carrying around for 9 months, with it feeding off you. Not something you wish to do every year.

An aborted blueprint has no meaning. You can't refer to "it" much the same as you can't refer to a lump of salt as "it".

Look at the cancer cell. It's a seperate entity as a fetus is. It is alive. It can grow. It has a DNA code sligthly different from your own. Would you remove it?

Scientists can already create small artificial pieces of our DNA code (for genetic engineering). What if they were able to create the entire DNA code? This is essentially a living thing. But it's [b]artificially created[/i]. There's no way to distinguish it from a normal cell, if you put put it into a cell membrane. Would you be able to kill it? It's human, after all.

You speak of you being unable to "kill" a fetus because it had a lifetime of oppurtunities ahead of it. Well, the very same can be said about people who use sexual prevention. They're also preventing a fetus from having it's lifetime of oppurtunities. And what about the people who never have sex? They're brutally "killing" unborn fetuses too.

Think about this: If a sperm cell was altered so the DNA no longer a human's, and inserted into an egg cell - would it be human offspring? What if the egg cell was likewise altered? Would you have any right to end íts life?

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 11:13 AM
Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes.

Yes, I see what your saying about people using sexual prevention and people that stay away from sex but there is a difference between a fetus that IS there in a woman and a woman not holding a fetus at all.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Well your comparing cancer cells to a fetus? I don't see any type of comparison there except for people getting rid of both of them sometimes.

Tell me the difference between a fetus growing in a womb, and a group of cancer cells.

Here's the deal: A fetus is a blueprint. You don't have sentimental feelings from scrapping a blueprint because you found out you weren't up to the task of actually following the blueprint. You can't relate a blueprint and the finished construction to each other - they have physically, mentally and spiritually nothing to do with each other.

Example: I have a blueprint of the car I wish to design. I realize I can't build the car after all, so I throw the blueprint in the bin. Now, do I start crying over all the mileage that car would never run? Do I weep for it because it didn't get the chance to drive on the alps? No. It is just a template, without any emotional value at all.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 01:09 PM
Read this site: go to http://www.abortionfacts.com then look over at the left of the page at the list of links and click on "Abortion Arguements". Go to the "Medical" section and click on both links and read.

THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE SECTION UNDER "MEDICAL" CALLED "WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?"

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

If you read these... you will see that the fetus is NOT a blueprint because That fact right there is part of a field where there is no controversy and no disagreement between scientists. A humans individual life begind at conception. It states it right there.

Once you finish reading that go to the bottom of all their links and read tha page called "Our Mission." The link is http://www.abortionfacts.com/x_administration/our_mission.asp

C'jais
01-11-2003, 02:25 PM
Reborn: Don't get me wrong, the fetus is alive. I'm aware of that. But it is not human life in the sense you and I understand.

It is as much human life as the cancer cell and the artificially created DNA string. Nothing more. You cannot call the fetus an individual, nor conscious.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 02:29 PM
But thats what I've been trying to say. I said that LIFE begins at conception and that if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE. (Read my latest post and the website and you will see that)

razorace
01-11-2003, 03:19 PM
But what's an individual? At this point in it's development, it has no brain functions to speak of.

{BK}SupremePain
01-11-2003, 03:25 PM
i would never have a abortion if i got a girl pregnant
but if a guy just left the girl he got pregnant i dont think its wrong of her to have an abortion

C'jais
01-11-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
if you destroy a fetus you are destroying an individuals LIFE.

You destroy life, yes. But not an individual's life. The fetus cannot be referred to as an individual at that stage, no more than a cancer cell or a DNA string can be referred to as "an individual human."

If you're so panicked about destroying life, know that you do it every day. And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not.

-s/<itzo-
01-11-2003, 05:55 PM
basically Cjais is trying to say that the fetus is only a potential human being until it is able to survive outside the womb. until this time the fetus has no legal rights—the rights belong to the woman carrying the fetus, who can decide whether or not to bring the pregnancy to full term.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
And not just killing other lifeforms, hundreds of your cells die every day. They're life as well, you know. But an individual human each? Of course not.

I do not voluntarily kill my cells. They do it on their own but a woman makes the decision to kill the fetus.

And Cjais did you read the quote I posted from www.abortionfacts.com? Here is part of it...

The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation."

Now here is a part before that...

Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school.

razorace
01-11-2003, 07:27 PM
That's muttling the point. We go thru a complete cell replacement over a period of 7 years or so. Does that mean I'm not the same person that existed 7 years ago? A bunch of cells do not equal a person.

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 07:41 PM
No razor your missing the point. I'm saying that your killing an individual human being when you have an abortion. I'm not talking about 7 years into your life if your a different person. Science has proven that an individuals life begins at conception which I said and Cjais and I got into a debate about.

matt--
01-11-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
Tell me the difference between a fetus growing in a womb, and a group of cancer cells
Cancer permanently damages the host, pregnant women recover.


Example: I have a blueprint of the car I wish to design. I realize I can't build the car after all, so I throw the blueprint in the bin. Now, do I start crying over all the mileage that car would never run? Do I weep for it because it didn't get the chance to drive on the alps? No. It is just a template, without any emotional value at all.
Does the blueprint grow into a car? This whole analogy is flawed.

We go thru a complete cell replaced over a period of 7 years or so. Does that mean I'm not the same person that existed 7 years ago? A bunch of cells do not equal a person.Neural cells are not replacement, and that's where our consciousness lies.

C'jais
01-11-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And Cjais did you read the quote I posted from www.abortionfacts.com? Here is part of it...

I read it. And I agree with them. An individual's life does begin at conception.

But the point is, there is no individual yet. It takes time for an individual to appear - most importantly it needs a consciousness and a way to think. Otherwise it's mentally, emotionally and spiritually dead. Just as the early beginning of human life were the first single celled organisms, so is the early beginning of the human individual the conception.

Cancer permanently damages the host, pregnant women recover.

Cancer does not always permanently damage the host, nor do pregnant women not always survive the whole pregnancy. But that is beside the point, as this has nothing to do with the example.

Does the blueprint grow into a car? This whole analogy is flawed.

Suppose you had the chassis of the car. Would you call that a car yet? How about adding wheels to it, is it now a car? An engine then? Only when the vehicle is capable of moving about in a crude manner would I call it a car. Not yet fully finished, but a car. It can drive now, which is the basic requirement of a car. Similar to the nervous system of the fetus - once it is developed can you begin talking about a human individual. Before that it's just a lump of growing cells.

Neural cells are not replacement, and that's where our consciousness lies.

So you agree it is our neural cells that makes us human?

matt--
01-11-2003, 08:18 PM
Only when the vehicle is capable of moving about in a crude manner would I call it a car.Not yet fully finished, but a car. It can drive now, which is the basic requirement of a car. Similar to the nervous system of the fetus - once it is developed can you begin talking about a human individual.
This was my whole Roe v. Wade point earlier. Except that it gains it's human rights once it can be sustained outside the mother's womb (as defined by the Supreme Court). I wonder what the development of artificial wombs would do to abortion rights.

So you agree it is our neural cells that makes us human?
No, our DNA makes us human. Neural cells just make consciousness possible, and that's where it happens. When knocked unconscious, do you lose your humanity?

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
But the point is, there is no individual yet. It takes time for an individual to appear - most importantly it needs a consciousness and a way to think. Otherwise it's mentally, emotionally and spiritually dead. Just as the early beginning of human life were the first single celled organisms, so is the early beginning of the human individual the conception.

People who are brain dead are mentally, emotionally and spiritually dead people. Their brain is not functioning which is the same as not having one just like an early fetus does. So your saying that brain-dead people who are still alive without their brain, just like fetus', are not living individual people?

C'jais
01-11-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
This was my whole Roe v. Wade point earlier. Except that it gains it's human rights once it can be sustained outside the mother's womb (as defined by the Supreme Court). I wonder what the development of artificial wombs would do to abortion rights.

Eh. So you're pro-abortion? Or against it? Or are we just replying to each other's posts? :p

No, our DNA makes us human. Neural cells just make consciousness possible, and that's where it happens. When knocked unconscious, do you lose your humanity?

In a sense, yes. Would you call a person who was literally braindead truly human? I mean, he looks like a human, but it's only his body that resembles a human. If DNA is the only thing that makes us human, I wonder what people are going to say once scientists artificially create a the complete human DNA string. They can currently create small bits of it, but the whole thing could make for some very interesting ethical discussions.

Problem is, once you get down into genetics, the defining line for what's human becomes blurry. How much are we allowed to genetically alter our DNA before we're no longer "human"?

C'jais
01-11-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
So your saying that brain-dead people who are still alive without their brain, just like fetus', are not living individual people?

Well, yes. If your brain isn't working at all, you're dead already. Which is why the fetus is dead in the same sense.

If you had no brain, would you be a living, individual human, or just a piece of braindead flesh?

Reborn Outcast
01-11-2003, 08:37 PM
Ok well what if you get knocked out? Your brain is not functioning and you can't move your arms and legs but you are still living.


(Cjais I don't think this debate is ever going to end but its a good one so lets keep it going. :) )

GonkH8er
01-11-2003, 08:54 PM
Reborn, as much as it tries to present a little from both sides, that site is clearly anti-abortion. The facts are exhaggerated, the whole page is biased. It's all just a website full of abortion bashing.


It's a website designed for pregnant women, in order to get them to not have an abortion.


You go into the pro-life section, and it praises you

You go into the pro choice section, hoping for good facts about abortion, but it just tells you how wrong you are, and bashes all the pro-choice arguments.


It's just plain stupid.

Taos
01-11-2003, 10:06 PM
I think people should always have options. It's because of this I am pro-choice. If it comes down to it....and let's say my gf is pregnant, I don't know what will happen. I do know that it's her choice and not mine.......

matt--
01-11-2003, 10:57 PM
I don't think it's possible to alter our DNA to the point where we aren't 'human.' We'd just evolve past Homo sapien and into Homo somethingelse.

razorace
01-11-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
No razor your missing the point. I'm saying that your killing an individual human being when you have an abortion. I'm not talking about 7 years into your life if your a different person. Science has proven that an individuals life begins at conception which I said and Cjais and I got into a debate about.
There is no proof that the fetus has any sort of "human" mental capacity at conception. I believe it was stated that before third trimester, the fetus doesn't have any brain function on the level we consider "human".

razorace
01-11-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ok well what if you get knocked out? Your brain is not functioning and you can't move your arms and legs but you are still living.

Your brain still functions even when you're knocked out.

matt--
01-11-2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by razorace
Your brain still functions even when you're knocked out.
Yes, but you can't make a conscious thought, similar to the interactions between neurons of an unborn entity.

My new stance is that abortion is wrong after neurons begin to develop and interact, even in the most basic ways...before that it's ok imo.

GonkH8er
01-11-2003, 11:43 PM
Then neural pathways don't begin to develop until a fair way into the pregnancy. Most abortions happen long before this.

razorace
01-11-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
Yes, but you can't make a conscious thought, similar to the interactions between neurons of an unborn entity.


Well, there's a LOT of crap going on mentally that you can't consciously sense. I'd guess (total ballpark) that 90% of your mental functions are hidden from what you consider "conscious thought". It would be cool to see what goes on in my sub-conscious.

Darklighter
01-12-2003, 04:20 AM
I am very much for Abortion. Considering the significant rise in teenage pregnancies and things like the 'date-rape' drug nowadays, it's becoming increasingly likely for young people to become pregnant by accident. I think that if a woman does make a mistake and becomes pregnant, and does not want the child, then they should have the right to decide if they have it or not.

Put it in this context. Say the woman doesn't want to have a baby, but by law is not allowed to have an abortion. Do you really think that the life of that will be okay, even if her mother doesn't want her? I highly doubt it...

C'jais
01-12-2003, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by matt-windu
I don't think it's possible to alter our DNA to the point where we aren't 'human.' We'd just evolve past Homo sapien and into Homo somethingelse.

It's possible to alter the human DNA. It's very much possible to crudely alter huge chunks of our chromosomes into something so alien you wouldn't see it as human in any way. It wouldn't have human DNA, it wouldn't look human, and it wouldn't behave human. But it originated from a modified human DNA string, so I guess it must be human.

If it was possible to alter the human embryo into something that looked like a dog, behaved like a dog and thought like a dog, would you call it a "heavily genetically altered human", or a "dog".

The categorization of species is a human construct. It does not exist once you delve into the DNA. Which is exactly why the ideal of upholding human life above all else is silly per definition.

Reborn Outcast
01-12-2003, 01:41 PM
Abortion actually has a higher rate of death and harm than if a woman goes ahead with her pregnancy. I just heard a horrible story today about a woman was having an abortion and the doctor pulled out part of her bladder with the tool he was using. She had a hemmorage (sp?) and was rushed to be treated. She had to have multiple surgeries and now can never have a child, cna't have sex and has to pee into a bag hanging from right below her bladder because she is unable to to go to the bathroom correctly... i've never heard of a pregnancy that has done that.

matt--
01-12-2003, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
It's possible to alter the human DNA. It's very much possible to crudely alter huge chunks of our chromosomes into something so alien you wouldn't see it as human in any way. It wouldn't have human DNA, it wouldn't look human, and it wouldn't behave human. But it originated from a modified human DNA string, so I guess it must be human.

If it was possible to alter the human embryo into something that looked like a dog, behaved like a dog and thought like a dog, would you call it a "heavily genetically altered human", or a "dog".

From webster:
alter - to make different without changing into something else

razorace
01-12-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Abortion actually has a higher rate of death and harm than if a woman goes ahead with her pregnancy.
I really doubt that statistic. I suggest you go look it up.

GonkH8er
01-13-2003, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Abortion actually has a higher rate of death and harm than if a woman goes ahead with her pregnancy. I just heard a horrible story today about a woman was having an abortion and the doctor pulled out part of her bladder with the tool he was using. She had a hemmorage (sp?) and was rushed to be treated. She had to have multiple surgeries and now can never have a child, cna't have sex and has to pee into a bag hanging from right below her bladder because she is unable to to go to the bathroom correctly... i've never heard of a pregnancy that has done that.

Actually pregnancies can often do much worse. A lot of women die from giving birth, some have to have their uteruses removed post-birth. You hear about it all the time. The story you just mentioned, which I've never heard of before, which is utterly stupid, would only happen on EXTEMELY rare circumstances.

If you knew how abortions were performed today, you'd realise it's not possible to pull out a chunk of the bladder. The bladder in women is located down and forward from the uterus. The tool used for most abortions nowadays is not some deadly spiky sharp death claw, but rather, a simple suction tool which just sucks the undeveloped embryo out. There's no scraping or digging or sharp poking of any kind, so my guess is that abortion story is just an urban legend, or some sort of back-alley cheapskate bodgey abortion job.


It's a fact that hospital and clinic abortions have a MUCH lower mortality rate than carrying the pregnancy to term, quite contrary to your opinion. It's incredibly safe, and as I said before, has a mortality rate similar to getting a tooth pulled.

It's a very professional thing these days.

Andy867
01-13-2003, 04:24 AM
I am against Abortion for many reasons, but the one way I explain is imagine this:

For those wanting to abort their child, imagine this for a moment. Imagine your parents in the same situation. They could have EASILY and just as much aborted you, but they didn't. So don't you think you should give your child the same opportunity at life as your parents did for you.

Sure there are the special circumstances like rape, incest. I feel that only if the woman's life is indeed in danger beyond a shadow of a doubt, then possibly induce labor, because I read somewhere (not sure the validity of the the source), that most complications where the pregnancy is life-threatening to the woman begins in the middle of the third trimester, in which case, most if not all of the fetus has developed, and with induced labor, there is a good chance that both the woman and the child may survive. And I say in cases such as incest and rape, have the baby, and even then if you don't want it, put it up for adoption because there are thousands upon thousands of couples who would love to have a child of their own, but due to medical complications, they are unable to.

That's my thoughts on abortion.

razorace
01-13-2003, 07:39 AM
For those wanting to abort their child, imagine this for a moment. Imagine your parents in the same situation. They could have EASILY and just as much aborted you, but they didn't. So don't you think you should give your child the same opportunity at life as your parents did for you.

I really doubt it. I was a wanted child. My parents tried to have childs for years.

Pregnancy isn't a minor issue. It's a huge emotional/physical event. Forcing someone to go thru that for your own personal convictions doesn't seem right.

STTCT
01-13-2003, 09:03 AM
yes i personally hate that bumper sticker slogan as well. Yes, we understand that by our parents "choice" we are alive. Its just like I stated before...its like...telling people it is illegal to drink before they are 21. They are going to do it anyway. People are going to sell it to them knowing they aren't old enough. People do what they want to do regardless of the rules.

That is when you have all these...people pulling out bladders by mistake etc. You make abortion illegal...and people are going to do it anyway - using dr's or non doctors who may or may not know what they are doing. It wouldn't be safe anymore and people would just drop babies in dumpsters or not take care of themselves when they are pregnant.

I agree with Razor - our parents chose to have us. Yes, it would suck if they didn't...but whether you are religious or not. That's fate...if we weren't here we'd never know the difference.

Xylan
01-13-2003, 10:49 AM
I believe the person should try and raise the child, but it wouldn't be right. Maybe it shouldn't be illegal, just limited. Say you'd need a fair reason to have an abortion. If for some reason you really couldn't raise the child or didn't have any relatives that would help, then I think an abortion would be okay, it's really not anyone else's decision.

Btw, I think that adults should be more aware of those things in the future.....heh...

matt--
01-13-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Xylan
If for some reason you really couldn't raise the child or didn't have any relatives that would help, then I think an abortion would be okay
What's wrong with adoption in that case?

Originally posted by razorace
I really doubt it. I was a wanted child. My parents tried to have childs for years.

He said to imagine they were in a similar situation.

C'jais
01-13-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
What's wrong with adoption in that case?

A pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. It's not just something you can compare to buying the groceries or taking a pill. And I doubt many teen girls are ready and want to give birth until they're a little more mature. Yeah, they could have taken better care of themselves, I know...

He said to imagine they were in a similar situation.

What's so wrong with not existing? Are you afraid of the time before your birth? After your death?

Andy867
01-13-2003, 03:38 PM
Well, Cjsais, imagine not existing.. imagine a world without you. Imagine everything you have ever done... Imagine it never happening. The one thing that means the most to you never happening. Never getting the chance to do anything. Put yourself outside of yourself and tell me how the world looks. How the world around you looks. In fact, let everyone do that. Never meeting that special someone. Never getting that great job. Never getting to see your dream come true happen. Scary thought huh. Now tell me if anyone is scared of never exisiting.

razorace
01-13-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
He said to imagine they were in a similar situation.
Well, if they had been in that situation, I'm sure they'd have done what was the right thing to do based on what my quality of life would have been. This arguement doesn't work for me, I was so close to nonexistance anyway. My mom was having trouble conceiving and they were about to do some tests that would have killed me. Fortunately for me, my mom decided not to get the testing done. Plus, I'm a "miricle" baby. My mom was told that she couldn't have children. The egg that formed me literially had to swim from the ovam on the wrong side of her body, to her other feloveum tube, and then down.

Xylan
01-13-2003, 06:43 PM
Well, Cjsais, imagine not existing.. imagine a world without you. Imagine everything you have ever done... Imagine it never happening. The one thing that means the most to you never happening. Never getting the chance to do anything. Put yourself outside of yourself and tell me how the world looks. How the world around you looks. In fact, let everyone do that. Never meeting that special someone. Never getting that great job. Never getting to see your dream come true happen. Scary thought huh. Now tell me if anyone is scared of never exisiting.

Well, that in general that is a scary thought, but you really wouldn't have anything to worry about since you wouldn't exist. But now, and looking at what would and wouldn't have happend without you, that's sort of creepy.

A pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. It's not just something you can compare to buying the groceries or taking a pill. And I doubt many teen girls are ready and want to give birth until they're a little more mature. Yeah, they could have taken better care of themselves, I know...

That is sort of what I ment, but I'm not for abortions. I'm just saying have them limited. Adoptions are more than okay, that is what I would want to do in the situation, but there are 100s of reasons people wouldn't want to have the child. And this has happened before, alot of relationships end because the woman is going to have a child, and the man leaves. So there are many reasons. Heh.

Reborn Outcast
01-13-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
A pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. It's not just something you can compare to buying the groceries or taking a pill. And I doubt many teen girls are ready and want to give birth until they're a little more mature. Yeah, they could have taken better care of themselves, I know...

If a pregnancy is not to be taken lightly (which it isn't) then NEITHER is the sex that those teens had in the first place. Teens nowadays play around with sex like it IS buying groceries. Ok now if some of you are for abortion think about this... if these teens or people didn't want to have a child... why didn't they use protection? A condom has a 98% chance of working... and with so many abortions we can automatically assume that they didn't use protection. Another alternative to an abortion is to not have a child in the first place by using protection. Let me throw another twist your way. What if abortions are not meant to actually happen? People who want to have children... don't use protection. People who don't and are just "screwing" around should use protection.
But if pregnancy is not to be taken lightly then neither is abortion. But people do it without a second thought.

razorace
01-13-2003, 09:17 PM
I agree that people aren't careful enough with sex, but that's a slightly different issue.

I really doubt most people just have abortions "without a second thought". The ones that do probably don't care about anything anyway.

TheWhiteRaider
01-13-2003, 09:39 PM
I see this have come back up.


To tell you the truth most people just want to have adult action without adult re-action. As in other words "They want to have no consequences for any action they take." Also alot of "oops"

I really doubt most people just have abortions "without a second thought".

I can think of some people that only have second thoughts after they killed the baby.

until they're a little more mature

If that ever happens. I know of a girl who used to live next door at my previous house. I could go on for days telling what she did, but all that I can say is that almost 4-7 years later see is still just as immature as she was before.(If you want I can go into talking about what she did.)

I agree that people aren't careful enough with sex, but that's a slightly different issue.

How is it a different issue? Because they are not careful they end up with a baby. And *bang* it ends up with this issue.

Reborn Outcast
01-13-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by razorace
My mom was having trouble conceiving and they were about to do some tests that would have killed me. Fortunately for me, my mom decided not to get the testing done.

Wait, when these test were going to be done were you still a fetus? Are you for abortion? Do you agree with Cjais that a fetus is just a "blueprint" that cannot be killed? If you said yes to all these then why do you now say that you could have been killed with the tests. If you were a fetus, then in your point of view, weren't you just a blueprint and not an individual human being. See by saying that you could have been killed, you just admitted that you thought that you were special. Why is it not so with every other fetus that was killed during an abortion?

razorace
01-13-2003, 11:07 PM
The test were suppose to take place before my mom know she was pregnent. I was probably just a bunch of cells at that point.

My personal opinion on abortion is that it should be legal and availible. Quality of life is a serious consern for me. We can't even care for all the people we have now!

How is it a different issue? Because they are not careful they end up with a baby. And *bang* it ends up with this issue.
Pregnency happens even when you take every possible precuasion (except for no sex at all). Life finds a way.

GonkH8er
01-14-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Andy867
Well, Cjsais, imagine not existing.. imagine a world without you. Imagine everything you have ever done... Imagine it never happening. The one thing that means the most to you never happening. Never getting the chance to do anything. Put yourself outside of yourself and tell me how the world looks. How the world around you looks. In fact, let everyone do that. Never meeting that special someone. Never getting that great job. Never getting to see your dream come true happen. Scary thought huh. Now tell me if anyone is scared of never exisiting.


2 things...

A) We ARE here.... so there's no point in imagining it. We only care about ourselves. We don'tgive a second thought to all the babies that HAVENT happen. We take the world as it is, not as how it could have been.

and

B) We'd never know that we were supposed to exist. We wouldn't realise we'd be sitting round years later tlaking about this, as the people we are. It's irrelevant. The world would go on without us if we didn't exist. Besides, our parents probably would have had another child... when they were ready. That child may very well have had a better life than us, as the parents would have been more ready for the child.


I like existing, I like my life, but if I hadn't have existed, no biggie. I wouldn't be able to whinge about it. I just wouldn't be.

Luc Solar
01-14-2003, 06:23 AM
I do not believe that ending the progress of a couple of cells that have divided is murdering a human being.

The law of each pro-abortion country has put a limit after which you are not allowed to do an abortion. This makes sense. If the kid is "alive 'n kickin' abortion means murder.

I'm not too keen about the Bible-argument as some might have noticed. ;)
If you start talking about "God giving life and men not having the right to take it away" or some omnious, everlasting "spirit" or "soul", the debate becomes meaningless.

We have to think practically. The doctors know when pain can be felt. They know when a bunch of cells becomes a thinking person. Well...to some extent anyways. :D

I don't accept abortion as means of birth control, though. A lot of teens think that's "no biggie". :(

El Sitherino
01-14-2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
I don't accept abortion as means of birth control, though. A lot of teens think that's "no biggie". :( same here i think it should be allowed though for in those like accident cases such as the condom broke. rape. or the pill didnt work.

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by razorace
The test were suppose to take place before my mom know she was pregnent. I was probably just a bunch of cells at that point.


But do you agree with Cjais that a fetus is a blueprint... I don't but if you do then why did you refer to yourself as being killed? See when you think about yourself, you don't think about a blueprint, you think about yourself being killed as a fetus which is exactly waht it is.

razorace
01-14-2003, 06:42 AM
I don't accept abortion as means of birth control, though. A lot of teens think that's "no biggie".
Who?! It's not exactely comfortable, and it is expensive.


But do you agree with Cjais that a fetus is a blueprint... I don't but if you do then why did you refer to yourself as being killed? See when you think about yourself, you don't think about a blueprint, you think about yourself being killed as a fetus which is exactly waht it is.

Only as much as I consider my pinky as "me". :)

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 06:45 AM
Ok razor lemme ask you this :)

Do you believe that if those tests were run that they would have killed you or just wiped out a blueprint ?

El Sitherino
01-14-2003, 06:51 AM
they wipedout my blueprint. ah now i cant be a smurf. jk yeah its just a blueprint nothing more nothing less.

Luc Solar
01-14-2003, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by razorace
Who?! It's not exactely comfortable, and it is expensive.


Well in Finland it costs nothing, I believe (that's why we have insane taxes)

I've lived in a city here which has the highest rate of teen-pregnancies and abortions in the country, and let me tell you... a lot of girls just like to fool around.

By saying I don't accept abortion as birth control I refer to situations where f.ex:

Girl gets drunk and screws around. She wakes up the next morning thinking "Whoa, what wild night, I guess we didn't use any protection.. oh well, I'll just wait a month or two and get an abortion later if I got impregnated."

If you even suspect that you might have had "unsafe" sex (condom broke or slipped off / forgot to take the pill that night or whatever) you go and get The Pill that terminates the possible pregnancy from the nearest health center first thing in the morning! :mad:

El Sitherino
01-14-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Luc Solar

Girl gets drunk and screws around. She wakes up the next morning thinking "Whoa, what wild night, I guess we didn't use any protection.. oh well, I'll just wait a month or two and get an abortion later if I got impregnated."
i hate people like that thats what is getting abortion hated more and more. they are messing it up. like if somedude put some stuff in a girls coke and she passed out and he raped her they find out they might be pregnant. i think they are entitled to an abortion. since its not their fault the guy was an ******* who couldnt get laid the right way.

STTCT
01-14-2003, 07:59 AM
I think you guys are assuming too much and exagerating too much. I don't believe that a lot of girls just go and get an abortion as a form of b.c. If you think that's what they do then go find statitistics on that information. But I'm going to take the benefit of the doubt and say that assuming women just get drunk and for the hell of it just figure that they'll have an abortion is insane. Please... you guys seem to be placing too much of this on the woman as if we are some whore's who go around all "unprotected" and figure if we get knocked up we will just get an abortion. :mad:

El Sitherino
01-14-2003, 08:36 AM
im not sayin it.

C'jais
01-14-2003, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
But do you agree with Cjais that a fetus is a blueprint... I don't but if you do then why did you refer to yourself as being killed? See when you think about yourself, you don't think about a blueprint, you think about yourself being killed as a fetus which is exactly waht it is.

You don't get my point.

What are the earliest memories you have? From when you were 2 years old? 1 year? Whatever it is, I doubt you had memories of you being in your mother's womb.

You can compare yourself to a virus in the womb. You have no self identity. You are not self-conscious. You are not there yet. If "I" were "killed" during the pregnancy, I would never exist. It makes no sense at all to talk about pity and empathy for a life that would never exist. Do you have pity for the life that isn't born right now because a would-be mother decided to take the car instead of the train and thus didn't meet her future husband? It's nonsense to talk about what could happen, instead of concentrating on what is. Save the babies who can't get food because Sudan is overpopulated. Save them, instead of worrying about the people who could have been born if it weren't for sexual prevention. We need abortion to save born lives.

Life as a concept has only any meaning for those alive.

STTCT
01-14-2003, 08:56 AM
i agree - i think its pretty silly to ask you how you would feel if you weren't born. You wouldn't even know it. I mean if you want to be that wierd...maybe you weren't you yet. Maybe the next time your mom got pregnant after the abortion - that was you. You don't know. Seems silly.

Luc Solar
01-14-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
I think you guys are assuming too much and exagerating too much. I don't believe that a lot of girls just go and get an abortion as a form of b.c. If you think that's what they do then go find statitistics on that information. But I'm going to take the benefit of the doubt and say that assuming women just get drunk and for the hell of it just figure that they'll have an abortion is insane. Please... you guys seem to be placing too much of this on the woman as if we are some whore's who go around all "unprotected" and figure if we get knocked up we will just get an abortion. :mad:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying *all* women or *most* women do it. I'm just saying that some do, and I don't accept that. (Just like I don't accept that boys mess around without using condoms)

In this particular city the teen pregnancy and abortion-rates were (and still are) waaaaaay higher than anywhere else. I don't know exactly what has caused this, but it is a fact nevertheless.
There are a lot of teens who are too busy partying to care about things like STD's or getting pregnant. That is a fact and it makes me feel like they're taking the "easy way out", not facing the consequences of their screw-ups.

(I know abortion is not a easy thing for most women, but it seems that the ones I'm talking about couldn't care less.)

razorace
01-14-2003, 02:24 PM
People like that are just plain stupid. There's not much you can do about it. It's not like you can selectively ban abortions.

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 04:35 PM
Cjais I can't remember anything from when I was 2 weeks old so does that meant that I wasn't alive or a human being?

Also when you said

It makes no sense at all to talk about pity and empathy for a life that would never exist. Do you have pity for the life that isn't born right now because a would-be mother decided to take the car instead of the train and thus didn't meet her future husband?

No I have no pity for a woman who didnt meet her future husband and thus didnt have sex and thus a fetus was never conceived. I do have pity for evnets that have already been put into play that a human being will come out of it (conception). That life WOULD exist but for the abortion. A fetus is a life that is existing and will exist further... your point about a life never existing makes no sense.

C'jais
01-14-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais I can't remember anything from when I was 2 weeks old so does that meant that I wasn't alive or a human being?

You weren't there yet. A baby existed, yes, but it had the self-consciousness and instincts of an ant.

I do have pity for evnets that have already been put into play that a human being will come out of it (conception). That life WOULD exist but for the abortion. A fetus is a life that is existing and will exist further... your point about a life never existing makes no sense.

Let me try it one more time: You caring for a 4 celled embryo and claiming it has an important, individual existence is just the same as me claiming that the cell in my upper right ear is an important, individual existence with a life of it's own.

Point being that we shouldn't regard abortion as murder because there isn't any human being yet. There is no person in a few cells. It's grotesque to think so.

It's about as silly as projecting an individual existence and consciousness into a virus, simply because it's technically alive and holds DNA.

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Cjais
You weren't there yet. A baby existed, yes, but it had the self-consciousness and instincts of an ant.
Just becuase it had the self-consciousness and instincts of an ant doesn't make it human? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say about this...

C'jais
01-14-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Just becuase it had the self-consciousness and instincts of an ant doesn't make it human? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say about this...

I give up.

You win.

Happy?

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 05:14 PM
Ses I agree this thread has lost its individual purpose and noone is going to win... so just CLOSE THIS THREAD.

razorace
01-14-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Just becuase it had the self-consciousness and instincts of an ant doesn't make it human? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say about this...

It has no intelligence or self-consciousness at that point!

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 06:04 PM
Cjais close this thread please.

Reborn Outcast
01-14-2003, 06:12 PM
Ok nevermind: People who still want to post in this thread may... it is not going to be closed.. I am not going to post in this thread anymore because I have said all I am going to say.

C'jais
01-14-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Cjais close this thread please.

Sorry man.

I can't simply close threads because one person feels like it. If you don't like a thread, let it die. If it doesn't start dropping to the bottom of the page, it must mean people still want to post in it.

I close threads if they get out of hand. This hasn't, so far.

GonkH8er
01-15-2003, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Ses I agree this thread has lost its individual purpose and noone is going to win... so just CLOSE THIS THREAD.

If you're coming into these threads expecting to "win", then you're here for the wrong reason.

It's not about proving eachother wrong or converting someone to think the same way you do. It's about expressing opinions and letting ideas flow.

TheWhiteRaider
01-23-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by STTCT
I think you guys are assuming too much and exagerating too much. I don't believe that a lot of girls just go and get an abortion as a form of b.c. If you think that's what they do then go find statitistics on that information. But I'm going to take the benefit of the doubt and say that assuming women just get drunk and for the hell of it just figure that they'll have an abortion is insane. Please... you guys seem to be placing too much of this on the woman as if we are some whore's who go around all "unprotected" and figure if we get knocked up we will just get an abortion. :mad:

Well franky that is not what it is like. In fact only 5% of abortions are done on non-rape victims.

Guys take alook at this site.

http://www.abortioncancer.com/

razorace
01-23-2003, 02:21 AM
That number doesn't sound right at all. What's your source?

Luc Solar
01-23-2003, 02:28 AM
That number is soooooooo not true.

It would be exaggerating even though it was turned around: Not even 5% of all abortions are done because of the mother-to-be was raped.

Think about it: it would mean that all the gazillion abortions that are done daily in this world are practically all "caused" by rapists. :rolleyes:

Luc Solar
01-23-2003, 03:39 AM
Okay. Checked the abortion-statistics of Finland, and according to those numbers, the number of teenagers (17 years old or younger) RAPED EVERY YEAR in the US and took an abortion is 125.000!!

Now keep in mind that this is only the tip of the ice berg. The vast, vast majority of rape victims never got pregnant or simply kept their baby or had a miscarriage.

Quite a lot of rapin' going on, eh? :rolleyes:

razorace
01-23-2003, 03:46 AM
why does Finland have statistics on the US?

Luc Solar
01-23-2003, 03:51 AM
I just took our teen-abortion statistic and multiplied it. We got 5.000.000 people here, you got 260.000.000 IIRC.

Our stuff x 52 = US stuff :D

Well, roughly anyways.

razorace
01-23-2003, 05:25 AM
That doesn't exactly work. :)

Luc Solar
01-23-2003, 09:48 AM
It won't work if you're discussing "statistics", but it does do the job quite nicely if you're just trying to make a point... :p

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by STTCT
actually - u can order the morning after pill online or go to a clinic and its really easy...

some people just are stupid and don't take advantage of things like that.

That's not always stupidity. Most women don't become aware of the baby before its too late.

Originally posted by STTCT
You are asking a woman to give up school or pay for the baby.

You put your finger right on the point there: It is, and always has been, about keeping the women out of the labor force. Or it is because some ****edup, old, meaningless book. I don't know which is worse.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
that's just absurd. how can you compare antibiotics, technology, etc... with abortion. just because it makes life easier it doesn't mean it has the same concept.

in the process of abortion we are removing a fetus not a disease.

You are quoting me out of context (for the upteenth time, and I'm getting really, really pissed about it. Quote properly, or not at all). I responded to the fact that abortion has made people more sloppy.

Well, so has antibiotics. Instead of being the last way out, it has become the excuse for sloppy hygieine. Which leads to increased antibiotics (ab)use, which causes problems to the environment that are actually real, unlike your problems with abortion. So, no they are not compairable: Antibiotics are unimagineably much worse.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
how do you know for sure? you can't always go by what others said simply because they're not professionals in the field. therefore the information may not be 100% reliable. but if you can be more specific on that matter, then i'll reconsider. but till then you don't have the real facts to back that up so your opinion can't be held accountable.

And that's from a creationist. DON'T LECTURE ME ON FACTS UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME FOR YOURSELF! AND DON'T MISQUOTE ME! Period. I am getting sick and tired of this! If you want something to be 100% reliable, then I suggest that you turn off all the lights in your house, so they won't fail you. And don't even live in your house because it may topple unprovoked (that actually happened to a sports complex recently). Then and only then can you be 100% sure that technology won't fail you: Because then you won't have any technology.

Originally posted by -s/<itzo-
its like the old saying:
"If you can't do the time...
don't do the crime."

And free sex was made a "crime" when? That view would be more appropriate in a Dark Age Catholic country. Not in a free democracy.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Toonces
What I find hypocritical are those who are Pro-Abortion being against the Death Penalty, or those who are Pro-Life being for the Death Penalty.

What I find hypocritical are those who are for capital punishment, yet call their country a democracy.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
-- You could say LITTERALLY the same thing about antibiotics. Or refrigerators. Or, for that matter, any technology at all. Because technology is there to make life easier. So I would ask you to think through the logical conclusions that follow your statement, before ever stating it again... Just sound advice, someone may recognise you. Fail once: Get a reminder. Fail twice: Look like a fool. --
No, you couldn't. There are viable alternatives to abortion.
What is the alternative to antibiotics? leeches?
What is a non-technological alternative to the refrigerator?
There isn't one.

Again I am quoted out of context. See the reply I gave Skitzo, and STOP QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT. Seriously. The reason why some people are frying Lomborg's ass is that he quoted out of context. Never, ever do it and put your real name on it. People have lost careers over that. I'm not kidding.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Read this site: [...]

That the site is biased is imidiately obvious to the discerning user. That they claim otherwise merits total disregard of it. I have given it its merits.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
Does the blueprint grow into a car? This whole analogy is flawed.

No. The blueprint becomes a car if you put it into the right factory. The foetus becomes a baby when you put it into the right (biological) factory. Ever tried to assemble a Ford T in a dockyard? Ever tried to assemble a human baby in a cow?

Originally posted by matt-windu
Neural cells are not replacement, and that's where our consciousness lies.

YES! Someone finally got that point. And since there, usually, are no neural cells in the foetus at the time of abortion, there is no individual.

BTW: If you want to read some really whacky when-is-it-real-life-fiction, I suggest Black Library's 40k or Ghost in the Shell.

ShadowTemplar
01-23-2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by matt-windu
This was my whole Roe v. Wade point earlier. Except that it gains it's human rights once it can be sustained outside the mother's womb (as defined by the Supreme Court). I wonder what the development of artificial wombs would do to abortion rights.

Artificial wombs would remove the problem. As long, that is, as the treatmen was free.

Originally posted by matt-windu
No, our DNA makes us human. Neural cells just make consciousness possible, and that's where it happens. When knocked unconscious, do you lose your humanity?

Bullcrap. What part of "virus" did you miss. A "virus" changes the DNA of some body cells. Yet in some cases not even the body notices...

And, yes, I do lose my humanity if I lose conciousness. Like near-death experiences. But, point is, I can regain it. Keyword: Regain.

Master_Keralys
01-23-2003, 05:15 PM
Okay, here's the whole thing - where do you draw the line for humanity? When does one become human? If it's when you're no longer dependent on anyone, then I'm not human. My parents still provide my food, clothing, etc. I could survive on my own much easier than a small child, but you get the point. For that matter, a five-year-old cannot survive on its own; is it human?

There are only four real differences between an unborn child and one outside the womb: SLED.

That is, Size, Level of development, Environment, and Dependency.

Trevor Pryce, a defensive end for the Denver Broncos, is more than twice my mass and at least 8 inches taller than me. Size difference. But is he any more human than I am? I don't think so!

I'm more developed than a ten-year old. Duh. But does that make me more human than that ten-year old? Or am I less human than a twenty-year old? No.

Environment - I just walked into my house after getting home from school a couple minutes ago. I changed environment. Same difference as moving eight inches from womb to the rest of the world - actually, it was a lot farther... so environment doesn't do it, obviously.

Dependency - a five year old is still pretty much entirely dependent on its parents, correct? Well, if so, then it's not human, by the common definition used by pro-abortionists (pro-choice doesn't seem to fit; the baby has no say at all in the matter about whether it gets to live the rest of its life or not). Someone with a bad case of diabetes is completely dependent on their medication to stay alive for any length of time. Does that mean that they're not human, and we can just kill them if they become inconvenient? Where's the line?

Either you protect all human life, or none.

razorace
01-23-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Artificial wombs would remove the problem. As long, that is, as the treatmen was free.

Yeah, and if it was a instantous, painless, surgery to remove the baby.

Hell, we can't even take care of all the babies that already exist!

And almost everything is NOT all or nothing. Morality in practice is very subjective.

Psydan
01-23-2003, 08:03 PM
Well, I don't know how many times I have made this point, but if the mother wants to kill the kid before it comes out of her, and before it can have any input, then it is okay. But if we don't abort the child, and the day after it is born an insane convict runs into the hospital and slits its throat, then it is a crime. If some mother goes crazy and kills her six-month-old infant, then she is locked away in a mental ward. SO WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS??? Because some people think that just because it is not fully developped it is not human. I totally disagree with this. When do we draw the line on life? If the child is aborted when it is only halfway out of the womb does that make it legal? I think that as soon as sperm meets egg, and the cell has 46 chromosomes then it is a child. If we do anything to willfully prevent the child from fully developing, and say that it was never human, then I think that is wrong, ITS MURDER!!! Is there one (logical) reason that the mother can kill the child while it's in the uterus? I don't think so.

razorace
01-23-2003, 08:44 PM
Fine, but how do you suggest we save all these unborn children?

TheWhiteRaider
01-24-2003, 12:52 AM
WHat happened to my 2? it was 25% not 5%.

For the most part Rape vitims are enjected with something to stop the sperm from merging with the Egg.

ShadowTemplar
01-29-2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
Is there one (logical) reason that the mother can kill the child while it's in the uterus? I don't think so.

Yes. As we have been trying to tell you all the way through, it DOESN'T HAVE A MIND. That's the difference.

Also: To all those antichoicers who have said "use the pill" or something to that effect: Remember that every hormonal or chemical treatment kills the foetus, by preventing it from settling itself in the womb. AND that takes place long after the conception, as anyone who has not slept through every Biology class should know.

This means that the only means of prevention that do not kill the foetus are the mechanical ones! This just goes to show that some people have been forcefed dogma and never bother to verify it or put it through a logical test.

Reborn Outcast
01-29-2003, 03:32 PM
Om I swore I wasn't going to get into thius debate again but I will pst one last thing. Has anyone here heard of partial-birth abortion. Its where a fetus is removed in the late stages of pregnancy. Its not as common but it still occurs a lot. THAT IS MURDER...



I'm not going to post again unless I really feel the need to.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Its where a fetus is removed in the late stages of pregnancy. Its not as common but it still occurs a lot. THAT IS MURDER...

More or less, yes. I agree.

But I hold the view that the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn baby's, and I suspect this type of abortion is only carried out in extreme cases where the mother's life is at risk.

I find it odd that these "pro-lifers" hold this extreme point of view, regarding life as sacred, on the one hand - yet on the other, most of them will gladly see Saddam removed from power and a few civilians casualties are deemed necessary as well, because it benefits the greater good.

Now how does an abortion not benefit the greater good? The mother's economy is saved and the world's population is held in check (saving millions).

I find it very odd that these pro-life people regard a tiny group of cells as sacred to the race of man, while at the same time contributing to the killing and death of a million others. In my opinion, these people don't see the whole picture.

Reborn Outcast
01-29-2003, 04:23 PM
The cells are sacred because without them, THE WOULD BE NOT HUMANS.

And read this website... all of it. (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html)

It talks about how CONGRESS VOTED IN 1995 TO BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BUT CLINTON VETO'D IT SO IT WAS NEVER PASSED. CONGRESS VOTED ON A 2-1 RATION FOR BANNING THE PRACTICE.


And now read this... its not long... only about 2 paragraphs. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf3.html)

And this... which is the number of abortions performed. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html) The second link is very short also.

C'jais
01-29-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
It talks about how CONGRESS VOTED IN 1995 TO BAN PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BUT CLINTON VETO'D IT SO IT WAS NEVER PASSED. CONGRESS VOTED ON A 2-1 RATION FOR BANNING THE PRACTICE.

I agree with Clinton's decision.

It's important to have this fail-safe when the mother's life is in danger.

And now read this... its not long... only about 2 paragraphs. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf3.html)

It tries to somehow make me feel sorry for aborting a fetus. Such a low ploy is cheap as ever.

I know that a fetus resembles a human after some time, but I'd much rather go with GonkH8er's deifition by using the same procedure for defining a dead person. "The heart is beating" - Bah! A beating heart does not make us human in any way. I'm thinking this site is full of Christian hogwash like it.


And this... which is the number of abortions performed. (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html) The second link is very short also.

Abortions are perfomed. Yes? About 1 million? Ok.

Do you want the numbers alone to make me feel sorry about my views?

The cells are sacred because without them, THE WOULD BE NOT HUMANS.

Yet most Americans compromise their "pro-life" stance by agreeing with the invasion of Iraq. How come an unborn fetus is much more worth than an Iraqi civilian? How come it's alright to compromise their principle when dealing with fetuses, but not when dealing with grown adults? Does this not show they agree it's sometimes necessary to terminate the lives of other humans?

I'm thinking it does.

Reborn Outcast
01-29-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
I agree with Clinton's decision.

It's important to have this fail-safe when the mother's life is in danger.


If you look at it that way then EVERY child would have to be aborted because the mother was "in a life threatening situation".

C'jais
01-29-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
If you look at it that way then EVERY child would have to be aborted because the mother was "in a life threatening situation".

Not really.

While every pregnancy bears the chance of the mother dying from it, you can also die from randomly tripping and breaking your neck.

What I meant with life-threatening is that if the baby's birth involves complications that endanger's the mother's life. Most do not.

Reborn Outcast
01-29-2003, 05:20 PM
You and me... backa at it again C'jais. :D

C'mon people join in. :D



Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

razorace
01-29-2003, 05:51 PM
sextuplets aren't a natural possibility to start with. Both couples were taking fertility drugs.

Breton
01-29-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

But what if she had died? Then all the children had to grow up without a mother. Sure, she was lucky this time, but what if she hadn't been? I really don't see why it's very loving to risk that 6 kids could be motherless.

About fetuses in general: If you put a beating, undenveloped heart in a box, would that be a human? No. If you put some tiny, undeveloped arm and legs onto it, would it be a human? No. If you make a face on it, would it be human? No. But if you put fully denveloped organs in it, plus fully functional arms, legs and such, make a fully denveloped head, and most important put a functional brain into it, would it then be human? Yes.

Originally posted by C'jais
Yet most Americans compromise their "pro-life" stance by agreeing with the invasion of Iraq. How come an unborn fetus is much more worth than an Iraqi civilian? How come it's alright to compromise their principle when dealing with fetuses, but not when dealing with grown adults? Does this not show they agree it's sometimes necessary to terminate the lives of other humans?

Duh! You see, those fetuses are American :rolleyes:

razorace
01-29-2003, 07:25 PM
Lets keep nationalism out of this please.

UgonDieFoo
01-30-2003, 03:24 AM
I was watching Star Trek: The Next Generation a few nights ago. The episode was about a scientist who wanted to disassemble Data in order to learn from him and perhaps construct many more androids like Data. Data did not want this to happen for fear that he might be destroyed or damaged or that he may lose the memories and experiences he had acquired, so he resigned from Star Fleet. The scientist then took the matter to court with the position that Data was simply a machine and that he could not resign from Star Fleet because he was property of Star Fleet.

Captain Picard, who was defending Data, asserted that while Data was a machine people are really machines too but just of a different type. Captain Picard also demonstrated that while Data was a machine by design, he could not be denied his rights as a Star Fleet Officer or as a human because it could not be determined if Data was really a sentient life form or just a machine.

Ultimately the judge ruled that Data was a machine, but he was not the property of Star Fleet and he was entitled to every right as a Star Fleet officer and as a human being. In her decision, the judge stated that the real issue at hand was whether or not Data had a soul. The judge admitted that she could not say whether or not Data had a soul or even if she or anyone else had a soul. Therefore, she decided that the court could not curtail Data’s rights or deem him as property because in doing so, the court would in effect be making a decision about something that it has no authority to make a decision about.

This episode of Star Trek really captures the central issue of the conflict over abortion. That issue is whether or not an unborn baby has a soul. For those who do not believe in souls, the conflict may also be restated as whether or not an unborn baby possesses whatever essence that separates humans from any other form of life on Earth.

In the case of Roe vs. Wade, the US Supreme Court decided that the states could not restrict a woman’s right to an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy. During the last trimester the states were granted the right, but not the obligation, to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion to only those cases where the health of the mother is jeopardized. Through this decision, the Supreme Court made a judgment not only on the rights of the states, but in effect made the judgment that unborn babies do not posses a human life. This can be inferred because the Constitution guarantees specific rights to all people who are citizens of the United States. By allowing abortion the US Supreme Court effectually decided that an unborn baby does not have a human life; therefore, does not posses any of the rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.

This is something that the Supreme Court had no authority to make a decision about, yet it did just that. It essentially decided that life does not begin for a baby until the moment it leaves the mother naturally. This is equivalent to saying that an unborn baby has no soul or does not posses whatever quality that makes a living being truly human. The example of the Star Trek episode serves to illustrate how the Roe vs. Wade decision leads to this conclusion. As we all should know, no individual, institution or government can decide on or draw a conclusion about something like that. Even the most qualified fields of knowledge, such as medicine, theology or philosophy cannot determine when an unborn child becomes human or if it has a soul. The Supreme Court especially has no business deciding on such matters that are so far beyond its authority and understanding. Also, the only powers the Supreme Court has are written in the Constitution. There is no clause in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly gives it the power to decide on the matters of the beginning of human life or whether or not an unborn child has a soul. Hence, the Supreme Court not only breached its intellectual and moral authority in the decision of Roe vs. Wade but it also breached its Constitutional powers.

Then what should the ruling have been? The only ruling the Supreme Court could have passed without breaching its Constitutional powers is that the willful or negligent destruction of an unborn baby is a criminal act. Not because destroying an unborn baby is taking a human life. As stated before, no one can determine that. However, the moment the Supreme Court fails to protect an unborn child at any stage in development is the moment it makes the decision about the beginning of human life and whether or not an unborn child has a soul. The Supreme Court has no authority to decide such things.

Although it would appear that this decision would completely inhibit a woman’s ability to have an abortion; that is not necessarily the case. Legally speaking, it would still be possible for a woman to terminate her pregnancy provided that every step necessary was taken to ensure the survival of the unborn child. This is a truly revolutionary idea; however, before I continue, let me address another issue first.

Some may think that this would defeat the purpose of having an abortion; and that is what the rage against abortion is all about. Abortion isn’t about the choice to terminate the pregnancy. It’s about the choice to terminate the unborn child. Pro choice women want to be able to destroy their unborn child if they desire. They want to not have to deal with the fact that their unwanted child is alive. This is demonstrated whenever a woman has an abortion, perhaps barring those situations when pregnancy threatens the mother’s health. Even when a woman argues in favor of abortion, they don’t discuss how they shouldn’t have to go through with a pregnancy if they don’t want to. They talk about how they shouldn’t have to have the child if they don’t want to.

I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy. I also believe that if a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy then she should not have to. But a woman’s right to her body means just that, her body. An unborn child is a separate entity altogether. A woman does not have an inherent right to destroy her unborn child, and any woman who does so that she does not have to “deal” with it being alive, is a disgusting and selfish individual.

Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea. If a woman wants an abortion then the unborn child should be removed from the womb but not destroyed. All necessary measures should then be taken to ensure the survival and development of the child outside of the mother. This may not be medically possible now, but then it should be made so it is. Perhaps some kind of artificial womb could be developed. If this were possible then it would be legal according to the Supreme Court decision proposed earlier and it might finally put an end to the controversy over abortion. The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

In conclusion, this is all a bunch of hypothetical junk, from beginning to end. All I really want is for people to see that it is not necessary to be either totally against abortion or for abortion. I especially want people who are pro life to see that arguing that abortion should be allowed provided that the unborn child is not destroyed is a much stronger position legally and morally than just saying that abortion must be stopped altogether. Well at least I think so.

razorace
01-30-2003, 04:46 AM
What?! An attempt at a constitutional arguement?! :shock: :D

Give me a sec to look up a copy of the constitution.

Ok, there's nothing in here that I can see that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. They're within their jurisdiction as the highest law in the law to interprete the Constitution with it's relation to abortion. This doesn't mean that that's the final word on the subject. Congress could make a law (or more likely to legally fly, a Constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. This hasn't occurred because in reality MOST people are in favor of abortions. Since the US is a democratic republic, that's the way it's going to stay until public opinion changes.

As for your "compromise", I think forcing a woman to carry a baby to term or having painful, perminately scarring/damaging surgery would easily count as "cruel and unusual punishment", which is flat out banned by the Constitution. Plus, who would care for these saved babies?

Breton
01-30-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by razorace
Lets keep nationalism out of this please.

:rolleyes:

One entry found for sarcastic.


Main Entry: sar·cas·tic
Pronunciation: sär-'kas-tik
Function: adjective
Date: 1695
1 : having the character of sarcasm <sarcastic criticism>
2 : given to the use of sarcasm : CAUSTIC <a sarcastic critic>
- sar·cas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
synonyms SARCASTIC, SATIRIC, IRONIC, SARDONIC mean marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing <a critic famous mainly for his sarcastic remarks>. SATIRIC implies that the intent of the ridiculing is censure and reprobation <a satiric look at contemporary sexual mores>. IRONIC implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying usually the opposite of what is meant <made the ironic observation that the government could always be trusted>. SARDONIC implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression <surveyed the scene with a sardonic smile>.


I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy. I also believe that if a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy then she should not have to. But a woman’s right to her body means just that, her body. An unborn child is a separate entity altogether. A woman does not have an inherent right to destroy her unborn child, and any woman who does so that she does not have to “deal” with it being alive, is a disgusting and selfish individual.

A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born. It can't think for itself, can it? Therefore, it is nothing more than any other part of a woman's body, such as an arm or a leg.

Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea. If a woman wants an abortion then the unborn child should be removed from the womb but not destroyed. All necessary measures should then be taken to ensure the survival and development of the child outside of the mother. This may not be medically possible now, but then it should be made so it is. Perhaps some kind of artificial womb could be developed. If this were possible then it would be legal according to the Supreme Court decision proposed earlier and it might finally put an end to the controversy over abortion. The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

Ok.....

So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

Reborn Outcast
01-30-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

Correction. Every kid is wanted somewhere. Adoption is always an option rather than abortion.

El Sitherino
01-30-2003, 09:09 PM
i still say why dont these people wanna adopt the unfortunate kids in china or africa? most of these people are white too,its the statistic so dont say anything about that. i think maybe they just want a white kid.

Tyrion
01-30-2003, 11:17 PM
Abortion is a rather touchy subject to me. When we get into the "alive" buisness,it get's weird. If a baby,just barely think,is alive enough not to be aborted,then why dont we save all the ants? They have brains(proboly as smart as 3 month babies) and we kill them without remorse. So what's the difference between them and 3-month babies? The fact that's one human's and one's not?

ShockV1.89
01-30-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
i still say why dont these people wanna adopt the unfortunate kids in china or africa?

Actually, me and my gf agreed that if she cant have kids (there's some question), then that's exactly what we'd do.

UgonDieFoo
01-31-2003, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by razorace
What?! An attempt at a constitutional arguement?! :shock: :D

Give me a sec to look up a copy of the constitution.

Ok, there's nothing in here that I can see that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. They're within their jurisdiction as the highest law in the law to interprete the Constitution with it's relation to abortion. This doesn't mean that that's the final word on the subject. Congress could make a law (or more likely to legally fly, a Constitutional amendment) to ban abortion. This hasn't occurred because in reality MOST people are in favor of abortions. Since the US is a democratic republic, that's the way it's going to stay until public opinion changes.

As for your "compromise", I think forcing a woman to carry a baby to term or having painful, perminately scarring/damaging surgery would easily count as "cruel and unusual punishment", which is flat out banned by the Constitution. Plus, who would care for these saved babies?

I agree that there is nothing in the Constitution that would imply that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to dictate legal policy for the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. But let’s get something strait first. The Constitution is what gives the Supreme Court its power. If there isn't anything in the Constitution that denies the Supreme Court a certain power, it does not mean that the Supreme Court can assume that power. The only powers that the Supreme Court has are those granted to it by the Constitution. Second, the Supreme Court does not dictate legal policy for the Constitution. It uses the Constitution, laws and other things to make its decisions. Third, you have implied that I argued that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution with its relation to abortion. This is not what I have argued.

Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would.

UgonDieFoo
01-31-2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
:

A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born. It can't think for itself, can it? Therefore, it is nothing more than any other part of a woman's body, such as an arm or a leg.

Ok.....

So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

I would sure like to know how the ability to think can determine whether or not an unborn child is part of its mother, like an arm or a leg.

By the way, all of modern medical science indicates that an unborn child is its own separate entity, from conception to birth and beyond. And you don't need a Phd in biology to understand that an unborn child isn't exactly the same thing as a arm, a leg or any other body part you can name...

razorace
01-31-2003, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
If there isn't anything in the Constitution that denies the Supreme Court a certain power, it does not mean that the Supreme Court can assume that power.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. They have the final say in all US legal matters. Roe vs. Wade brought abortion to them, they ruled. They're expected to make current interpretations of the words of the Constitution. That's their job. If Congress wanted to overrule the Supreme Court, they'd have to make a Constitutional amendment.
Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would. Abortions require no actual sincisions to be made. To successfully remove a fetus during the normal abortion time period would be next to impossible (since it's tiny and directly linked to the mother) and would take major lower andominal surgery (and therefore put the woman at risk). I don't believe that we could do it with even a remote chance of success. Sides, the fetus would just die soon after removal anyway.

daring dueler
01-31-2003, 05:10 PM
ok im all for women rites to choose but isnt that just a fancy name for murder i this situation-its all properganda-they have rites to choose like all people but does that mean its ok for women to kill a person grown up-they say its not a person yet but it has a heart beat and can react to is=ts envirnment and even think-so just because its not fully capable we can kill it rite ...no! ---people dont kill people if they have mental problems or are handicapped..c'mon people if you think killing an innocent baby is rite you got problems...another thing its imoral-now you may not stick to moral but do you murder--people who get abortions are usyally teens and people in there 20's because they arnt ready for a child but adoption is there -they only yime i can think of abortion being rite is if the women will die from either having the baby or medical complications from having him that will kill her........even if the baby will be sick or mentally challenged he will still live even if they will live to only 3 its still a life that could have meaning.

razorace
01-31-2003, 07:31 PM
It's easy to judge things as immoral when you're on the outside looking in.

daring dueler
01-31-2003, 09:57 PM
yes thats true but im not axactly a moral king-im not a bad person but ive done things that were not moral-i dont like to judge people, unless i do, and now i dont.

razorace
01-31-2003, 10:27 PM
Well, wanting to ban abortion is totally judging other people and making them do what you want them to do.

Reborn Outcast
02-01-2003, 11:17 AM
Ok razorace I believe that it was you who said on like page 1 or 2 of this thread that you could have died before being born if the doctors had done something to your mom.Now that you look at it, even though your mom could have been in danger because of you, would you have wanted her to have an abortion? Then you wouldn't be in this world.

Darklighter
02-01-2003, 12:05 PM
I simply believe that people should be given the choice to have a baby if they become pregnant, especially in this day and age when there has been an explosion in the number of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. If abortion was illegal, and the mother didn't want the baby, do you think the baby would live a happy life after it was born?

vegietto
02-01-2003, 12:50 PM
i think it is wrong atleast if u don't want the kid then give it to someone else don't kill it it is a human being i mean that is just wrong if u ask me but u didn't so who cares

Master_Keralys
02-02-2003, 01:25 PM
I am completely pro-choice - the choice whether or not to have sex, and thus get yourself pregnant. But you don't have the choice to commit murder. If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex. That way, there's no problem with the woman getting pregnant; she won't. And you're not killing something quite alive. Whoever said that they're not thinking by the time most abortions happened - you're wrong. The brain is functioning by six weeks I think is the right time. And most abortions happen after that because most women don't know they're pregnant till shortly before then. The ants argument is different too - ants are not human. Human life is viewed as precious in most civilized cultures around the world. Ants' lives are not. Why? Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex.

And you think this will somehow change for the better in the future? According to this view, the world is going to Hell. Fast.

Sex is a primitive thing. Sex between apes and humans (not that way) has taken on the role of enjoyment and past time. It strengthens the community, and a great way to enjoy yourself. This is how it has always been, like it or not, except during the puritanical 19th century.

I'm just going to sit back and watch as abortions get more and more common, and that populations in China and India rise to the point of massive starvation without abortion. The future is surely looking bleak for those who claim the moral high ground in this matter. Nothing but death and suffering for those who succesfully gets rid of abortions in the aforementioned countries.

ShockV1.89
02-02-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex.

It's real, real easy to say that from an outside point of view. Harder to actually follow through with it.

Abstinence... a perfect method of prevention... but really, it's no fun at all.

Master_Keralys
02-02-2003, 01:57 PM
Not entirely true. A lot of the people I know have already had sex; I have no problem waiting. It really comes down to your morality and whether you've got the guts to stick with your values.

But my point is, if you don't want the baby, don't put yourself in a situation where you're probably going to get it. Don't buy something if you're not willing to pay the cost, if you get my meaning. In other words, don't have sex if you're not willing to have a baby, because your only other option at that point is murder.

ShockV1.89
02-02-2003, 02:41 PM
I have no problem waiting.

How many times have you actually been put into the situation?

Try going to a club sometime. Have a girl grinding up against you, whispering stuff in your ear. Get some alcohol into your system. See how fast your "morals" get washed away.

Not putting yourself in the situation... well, youd be surprised how often the situation can arise, even at the most unexpected moments.

I guess it's different with different people.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
I guess it's different with different people.

These different, morally superior people are also blissfully unaware that literally thousands of people are dying of starvation and horrible sanitation in India and China because they're simpoly too many people.

For them, it's not about being morally decadent and having sex all the time, but the mere fact that if they don't have children, even more people are going to die because there'll be no one to feed the old people any more.

Abortion helps though - it cuts down on the family size and helps save thousands of lives in the long run.

Tyrion
02-02-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The ants argument is different too - ants are not human. Human life is viewed as precious in most civilized cultures around the world. Ants' lives are not. Why? Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.

Oh? In buddhist(Or something,whichever that karate guy in "Karate Kid III: :D),a roach(not much different from an ant,mentally) is sacred. They believe all life is sacred. We,on the other hand, think that we are the most sacred being in the world.

(What I think of the meaning of life)

The ability to comprehend one's existance.

Babies cannot do that,so to me,they arent really alive and such.

(Bah,I'm just rambling..)

Reborn Outcast
02-02-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
These different, morally superior people are also blissfully unaware that literally thousands of people are dying of starvation and horrible sanitation in India and China because they're simpoly too many people.

For them, it's not about being morally decadent and having sex all the time, but the mere fact that if they don't have children, even more people are going to die because there'll be no one to feed the old people any more.

Abortion helps though - it cuts down on the family size and helps save thousands of lives in the long run.

What are you talking about? Are you saying now that its better to have sex and children so they can feed old people but you still want abortion? Or maybe I am just reading your reply wrong.

C'jais
02-02-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
What are you talking about? Are you saying now that its better to have sex and children so they can feed old people but you still want abortion? Or maybe I am just reading your reply wrong.

'Thing is, they're simply too many people.

It will cause lots and lots of fatalities if they suddenly decided to simply stop breeding.

It will cause even more if they decided to breed the way they've always done. In the long run.

It will cause less if they decide to get abortions to take care of unwanted pregnancies. It will help make a better future for the next generations.

And no, it's not silly teenage pregnancies I'm talking about here. It's between grown men and women who apparently find it hard to resist the urge to reproduce "for fun".

Abortion helps keep the family size to a minimum.

Reborn Outcast
02-02-2003, 03:37 PM
Thats why the condom was invented. It has like a 98% chance of working so for those who want to have sex and not have children, they should use em. (I'm talking about the adults)

C'jais
02-02-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Thats why the condom was invented. It has like a 98% chance of working so for those who want to have sex and not have children, they should use em. (I'm talking about the adults)

Sadly, these countries have not yet been enlightened in The Way of The Condom.

They're still brutal savages who like to have sex first, and then remove the unwanted pregnancy if it's a girl, for example.

razorace
02-02-2003, 05:13 PM
My understand is that the brain doesn't start producing human brainwaves til the third trimester. That's why a lot of legal stuff kicks in at that time.

__CKY__
02-02-2003, 07:24 PM
I Agee.

ShadowTemplar
02-03-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Tyrion
They believe all life is sacred.

And run into a paradox, real, real quick.

Tyrion
02-03-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
And run into a paradox, real, real quick.

Whatcha mean?

Master_Keralys
02-03-2003, 12:49 PM
What do you define as "human" brainwaves? Where is the level where they're not human anymore? Because some Alzheimers' patients have lower brainwave function that those first trimester babies. But we don't kill them for research.

ShadowTemplar
02-03-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And read this website... all of it. (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html)

Oh, please. Why don't you at least try to come up with a site that tells the facts first, and its opinions second, with a clear line between the two. This is how descent people do. It makes it easier to both judge and use the material (since you know the opinions of the writer, but you don't have to sift the facts from the opinions).

What this site shows is a text-book example of how not to publish stuff, which can be said for the great, great majority of anti-choice and anti-evolution websites. Flashy, unrelated pics, text that mingles fact and opinion, little or no documentation, ect, ect. That's bad practice, which every graduate of High School or above should know.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

Your point being?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Duh! You see, those fetuses are American :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think that that was kinda the point he was trying to make...

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
For those who do not believe in souls, the conflict may also be restated as whether or not an unborn baby possesses whatever essence that separates humans from any other form of life on Earth.

Overdeveloped cognitive abilities. But they don't develop until the age of about one, so that's not where to place the line.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
By allowing abortion the US Supreme Court effectually decided that an unborn baby does not have a human life

[...]

This is something that the Supreme Court had no authority to make a decision about, yet it did just that.

No. Logical flaw. The issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. They can only decide whether to treat something as life/unlife. The question of life/unlife can only be answered scientifically, which coincidentially happens to agree with the SC. But if the SC had decided otherwise, then it wouldn't have meant that foetuses posessed human life. Therefore the SC didn't decide whether the foetus is human or not.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
It essentially decided that life does not begin for a baby until the moment it leaves the mother naturally.

No. 1) It said nothing about the beginning of human life, only about the beginning of legal protection. 2) It stated that it was up to the individual states to block abortion after the start of the third trimester, effectively granting legal protection to foetuses 3 months before they left the womb, exept in cases where they were a direct threat to the mother.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
This is equivalent to saying that an unborn baby has no soul or does not posses whatever quality that makes a living being truly human.

False. The SC only decides on legal rights. See above. And no human has a soul.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Even the most qualified fields of knowledge, such as medicine, theology or philosophy cannot determine when an unborn child becomes human or if it has a soul.

I must strongly object to the placement of a scientific field (Medicine) in league with such nonsense as Theology or Philosophy. And Medicine can quite certainly determine that no human has a soul. The mind is in the brain. Many functions have even been located.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court especially has no business deciding on such matters that are so far beyond its authority and understanding.

That's why they (hopefully) consult medical experts (and kick any theological "experts" back to wherever they came from).

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Also, the only powers the Supreme Court has are written in the Constitution. There is no clause in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly gives it the power to decide on the matters of the beginning of human life or whether or not an unborn child has a soul. Hence, the Supreme Court not only breached its intellectual and moral authority in the decision of Roe vs. Wade but it also breached its Constitutional powers.

You cannot define "moral authority" objectively. Therefore the SC cannot have breached it. The human doesn't have a soul. Period. Therefore the SC doesn't need to decide whether it has or not.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Then what should the ruling have been? The only ruling the Supreme Court could have passed without breaching its Constitutional powers is that the willful or negligent destruction of an unborn baby is a criminal act. Not because destroying an unborn baby is taking a human life. As stated before, no one can determine that. However, the moment the Supreme Court fails to protect an unborn child at any stage in development is the moment it makes the decision about the beginning of human life and whether or not an unborn child has a soul. The Supreme Court has no authority to decide such things.

By saying that the foetus must be protected at all cost, the SC would take a stand. And again: There is no such thing as "soul".

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Although it would appear that this decision would completely inhibit a woman’s ability to have an abortion; that is not necessarily the case. Legally speaking, it would still be possible for a woman to terminate her pregnancy provided that every step necessary was taken to ensure the survival of the unborn child. This is a truly revolutionary idea; however, before I continue, let me address another issue first.

Show me something that indicates that such treatments are on the marked.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Some may think that this would defeat the purpose of having an abortion;

[...]

They talk about how they shouldn’t have to have the child if they don’t want to.

And so what? The foetus is not a human by any standard.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy.

[...]

An unborn child is a separate entity altogether.

No. It is part of the mother's blood circulation, for one thing.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea.

[...]

The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

What revolutionary idea? And since it isn't possible now, put it back into the drawer until it is.

Oh, and to this whole SC-is-in-no-position-to-do-this-according-to-Constitution:

1) Isn't the SC supposed to be the guys and gals who interpret the Constitution?

2) This thread is about whether it should be legal/ is morally justifiable, not what the law actually says on the subject.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Correction. Every kid is wanted somewhere. Adoption is always an option rather than abortion.

And for every couple that wants to adopt there are three third-world kids ready. At least. Because some sonofagoat *coughthePopecough* banned condoms.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would.

And I can hardly imagine anything less harmfull than a hormonal cure, that causes the body to reject the foetus. How was it again that your magical treatment worked?

Originally posted by daring dueler
but it has a heart beat and can react to is=ts envirnment and even think

The foetus fulfills the braindead criteria until the start of the third trimester, according to GonkH8ter. And it doesn't have lungfunctions until shortly before birth. Surely something that won't breathe for another six months can't be living?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Now that you look at it, even though your mom could have been in danger because of you, would you have wanted her to have an abortion? Then you wouldn't be in this world.

Populistic argument. Discard at will.

Originally posted by Darklighter
If abortion was illegal, and the mother didn't want the baby, do you think the baby would live a happy life after it was born?

Or, more to the point: Do you really think that it would be allowed to survive? In countries where abortion is outlawed you see a sharp rise in the number of infanticides.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Whoever said that they're not thinking by the time most abortions happened - you're wrong. The brain is functioning by six weeks I think is the right time.

[...]

Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.


*PMs Gonk*

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
What do you define as "human" brainwaves? Where is the level where they're not human anymore? Because some Alzheimers' patients have lower brainwave function that those first trimester babies. But we don't kill them for research.

GonkH8ter has something to say to that, I think. Besides, abortion isn't for research.

Whatcha mean?

Humans see "life" getting killed all around them. Are they to stop the plants from being consumed? But that would kill the herbivores, ect. Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

Woops! A double Redwing, I think... Sovvy.

Luc Solar
02-03-2003, 03:40 PM
Okay. I just have to say that I object to the way things are portrayed on this site:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html

Blend facts with mambo-jambo and opinions... that pisses me off.

For christ sakes; people should be RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE when making decisions.

What kind of crap is this?! -->

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/graphics/pbabort5.gif

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/graphics/pbabort4.gif

I could give a similar detailed description about normal childbirth:

A woman is bleeding and sweating in terrible agony and her vagina is torn apart by the ruthless infant trying to get out. The doctor takes a long pointy mean-looking evil metallic object and shoves it right through the silky skin of the innocent mother in horrible pain injecting strange mind-affecting fluids inside her veins - now would you really want children to be born would you, huh!? How could you do that to this poor woman? Can you picture her looking at you with her beautiful bright blue eyes just as she is about to DIE in PAIN?

Vote Ban Childbirth NOW! Remember; she SCREAMING in AGONY in a pile of gooey entrails and blood and sticky stuff and it's all because of the CRUEL BABY!!

ARG! :mad:


EDIT: I assume the site was about abortions that are done very late during the pregnancy. I have strong objections about that as has our laws. But my point still stands; the technical details have no relevance whatsoever, and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame. :mad:

C'jais
02-03-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame.

LOL! All too true.

When they start to make demagogic preachings like this, they know their case is not backed up by fact.

If you can't convince the opponent with rational arguments and facts, you know your case is weak.

Well said.

leXX
02-03-2003, 08:00 PM
Well it might surprise everyone here to know that I have had 2 abortions. :eek: Yes, shock horror.

My dad is a very strict scottish man, he beat us with a bamboo stick up to the age of 12. When I was a teenager (I'm 31 now), me and my sister were told in no uncertain terms that if we ever got pregnant before marraige, we would be out on the street and disowned.

When I was 17 I met a boy and we both fell in love instantly. One day passion got the better of us and unfortunately the condom split. I can't even begin to discribe the horror. I was young, he was young with no viable income, I would be homeless and disowned. Basically, it would completely ruin my life to have a baby at that age. Not only that but I didn't have the first clue how to look after a baby. I cried non-stop for over a week torturing myself with the dilema of what to do. I certainly didn't want an abortion but I just could'nt see any other choice. The child would live in poverty. I finally came to the hardest decision of my life and had an abortion. My parents knew nothing.

6 years later I was still with the same boy and on new years eve we had sex. When he removed himself, the condom stayed in me. That night he decided to confess to me that he had slept with my best friend. I had stayed faithful to him so you can imagine my depression that followed. A couple of weeks later I found out I was pregnant. Now this time it was different, I could support the child should I choose to have it but it would have no father. I met up with some friends a few days later and one of my friends that I had known for over a year confessed his love for me (my husband). We started to date and I told him I was pregnant by my ex-boyfriend. He said something astounding to me even now. He said he would stand by me whether I chose to have the baby or not. Now this bought a different light on the matter, I was falling in love. Would I want this man to look after someone elses child? No. This will sound unbelievable to most I know, but I knew this man was the one I would marry. There was only one choice, abortion. I told my parents the whole story and my mum said something I will never forget...'I wouldn't have his child'. This put the icing on the cake, she was right. Why should I bring my ex-boyfriends child into the world.

Now, I don't care whether any of you think what I did was wrong or not, I'm just telling my story. Making the decisions to have those abortions was the hardest decisions I have ever had to make but I don't regret those decisions one bit, no matter how guilty I still feel to this day. I read all the literature I could read at the time and I convinced myself that those babies were not alive and I will still convince myself that they were not alive because if I don't, I will surely go mad.

Try not to judge people when you cannot possibly imagine what it is like to be in that situation. At the end of the day, there are many different reasons why a woman has an abortion and it certainly isn't right to just say...'it's wrong'.

ShadowTemplar
02-04-2003, 11:56 AM
Touching. Well, I, and GonkH8er, and others, can tell you with complete certainty that the baby is:

Alive

and

Braindead.

If it was the victim of a traffic accident, then we would have no compunction about ripping it for organ transplants (which is why the opposition to stem cell research is just plain silly, but that's just going off a tangent).

UgonDieFoo
02-05-2003, 03:00 PM
Overdeveloped cognitive abilities. But they don't develop until the age of about one, so that's not where to place the line.

That is what you decided separates humans from any form of life on earth. Hence, it is not the flaw in my argument to place the "line" where I have.

No. Logical flaw. The issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. They can only decide whether to treat something as life/unlife. The question of life/unlife can only be answered scientifically, which coincidentially happens to agree with the SC. But if the SC had decided otherwise, then it wouldn't have meant that foetuses posessed human life. Therefore the SC didn't decide whether the foetus is human or not.

You are correct in saying that the issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. But the court has effectually decided when human life begins. They may not have expressed it but it is still indicated by their decision. The issue of when human life begins cannot be answered scientifically. Science can only show when life begins, not humanity. Science does not support the Supreme Court's decision.

No. 1) It said nothing about the beginning of human life, only about the beginning of legal protection. 2) It stated that it was up to the individual states to block abortion after the start of the third trimester, effectively granting legal protection to foetuses 3 months before they left the womb, exept in cases where they were a direct threat to the mother.

Again the court may not have expressly stated when human life begins, but through their decision they have. And the Supreme Court did not give the states the obligation to block abortions after the third trimester, but the choice. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not grant legal protection to unborn children in the last trimester, because legal protection would mean that there wouldn't be any choice.

False. The SC only decides on legal rights. See above. And no human has a soul.

It is your belief that no human has a soul. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul or deny it.

I must strongly object to the placement of a scientific field (Medicine) in league with such nonsense as Theology or Philosophy. And Medicine can quite certainly determine that no human has a soul. The mind is in the brain. Many functions have even been located.

One of the basic principals of philosophy is that scientific evidence is one of the best reasons as to why we should believe something is true. In fact, understanding philosophy is key to understanding why we should generally reject beliefs that lack scientific evidence and endorse those that are supported by science and other credible resources. Logic falls under Philosophy and it teaches what kinds of arguments are valid and what arguments violate the laws of logic and are fallacious. Theology as a whole is responsible for providing moral outlines that governments use to pass laws that are fair and moral. There is nothing that is nonsense about theology or philosophy. Finally, the assertion that medicine can determine no human has a soul is laughable. Science deals only with perceivable phenomena.

You cannot define "moral authority" objectively. Therefore the SC cannot have breached it. The human doesn't have a soul. Period. Therefore the SC doesn't need to decide whether it has or not.

You don't have to define moral authority objectively to see the Supreme Court has breached it. The Supreme Court has no place making a moral decision whatsoever. Their function is to enforce the laws and the Constitution. Again, it is you assertion that humans do not have souls.

By saying that the foetus must be protected at all cost, the SC would take a stand. And again: There is no such thing as "soul".

You contradict your own argument here. You have stated that the Supreme Court only decides whether or not to treat something as life/unlife. This is inconsistent with the assertion you make here that the Supreme Court would be taking a stand. The Supreme Court's obligation is to see to it that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights. In protecting an unborn child the Supreme Court ensures that this is done, considering that it can't be determined if an unborn child really has a human life. By not protecting an unborn child they fail to ensure that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

If the Supreme Court were obligated to ensure that non people were denied Constitutional rights, then you would have a valid point in saying the Supreme Court was taking a stand by protecting unborn children. But this is not so. By protecting unborn children, the Supreme Court would be deciding to treat an unborn child as though it were alive in a legal sense. This is in agreement with your original point.


And so what? The foetus is not a human by any standard.

An unborn child possess all the genetic material that defines humanity. Is there a better scientific standard that can be found than this?

What revolutionary idea? And since it isn't possible now, put it back into the drawer until it is.

The idea that abortion does not necessarily have to entail the destruction of a fetus in a logical or perhaps a medical sense. If it stays in the draw, it will never become possible. So as for your suggestion, no.

1) Isn't the SC supposed to be the guys and gals who interpret the Constitution?

Yep, and they must also abide by it.

2) This thread is about whether it should be legal/ is morally justifiable, not what the law actually says on the subject.

And this is why...?

And I can hardly imagine anything less harmfull than a hormonal cure, that causes the body to reject the foetus. How was it again that your magical treatment worked?

A quotation from Justice Blackmun's opinion in the decision of Roe vs Wade reads, "Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."

That was in the 1970's. So what are you basing your opinion on?

Oh and its not my treatment. I just considered the idea. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for making up the procedure.

daring dueler
02-14-2003, 03:58 PM
today in theology class we watched an abortion-it was apoling if the person saw it they would never do it. we had 1 kid faint!. they literally stuck in a tool and pulled the baby apart, i saw the bady get ripped apart, the head ....squashed. i felt sick.

Reborn Outcast
02-14-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by daring dueler
today in theology class we watched an abortion-it was apoling if the person saw it they would never do it. we had 1 kid faint!. they literally stuck in a tool and pulled the baby apart, i saw the bady get ripped apart, the head ....squashed. i felt sick.

Yep I believe thats what happens which makes it so wrong.

daring dueler
02-14-2003, 04:38 PM
yeah its awful. they hide behind saying its not life yet or its only potential life but its always a life even in there. we saw the baby moving , reacting. the baby feels pain. and its illegal to "abort" or i say kill a baby over 7 months yet its ok if its less than 6 and babies have been born at 5 months. i always new it was bad and awful and how they did it, but the movie really changed me. and when they are donr the put the remains in a bucket. they showd them rip him out peice by peace and put him down in a bucket of blood i could see feet, hands, what was left of a ravaged head. i felt sick and i fell bad for the kid who passed out. our teacher said dont look if you cant but its undertnadable why he fainted.

Luc Solar
02-14-2003, 04:57 PM
:D

A wise man once said:

Originally posted by Luc Solar
For christ sakes; people should be RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE when making decisions.

...

I could give a similar detailed description about normal childbirth:

A woman is bleeding and sweating in terrible agony and her vagina is torn apart by the ruthless infant trying to get out. The doctor takes a long pointy mean-looking evil metallic object and shoves it right through the silky skin of the innocent mother in horrible pain injecting strange mind-affecting fluids inside her veins - now would you really want children to be born would you, huh!? How could you do that to this poor woman? Can you picture her looking at you with her beautiful bright blue eyes just as she is about to DIE in PAIN?

Vote Ban Childbirth NOW! Remember; she SCREAMING in AGONY in a pile of gooey entrails and blood and sticky stuff and it's all because of the CRUEL BABY!!

...But my point still stands; the technical details have no relevance whatsoever, and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame. :mad:

daring dueler
02-14-2003, 05:20 PM
yeah the mother is too in pain its horrible she could die too. sounds fun eh. i couldnt live with myself if i did that although im not a women.

Psydan
02-15-2003, 01:26 AM
Wow, that's all I can say to anyone who supports abortion. I think that any killing of life is wrong, plain and simple. Are bounty hunters/ hired assassins legal? Why then are things like killing innocent, unborn babies, and assisted suicide legal? Why am I insane and doing something illegal if I kill for fun (serial killers), but a normal, though slightly controvertial person if I kill unborn children for money? BTW, has anyone ever read about Partial birth Abortions? DISGUSTING is what they are, and I won't go into it. THere is a heartbeat at three weeks, does that imply life? Or would people rather say no, and continue to act like nothing is wrong with abortion?

ShadowTemplar
02-15-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
That is what you decided separates humans from any form of life on earth. Hence, it is not the flaw in my argument to place the "line" where I have.

No, the flaw in your argument is that you assume that there is such a thing as 'soul'.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
It is your belief that no human has a soul. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul or deny it.

You are abusing science to the point of being a fraud. There is no observational evidence that it does exist, therefore it is safe to assume that it does not. That's what science says.

And I must insist that you desist relating the word "belief" to my person. I have no beliefs. I am a free thinker, not oppressed by the dogma implied by faith. I will not bow to faith. Not your, not anybody else's. I bow only to facts. And the facts do not say that humans have a soul. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever for me to work on the assumption that they do.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Logic falls under Philosophy and it teaches what kinds of arguments are valid and what arguments violate the laws of logic and are fallacious.

Logic is an independent dicipline that you can practice without the thought-control/oppression of philosophical bullsnot. In fact logic is also a mathematical dicipline, and Math hardly falls under philosophy.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Theology as a whole is responsible for providing moral outlines that governments use to pass laws that are fair and moral.

Theology is the study of religion, from an 'inside' perspective (litterally: Diety-knowledge). Since religion is useless bullsnot, so is theology.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Finally, the assertion that medicine can determine no human has a soul is laughable. Science deals only with perceivable phenomena.

Yes, science deals with what can be percieved. When it cannot be percieved, then it's not there. Period. Your flawed logic is tantamount to saying that because a pig flying under its own power has never been observed, science cannot say that pigs can't fly under their own power.

When a hypothesis is being tested in order to become a theory it is evaluated chiefly based on observational evidence. If there is no such, then the hypothesis is rejected.

So, take the hypothesis that there is such a thing as 'soul'. We will now test it. Evidence for it: None. Therefore it is a false hypothesis. Discard it. Saying that there has to be evidence against it is asking for proof of the negative, which is logically impossible. Therefore humans have no souls.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
You don't have to define moral authority objectively to see the Supreme Court has breached it.

No. That's the whole trick. You have to define moral authority subjectively in order to see that SC has breached it, because it cannot be defined objectively. But since your definition is a subjective one, any other holds equal value. Therefore you cannot use it to back your arguments.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court has no place making a moral decision whatsoever.

Correct. However they did not. They said that there is no evidence that the foetus is human, and therefore should not be treated as one.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
You contradict your own argument here. You have stated that the Supreme Court only decides whether or not to treat something as life/unlife. This is inconsistent with the assertion you make here that the Supreme Court would be taking a stand.

Gah, you're right. What I was trying to point out was the logical flaw in your argument. By your logic the decision would be a stand on life/unlife, regardless of what the outcome was. What I was trying to say is that you cannot suddenly start discriminating between the decision that you agree with and the one you do not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly enough.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court's obligation is to see to it that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

Keyword: People.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
In protecting an unborn child the Supreme Court ensures that this is done, considering that it can't be determined if an unborn child really has a human life. By not protecting an unborn child they fail to ensure that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

Benefit of the doubt, you suggest, yes? The logical flaw in your argument is that there is very strong evidence against the foetus being a human being. So in effect there is no doubt.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
If the Supreme Court were obligated to ensure that non people were denied Constitutional rights, then you would have a valid point in saying the Supreme Court was taking a stand by protecting unborn children.

Bullsnot. If the Constitution was to outline all of the creatures that didn't benefit from Constitutional Rights, then it would have taken a thousand times a thousand years to pen (imagine the text: "...Anthrax is also not protected by the rights outlined within this document, Cows are also not protected by the rights outlined within this document...).

The law is for humans, save where it specifically states otherwise. The foetus is not human, and the laws that you refer to do not specifically mention foetuses. Therefore the foetus does not benefit from the law.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
An unborn child possess all the genetic material that defines humanity. Is there a better scientific standard that can be found than this?

Brainwaves. The foetus fulfills the braindead criteria until the start of the third trimester. If it was a grown adult we would be ripping it of organs, not sitting down having a comitee about it.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The idea that abortion does not necessarily have to entail the destruction of a fetus in a logical or perhaps a medical sense. If it stays in the draw, it will never become possible. So as for your suggestion, no.

Research should always be conducted. What I meant was that you cannot incorporate an undeveloped method into your laws/world veiw.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."

That was in the 1970's. So what are you basing your opinion on?

What I said: Hormonal cures. You can make the body reject the foetus as foreign tissue. Piece of cake. That's how P-pills work.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Oh and its not my treatment. I just considered the idea. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for making up the procedure.

Point taken. See above.

To evaluate both of your posts:

1) You need to learn the difference between positive and negative evidence.

2) You need to remove your faith from this debate if you want anybody to take you seriously.

3) You need to read up on what Philosopy and Theology are. Both are useless, and cannot be used to back up arguments.

The rest of the thread:

The movie showed abortion performed in the third trimester. This is only done when the life of the mother is on the line, or the foetus is irrepairably damaged. Showing such a movie at school without telling the whole story is biased and immoral at best and in direct violation of standing law at worst.

And the silly "heartbeat makes the critter human" crap: Ditch it!

Surely something is not human until it breathes, right? Have you ever seen a living human being that didn't breathe.

Now what is wrong with the above? That I am drawing an arbitrary line that I only place there because that placement supports my view.

Heartbeat can be created in a petri dish or mechanically induced in a dead body, and it would still be a perfectly normal heartbeat. So you cannot use heartbeat to determine human life.

The foetus is braindead. In the other end of the system it would be thrown out with the trash after it had been ripped of all useful parts. So go fight for braindead people's rights to continue living instead... :rolleyes:

Reborn Outcast
02-15-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You are abusing science to the point of being a fraud. There is no observational evidence that it does exist, therefore it is safe to assume that it does not. That's what science says.

Lol yet this is what a theory of the Big Bang states that there is "dark matter" in the universe that has never been seen or even found, so therefore it must be wrong.

ShockV1.89
02-16-2003, 11:52 AM
Careful, Shadow... hundreds of years ago, there was no tangible evidence that Pluto or Neptune existed... that certainly didnt mean they werent there.

There are many things science hasnt discovered yet. That doesnt mean that they're not there. On things that are conceivable yet undiscovered, I stand neutral.

ShadowTemplar
02-20-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Lol yet this is what a theory of the Big Bang states that there is "dark matter" in the universe that has never been seen or even found, so therefore it must be wrong.

I don't know the Big Bang theory very well, but there is observational evidence that suggests the existence of Dark Matter (movement of stellar bodies that could not be explained with conventional Newtonian dynamics, ect). So it can be 'seen' by our measurement instruments.

Careful, Shadow... hundreds of years ago, there was no tangible evidence that Pluto or Neptune existed... that certainly didnt mean they werent there.

No, but it meant that, at that time, you could safely work from the knowledge that they weren't there. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't go looking for them, but it certainly does mean that you shouldn't make a law that says: "We must colonize Pluto!", which is the equivalent of what you are doing if you protect someone's 'soul' in the law.