Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/25/08 07:17 PM, Doublelinked wrote: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia prone to errors due to its source a Wiki hence the name.
Plus being a controversial topic I don't doubt that page being changed at least once a week.

oh for the love of shit. did a whole bunch of you people just start an introduction to college English or something? i've never seen so many "der... wikipedia no is reliable source, shows me smarter than yous" on the BBS at one time. no shit its not an academic source but this is a fucking internet forum and people are linking to it for simple things, get over yourselves for Christ sake.

At 2/25/08 04:09 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/25/08 01:29 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/25/08 01:08 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote: Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

You could make the EXACT same argument to legalize suicide. Smart move.

So, when it all comes down, you aren't in charge of your own body?

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. In the United States - attempting suicide is a direct violation of the law. People who are seen as a danger to themselves are also the people most likely to become a danger to others (ask a psychologist). If you attempt suicide you will be arrested and put in a mandatory psychiatric hold for evaluation for a set period of time after which you cannot own or buy a firearm for a number years after. For you to twist my words to make it seem that me insinuating suicide is wrong equates to having zero control over our bodies is not only unfounded but almost makes it seem like you've got some kind of agenda.

That's so bullshit. The only agenda I can see her is your wish to paint my argument black by attacking me.

If you do not have the choice to end your life, perhaps the thing that is the most yours of all the things you posses, then you have no control of your body. It's as simple as that. This life is not yours to end. It does not belong to you.

Saying that it poses a danger to other is flawed. If it wasn't illegal, people could comit suicide problaby with the assistance of a doctor, in which it wouldn't fail, and they wouldn't be alive to pose a danger.

It all comes down to if your are allowed to end your own life or not. If you are not, you are obviously not completely in charge of your own life.

Anyone knows you can essentially take two paths with any argument - the semantic, sophistic lawyer route where you try to trip people up in their words or a route where you state facts to back up a particular viewpoint while not trying to be overtly clever. I'll pretend it wasn't a rhetorical question and answer that - No - We are in control to a certain extent. What if you have cancer? Are you in control then? That's your body too. Why don't you just fix it? I mean - it is YOUR cancer.

First of all, as you might see, my argument is quite easy and clear.
Secondly, cancer isn't something you can choose to have or not have.

At 2/26/08 02:41 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/25/08 04:09 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: ...for you to twist my words to make it seem that me insinuating suicide is wrong equates to having zero control over our bodies is not only unfounded but almost makes it seem like you've got some kind of agenda.

That's so bullshit. The only agenda I can see her is your wish to paint my argument black by attacking me.

By suggesting that you might have a subterfuge for all this - it has then counted as an attack? That's kinda rich.

If you do not have the choice to end your life, perhaps the thing that is the most yours of all the things you posses, then you have no control of your body.

Right. That's why I am here telling my fingers to type a bunch of letters onto an LCD screen at 50wpm. Bruce Lee exhibited a pretty decent amount of control over his body. Sword swallowers, people who walk on hot coals, and houdini also had a decent amount of control over their bodies.

It's as simple as that. This life is not yours to end. It does not belong to you.

But...that's a bad thing? If it is your belief that there is nothing wrong with suicide at all you could just come out and say it. No need to be embarrassed.

Saying that it poses a danger to other is flawed. If it wasn't illegal, people could comit suicide problaby with the assistance of a doctor, in which it wouldn't fail, and they wouldn't be alive to pose a danger.

The point here is that people who are mentally unstable to the point where they would actually kill themselves often are in danger of becoming so completely reckless so as not to care for the lives of others as well. I guess you've never known someone who attempted suicide before or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I know those who have never had friends who took their own lives can't realize the kind of condition that someone has to be in before even considering to do such a thing. Believe me - it's ugly. You don't want to go there. You don't want to be at that edge - it is a very very nasty place. And it is exactly WHY people want to kill themselves - to get away from it. I have known people that have killed themselves, attempted to kill themselves and failed multiple times, put bottles of windex in front of themselves with a glass ready to simply give it all up, and so much more. You know the same type of emotion that I hear described each time by someone who has been there? Insanity. Absolute daftness.

Committing suicide is not some hip pop-culture ghetto-fabulous lifestyle-fun choice. It happens because people literally get taken over by something that serves as the mental, spiritual and emotional equivalent of satan himself - and that's not a fun trip to the park. Suicide is not "cool" and it's not "in". Ask someone who has tried it and woke up in the hospital after dying. NOT FUN.

It all comes down to if your are allowed to end your own life or not. If you are not, you are obviously not completely in charge of your own life.

I'm not going to lie. This is a very sick argument. I don't care if it counts as an attack. Maybe if I had never known people who would have still been my friends had they not killed themselves I would have some less abrasive words for you. But I know better. I've been there.

At 2/26/08 06:32 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/26/08 02:41 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/25/08 04:09 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: ...for you to twist my words to make it seem that me insinuating suicide is wrong equates to having zero control over our bodies is not only unfounded but almost makes it seem like you've got some kind of agenda.

That's so bullshit. The only agenda I can see her is your wish to paint my argument black by attacking me.

By suggesting that you might have a subterfuge for all this - it has then counted as an attack? That's kinda rich.

I'm sorry for attacking you, but it was very unneeded to suggest something like that. I thought I made a very clear argument, so the attack on my person didn't fit into the situation at all, and seemed very provoking.

It's as if somebody says that they are pro-choice, and you instantly tell them that they perhaps have a baby they want to get rid of. Obviously they will react to such a "suggestion".

And, I attacked you directly for attacking me, thus, you cannot acknowledge my attack without acknowledging your own. :p

If you do not have the choice to end your life, perhaps the thing that is the most yours of all the things you posses, then you have no control of your body.

Right. That's why I am here telling my fingers to type a bunch of letters onto an LCD screen at 50wpm. Bruce Lee exhibited a pretty decent amount of control over his body. Sword swallowers, people who walk on hot coals, and houdini also had a decent amount of control over their bodies.

We are using two diffrent meanings of "control". I'm talking about the one were you are in charge of something, while you are talking about the one which you are in control of your movements.

And anyways, I disagree with you about the movement control too. You don't have to be omnipotent in order to have control of your body, as nobody is perfect.

It's as simple as that. This life is not yours to end. It does not belong to you.

But...that's a bad thing? If it is your belief that there is nothing wrong with suicide at all you could just come out and say it. No need to be embarrassed.

lol. I believe in freedom to do anything that doesn't hurt others. That includes taking your own life. Nobody is entitled to choose what and how you are going to use your life expect you.

If somebody doesn't want to live, what are you going to do? Force him to live? How is that going to work?

Saying that it poses a danger to other is flawed. If it wasn't illegal, people could comit suicide problaby with the assistance of a doctor, in which it wouldn't fail, and they wouldn't be alive to pose a danger.

The point here is that people who are mentally unstable to the point where they would actually kill themselves often are in danger of becoming so completely reckless so as not to care for the lives of others as well.

I don't support that you can do things no matter what the situation. Obviously, if somebody that is really drugged and drunk says that he wants to die, no person is going to support him. We don't allow big decisions to be taken when people who aren't clear of mind.

I guess you've never known someone who attempted suicide before or else we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

I have, he killed himself. What was I/we going to do? Tie him down and force feed him for the rest of his life? "Living" is about more than just having a beating heart. If life costs your freedom and your happiness, I see no point to life.

I know those who have never had friends who took their own lives can't realize the kind of condition that someone has to be in before even considering to do such a thing. Believe me - it's ugly. You don't want to go there. You don't want to be at that edge - it is a very very nasty place. And it is exactly WHY people want to kill themselves - to get away from it. I have known people that have killed themselves, attempted to kill themselves and failed multiple times, put bottles of windex in front of themselves with a glass ready to simply give it all up, and so much more. You know the same type of emotion that I hear described each time by someone who has been there? Insanity. Absolute daftness.

People who are insane obviously can't make reliable choices in anything. Would you let an insane person make any big and dangerous choice in life?

Committing suicide is not some hip pop-culture ghetto-fabulous lifestyle-fun choice. It happens because people literally get taken over by something that serves as the mental, spiritual and emotional equivalent of satan himself - and that's not a fun trip to the park. Suicide is not "cool" and it's not "in". Ask someone who has tried it and woke up in the hospital after dying. NOT FUN.

So, you are saying it's impossible for a perfectly rational and stable person to commit suicide?

It all comes down to if your are allowed to end your own life or not. If you are not, you are obviously not completely in charge of your own life.

I'm not going to lie. This is a very sick argument. I don't care if it counts as an attack. Maybe if I had never known people who would have still been my friends had they not killed themselves I would have some less abrasive words for you. But I know better. I've been there.

So have I. Don't assume that just because somebody doesn't agree with you, he must be ignorant about the subject. You aren't omnipotent, and by extension, neither are your beliefs and values.

At 2/26/08 07:28 AM, Drakim wrote: So have I. Don't assume that just because somebody doesn't agree with you, he must be ignorant about the subject. You aren't omnipotent, and by extension, neither are your beliefs and values.

I really only need to respond here:

If you are perfectly okay that one of your good friends chose to take his life - then I think the discussion is pretty much settled. To me - I would rather that person was put into mental rehabilitation - I have also known people who have come out of that and not tried to kill themselves anymore. To me - that means it's a good thing. Much better than having one last goodbye for the next 70 years of your life before you either die into nothingness as well or see him on "the other side".

Oh, and here in America - there are quite a few things that you CANNOT do even if they don't hurt other people. I can't defecate on the sidewalk or expose myself in public - those will never physically harm people, but you can bet I will end up in jail by doing them. You can't just decide you don't want to pay taxes. Oh sure, it's YOUR money and all - but in the end the government is the one with the guns and they make the rules. Maybe in Norway anything goes - I don't know, never been to another continent personally. I also can't graffiti, use automatic weapons for hunting small game, drive with a suspended license, sell drugs, drill into public roadways, drive my car with a big sticker on the back window that says "COPS ARE PIGS" and jaywalk - even though those crimes don't actually physically hurt anyone either. Funny how that works.

Personally - I guess I have to admit that I do kinda agree with America's policy of putting people who like to pull out their wang in public and piss on private property in jail - even though it didn't actually hurt me. Sure - other eastern countries often don't enforce stuff like that - but it usually comes with the territory of paid off police or just corrupt government officials anyway. So when I talk about my beliefs like they are omnipotent - well, sorry. I guess some people do enjoy the ability to smoke weed in city hall and shop for prostitutes. IMHO, stuff like that - is just the tinniest bit degrading (and condoms don't give you more than a %10 better chance of not contract STD's, so I'd be careful anyway...)

At 2/26/08 03:04 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/26/08 07:28 AM, Drakim wrote: So have I. Don't assume that just because somebody doesn't agree with you, he must be ignorant about the subject. You aren't omnipotent, and by extension, neither are your beliefs and values.

I really only need to respond here:

If you are perfectly okay that one of your good friends chose to take his life

Didn't say that. I'm not perfectly okay with it, but I don't feel it's my right to force them to stay alive either.

- then I think the discussion is pretty much settled. To me - I would rather that person was put into mental rehabilitation - I have also known people who have come out of that and not tried to kill themselves anymore. To me - that means it's a good thing. Much better than having one last goodbye for the next 70 years of your life before you either die into nothingness as well or see him on "the other side".

And if he doesn't change? You force them to stay alive until they die naturally?

Oh, and here in America - there are quite a few things that you CANNOT do even if they don't hurt other people. I can't defecate on the sidewalk or expose myself in public - those will never physically harm people, but you can bet I will end up in jail by doing them.

Lol. That sidewalk is payed for by taxmoney which people paid taxes for. Exposing yourself in public can harm people. Neither are good examples.

You can't just decide you don't want to pay taxes. Oh sure, it's YOUR money and all - but in the end the government is the one with the guns and they make the rules.

You stay within the "club" of society, you pay the fee (tax). Nobody forces you to say in the club. You can leave society when you want.

Maybe in Norway anything goes - I don't know, never been to another continent personally. I also can't graffiti, use automatic weapons for hunting small game, drive with a suspended license, sell drugs, drill into public roadways, drive my car with a big sticker on the back window that says "COPS ARE PIGS" and jaywalk - even though those crimes don't actually physically hurt anyone either. Funny how that works.

Hurting is more than just physically.

Personally - I guess I have to admit that I do kinda agree with America's policy of putting people who like to pull out their wang in public and piss on private property in jail

As do I. I never ment that you could do stuff like that. I was talking about private stuff, that only involves yourself.

(and condoms don't give you more than a %10 better chance of not contract STD's, so I'd be careful anyway...)

That is false, but unrelated

http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/

Read that page ^^^

At 2/26/08 04:55 PM, ShortMonkey wrote: http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/

Read that page ^^^

wtf? This is pointless. Copy paste out the parts you want us to respond to.

At 2/26/08 03:56 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/26/08 03:04 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: (and condoms don't give you more than a %10 better chance of not contract STD's, so I'd be careful anyway...)

That is false, but unrelated

http://www.williamgairdner.com/condomani a/

Unrelated - but very true. Do your research.

At 2/26/08 07:28 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/26/08 06:32 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/26/08 02:41 AM, Drakim wrote:

But...that's a bad thing? If it is your belief that there is nothing wrong with suicide at all you could just come out and say it. No need to be embarrassed.

lol. I believe in freedom to do anything that doesn't hurt others. That includes taking your own life. Nobody is entitled to choose what and how you are going to use your life expect you.

If you kill yourself your 99.9999% sure your hurting someone.

If somebody doesn't want to live, what are you going to do? Force him to live? How is that going to work?

It all comes down to if your are allowed to end your own life or not. If you are not, you are obviously not completely in charge of your own life.

;
If I could put in my couple of cents here.
Feb.15/08 someone I know killed themselves. Left a B.S. note & his poor girlfriend who we know much better, cut him down.
1)It isn't illegal to kill yourself in this part of the world.
2)It IS illegal to ATTEMPT to kill yourself.
See the difference.
1) is a done deed & there is no sense in making it illegal, 2) means you've survived & they can then use legal restraining/detaining orders to attempt to help you. If they allowed 2) to be legal, you could just get right back up or reload or get a stronger rope ,whatever & try again.

Anyone wants to end their life, good riddence. I haven't got time to bother with the funeral of some self centred, SELFISH , son or a bitch (or daughter for that matter).
Oh, my chips aren't crispy enough... poor me I got no money... or my lover dumped me ... (insert stupid reason here)

I've had a few people I knew in school kill themselves & several people since then.
Only 1 of them did I bother with going to his funeral. He had inoperable & incurable stomach & pancreatic cancer , He'd been dealing with it for almost 20 months without telling anyone but his brother. He was about to go into a hospital & never come out again... He said F*&$ that Shit ! & wrote letters to all he cared about. Put on his favorite music, dropped a bunch of Narcotics , kept dumping booze into him & he passed on.

Only one person ,with what in my opinion, was a good reason !
The rest were just selfish bastards !

; What does this have to do with abortion ?

Why do we debate abortion by moral standards? I don't believe whether you personally find it ethical to kill a fetus should impede a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to end it. Assuming abortions were legalized across the board, people who were opposed to them, simply could chose NOT to have them while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples regarding the matter. The only thing I see accomplished by criminalizing abortion is taking away a woman's right to her own body, making it instead government property and leading us down a path toward fewer freedoms.

At 3/15/08 06:01 PM, RedSon wrote: Why do we debate abortion by moral standards?

Ok then let's look at everything through the cold lens of numbers.
Since the practice of abortion (in the United States) became legal in 1973 more than 45 million legal abortions have occured. Think of what kind of effect that had on social secuity. Our problem with social security is that we do not have enough people to pay for it. Had we not aborted so many babies our problem would not be so large.

You have some good points here. I've been Pro-Choice for a while and not any good argument against it besides "God wouldn't like it" Very good argument. Now just some food for thought. What about our population problem? Though you have a point in saying it's unconstitutional look at what overpopulation has done to China. Months of manual labor for the price of a couple hello kitties. Though it is annoying that people won't take responsibilities for their actions, what if they had no choice? Condums don't always work, and if you can't take care of a child, why not end its misery before it starves? What if the mother is a rape victim? I wouldn't want my wife to give birth to a child that isn't mine, much less a criminal's! Still, I must complement you for giving an intelligent argument to the usual "it's ungodly" argument.

Aw fuck they're starting this up again? Christ guys don't you know what this guys doin'? He's just tryin' to start a flame war. Ugh this can't end well

At 3/16/08 12:46 AM, sauronman wrote: You have some good points here. I've been Pro-Choice for a while and not any good argument against it besides "God wouldn't like it" Very good argument. Now just some food for thought. What about our population problem? Though you have a point in saying it's unconstitutional look at what overpopulation has done to China. Months of manual labor for the price of a couple hello kitties. Though it is annoying that people won't take responsibilities for their actions, what if they had no choice? Condums don't always work, and if you can't take care of a child, why not end its misery before it starves? What if the mother is a rape victim? I wouldn't want my wife to give birth to a child that isn't mine, much less a criminal's! Still, I must complement you for giving an intelligent argument to the usual "it's ungodly" argument.

Thank you for the complement. on the if you can't take care of a child point I would just say give the child to adoption. Now on the rape point.... to tell you truth that's a choice I never want to make... It's something I never want to think about... It's nerve racking for to even consider.
As for the over population, we still have some room in those north mid-west states that we need to fill up.
You bring up a good point on china though... but we still have one thing in our "favor"... asian countries have the highest life expectancy of the entire world... So our population growth to death ratio is a little "better". wow, I just twisted death into a positive. I think it's time to see that therapist :p

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Why do we debate abortion by moral standards? I don't believe whether you personally find it ethical to kill a fetus should impede a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to end it. Assuming abortions were legalized across the board, people who were opposed to them, simply could chose NOT to have them while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples regarding the matter. The only thing I see accomplished by criminalizing abortion is taking away a woman's right to her own body, making it instead government property and leading us down a path toward fewer freedoms.

Please stop spamming Photek. You're not even bringing up new points, you're just rehashing your old tired jibberish...

Abortion is bad, but bringing a baby up in an unloving family is even worse.

At 3/29/08 05:45 PM, Bobby444 wrote: Abortion is bad, but bringing a baby up in an unloving family is even worse.

Explain. Murdering someone is better than letting them grow up in a non-ideal environment? By that logic, no one would get prosecuted for murder, since obviously no one's life is perfect.

If abortion is bad then why isn't safe sex or not having sex and intentionally becoming pregnant when the person is able to look after a baby (since, in a way, both are denying life).

AI6200, are you against all abortion, period?

At 3/29/08 05:48 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/29/08 05:45 PM, Bobby444 wrote: Abortion is bad, but bringing a baby up in an unloving family is even worse.

Explain. Murdering someone is better than letting them grow up in a non-ideal environment? By that logic, no one would get prosecuted for murder, since obviously no one's life is perfect.

Boy, you're really compressing that whole gradient into a single point, aren't you?

At 3/30/08 02:17 AM, Elfer wrote:
Boy, you're really compressing that whole gradient into a single point, aren't you?

Well you should at least be pro the wholesale slaughter of sub saharan africa.

No matter how bad you live here, its almost certainly better than there.

At 3/30/08 01:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: AI6200, are you against all abortion, period?

No, but I think that the law needs to take a specific stance on what constitutes personhood, and apply it consistently across the board.

For example, if they decide that EEG activity in a human cerebral cortex constitutes conscious thought, then they need to protect fetus's which meet that criteria.

Rather, if they decide that a specific brain structure is enough to constitute personhood, then all creatures with that brain structure need to be given personhood.

I certainly do not believe that personhood begins at conception, since the embryo doesn't develop any neurons until week 2, and no neural activity until about week 12. I believe that the cutoff should be at weak 10, where the cerebral cortex develops.

At 3/30/08 02:17 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 3/29/08 05:48 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 3/29/08 05:45 PM, Bobby444 wrote: Abortion is bad, but bringing a baby up in an unloving family is even worse.

Explain. Murdering someone is better than letting them grow up in a non-ideal environment? By that logic, no one would get prosecuted for murder, since obviously no one's life is perfect.

Boy, you're really compressing that whole gradient into a single point, aren't you?

No, what I'm mad about is that you're trying to equate being poor or having less than stellar parents with not having value as a human being.

In my opinion, I think it's sort of sick that we're voiding the right to life for certain fetus's because of the mistakes of their parents.

You're right. Life is better than death.

All humans have a right to life, however a fetus is not a human, a fetus is a celluar structure which forms a human baby after a certain period of time, therefore, not being human, a fetus does not have a right to life

Dictionary definitions:

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. The young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Wikipedia article about fetal pain:

Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are debated politically and academically. According to the conclusions of a review published in 2005, "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."[13][33] However, there may be an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections" (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[34] Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[34]

Whether a fetus has the ability to feel pain and to suffer is part of the abortion debate.[35] [36] For example, legislation has been proposed by pro-life advocates requiring abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during the abortion procedure, and that require her to accept or decline anesthesia for the fetus.[37]

At 3/30/08 01:01 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: All humans have a right to life, however a fetus is not a human, a fetus is a celluar structure which forms a human baby after a certain period of time

1. You have no basis that a fetus is not a human. It has human DNA, and has all of the major organs of an adult human. Your logic is a little bit like "A toddler is not a human, it will grow up to be a human".

Yes, and, if you didn't know, an adult human is technically a "cellular structure" too.

Dictionary definitions:

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal

How does that support it not being human? All that says is that it's a basic version of an adult, which is fundamentally true of all children before they become adults.

2. The young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

This too never suggests that it isn't human.

Wikipedia article about fetal pain:

Fetal pain, its existence, and its implications are debated politically and academically. According to the conclusions of a review published in 2005, "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.

So why do pro-choice organizations oppose the partial birth (read, third trimester) abortion ban?

And besides, how is this at all related to your "not human" argument. This really seems like a non-sequitor to me, since it has nothing to do with your general case.

"[13][33] However, there may be an emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections" (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain.[34] Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is "impossible to know" when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established.[34]

Alright, and this is relevant how? Also, how does the feeling of pain relate to personhood? If a person is on morphine, and can't feel pain, do they not have rights?

Whether a fetus has the ability to feel pain and to suffer is part of the abortion debate.[35] [36] For example, legislation has been proposed by pro-life advocates requiring abortion providers to tell a woman that the fetus may feel pain during the abortion procedure, and that require her to accept or decline anesthesia for the fetus.[37]

If there is evidence that the fetus can feel pain, why on Earth would it be the woman's choice if her child has anesthesia? And obviously, if one can feel pain, one is conscious (by the contrapositive the reverse of this statement is not true), so the abortion at such a late point is clearly unethical.

At 3/29/08 11:45 PM, WORLDTHREAT wrote: If abortion is bad then why isn't safe sex or not having sex and intentionally becoming pregnant when the person is able to look after a baby (since, in a way, both are denying life).

Before the woman becomes pregnant (and to my knowledge, in early pregnancy), there is only a potential human being. The law doesn't protect potential people - otherwise not having sex would be murder.

However the fetus is an actual person, not just a potential person.

you are absolutely right. abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.