Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/22/08 08:10 PM, Togukawa wrote: That the foetus is not human yet seems to be very essential to me. I'm opposed to killing concious humans because they are in some way or form an inconvenience. But preventing something like a foetus, that isn't human or conscious yet, from ever becoming it, I've got a lot less issues against that.

Rationalizing a situation you wish not to become a part of.

How we can call it a "human fetus", and how that fetus will grow into a full "adult human"; I'm still confused why people even argue the point of whether or not it is human, because obviously it is if all it is is another stage in the cycle of human life.

Sounds more like people only use that excuse to make it less emotional.

At 1/22/08 08:10 PM, Togukawa wrote: That the foetus is not human yet seems to be very essential to me. I'm opposed to killing concious :humans because they are in some way or form an inconvenience.

Most fetuses have some degree of consciousness.

:But preventing something like a foetus, that isn't human or conscious yet, from ever becoming it, I've :got a lot less issues against that.

The nervous system begins developing at 2 weeks, and it technically becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. I personally believe 10 weeks should be the cutoff, but that's just me.

At 1/22/08 09:18 PM, Al6200 wrote: Most fetuses have some degree of consciousness.

But are they self-aware? Do they have feelings? Do they have any grasp on their reality?

Protecting the freedoms and rights of the woman should be put above those of a undeveloped parasite living in her abdomen.

At 1/22/08 09:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

But are they self-aware? Do they have feelings? Do they have any grasp on their reality?

Well if that's the case: Abortions should be legal no matter what the "age" of the fetus. So long as it hasn't been "born".

Protecting the freedoms and rights of the woman should be put above those of a undeveloped parasite living in her abdomen.

Haha, you're pathetic.

At 1/22/08 09:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: But are they self-aware? Do they have feelings? Do they have any grasp on their reality?

Self aware? Maybe. Babies seem to enjoy some gentle movements of the mother.
Feelings? Yeah, babies can feel pain, according to brain wave imaging.
Grasp on reality? Not even you have that, so why would a baby?

Protecting the freedoms and rights of the woman should be put above those of a undeveloped parasite living in her abdomen.

Read the top of this page. I established that fetuses are human beings and are therefore protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Your argument is null and void.

You're arguing to contradict, not to be right.

At 1/22/08 09:52 PM, Christopherr wrote: Self aware? Maybe. Babies seem to enjoy some gentle movements of the mother.
Feelings? Yeah, babies can feel pain, according to brain wave imaging.

We're not talking about babies, we're talking about fetuses.

Grasp on reality? Not even you have that, so why would a baby?

Youch. Take that logic.

Despite your witty sarcasm, I am very much able to comprehend my surroundings, which is what I was getting at. Can a 10 week old fetus really do that? Does it contemplate it's existance? Does it have any emotions? What makes a person a person? By my definition, a fetus is not a person, but a lump of parasitic cells with the potential to become a person.

At 1/22/08 10:09 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:52 PM, Christopherr wrote: Self aware? Maybe. Babies seem to enjoy some gentle movements of the mother.
Feelings? Yeah, babies can feel pain, according to brain wave imaging.

We're not talking about babies, we're talking about fetuses.

I was speaking of fetuses, but whatever.

Grasp on reality? Not even you have that, so why would a baby?

Youch. Take that logic.
Despite your witty sarcasm, I am very much able to comprehend my surroundings, which is what I was getting at. Can a 10 week old fetus really do that? Does it contemplate it's existance? Does it have any emotions? What makes a person a person? By my definition, a fetus is not a person, but a lump of parasitic cells with the potential to become a person.

It is wise that the world does not use your definitions, or else we might be killing fetuses 8 months after fertilization. When did a 19-year-old kid have any credibility whatsoever in the medical field, anyways?

Semantics aside, fetuses have been defined as human beings by the same doctor who discovered Down Syndrome, not a kid. The UN Declaration of Human rights protects them from abortion. It's only a matter of time before the court system connects the two and makes abortion illegal.

At 1/22/08 10:24 PM, Christopherr wrote: Semantics aside, fetuses have been defined as human beings by the same doctor who discovered Down Syndrome, not a kid. The UN Declaration of Human rights protects them from abortion. It's only a matter of time before the court system connects the two and makes abortion illegal.

And what are the mothers? Chopped liver?

I'm not saying that abortion is a very good option. In fact, if I ever knocked a girl up, I'd do my very best to convince her to keep it, no matter what my situation was.

What I'd much rather like to see is people taking more responsibility by using contraceptives, and making such contraceptives more available. It's true that there are way too many abortions being carried out these days, and I'd like to see that change, but outlawing abortions alltogether is not the sollution.

At 1/22/08 09:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

But are they self-aware?

I'm not sure how you'd measure that. That's sort of ambiguous.

:Do they have feelings?

Nah, but neither do new-born babies, and I don't see too many Pro-Choice activists supporting infanticide.

Do they have any grasp on their reality?

No, but neither does a 5 year old. Heck, a 10 year old really doesn't, and I'd even say that most 15 year olds don't really grasp what's going on in their lives.

:should be put above those of a undeveloped parasite living in her abdomen.

Not a parasite, since it increases the woman's reproductive fitness (the measure of success in evolutionary terms), and it's not undeveloped.

At 1/23/08 06:15 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/22/08 09:34 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Do they have feelings?

Nah, but neither do new-born babies, and I don't see too many Pro-Choice activists supporting infanticide.

I'm pretty sure that new borns have emotions, thoughts etc. even if they are rather simpler than those of an adult.

Do they have any grasp on their reality?

No, but neither does a 5 year old. Heck, a 10 year old really doesn't, and I'd even say that most 15 year olds don't really grasp what's going on in their lives.

Uh, yeah they do. By having a "grasp on reality" I mean the ability to comprehend the sensation of being alive and concious, and even a new-born can do that. Simply being delusional or ignorant =/= not comprehending reality.

should be put above those of a undeveloped parasite living in her abdomen.

Not a parasite, since it increases the woman's reproductive fitness (the measure of success in evolutionary terms), and it's not undeveloped.

A fetus is a parasite. It relies on another organism for nourishment, and wouldn't survive were it not for it's host. And at 10 weeks, it is a highly undeveloped organism that would not be able to survive outside of the host's body.

At 1/22/08 06:14 PM, Christopherr wrote: I would like to see a law passed removing the right to abort without a serious medical reason. Yes, that would be taking away rights, but for the better.

;
I don't believe 'for the better' is correct, you may think it's for the better. But there is no way to prove you are right.

All my argument has been against abortions performed for non-medical reasons. I'm for abortion if the baby is in danger.
You do realize that I am against abortion for non-medical reasons, right?

;
I understand you have no problem with abortion if it's for a medical reason, I just buried a good friend who has left 2 beautiful little girls under 3 years old. She was hoping for a boy, wanted to try one more time, & she died while deliviering . They were pretty sure she wouldn't make it, she was allowed to try anyway.
If she had chosen ( & I really wish she did) abortion, they would have a mom today. I would still have my friend.

I meant no offense... In fact, I didn't even say we shouldn't ban all abortions. I thought you were arguing that babies can be freely aborted because they were basically cancerous growths.

;
You haven't offended me.
I only refered to a fetus & a cancer tumor in relationship where they are 100% dependant on the host, that to say the fetus & the mother are not connected was in my opinion ludicris.

I've performed one. Read somewhere in the recent pages, when I was talking about how it feels, because I don't want to be redundant.

;
I haven't performed one, I have signed the papers to have on done to my wife at the time who was incapable of making any decission.

I apologize for misinterpreting what you said.

No apology necessary, & I still believe that women deserve the right to choose & be able to get a clean, safe abortion. The consquences of outlawing abortion will only drive it underground & I don't believe for a second that's the right thing to do.
I also have a problem with the many people who oppose abortion ,but none of them have adopted.
None of them are volunteers at childrens homes etc. There are huge problems with foster care, massive problems in the adoption process.
Where are these unwanted children going to go?

Until we solve these fundimental problems I truely believe abortion should be the decission of the mother, it's her body & her decission to make. Making it illegal will not stop women from attempting it & more of them will die.
If your fight against abortion is truely a fight for the right of a person to live!
What about that scared girl going into a backroom somewhere for a 'coat hanger 'attempted scrape ?
What about her life?

At 1/22/08 07:48 PM, Christopherr wrote: Life.
To disagree with that, you must say that a fetus is not a human being. That game with words has its roots in the horrid experiments performed on Japanese and German prisoners in WWII. They referred to their subjects as materials that were "not human." This is the exact same argument omnipresent in the pro-choice movement.

Was that a Godwin's Law? Anywho, it's also been used in this country too. Three-Fifth's Compromise is a good example. As my high school history teacher once put it, "This means that legally a slave was 3/5 human and 2/5 shovel".

In any case, categorizing and creating a hierarchy of humans has been a proponent of human history, not just nazis and pro-choice people.

I think what pro-choice people argue more strongly is that the fetus is not a human being because it doesn't operate as a single organism that would make it so. Just like how the individuals cells in my body aren't also counted as separate beings.

Here's a testimony from a Dr. Lejeune, a man highly, highly qualified in this field. It is in a 1990s court case, and the US court system has done nothing whatsoever with it, even though it is valid proof that the embryo is a human being, even when it is being preserved apart from the woman's body.

Correction: It's valid "evidence" that the embryo is a human being (I hate the word "proof"). Frankly, I've seen reports from MDs on both sides of this equation, mainly because the issue has become stained with the political implications of the definition.

All in all I don't really care about the issue, I just can't stand or even comprehend some of the arguments.

At 1/22/08 03:29 AM, Imperator wrote: Alright Smilez, you win. I'll bite.

At 1/21/08 10:43 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I can tell you this in full honesty, because i know it will happen. Eventually [Given human technological advancements] there will be a virtually 100% effective 'cheap and easy' means of either making it so that the pregnancy of the female, or the virility of the male, will be able to be turned on and off with an internal body mechanism. If you want to have sex without a child, just turn it on, if you want a child, turn it off. [that is, if the mechanism prevents pregnancy]

I believe it. Now watch what the people will say about the device itself. Use of it is immoral, vs use of it is a choice.

The world is becoming LESS conservative, not MORE conservative.

# of people who think that having safe sex without getting pregnant is a sin < # of people who think that unsafe sex with an abortion is wrong.

I shouldn't really have to prove it, since Anyone who thinks that Sex is a sin already thinks that sex PLUS an abortion is a sin, the same however is not true.

I'm not even sure how the immoral argument on such a device would work, but I'm sure there'd be one....

It doesn't work like that. There needs to be a reason.

Of course, with the exception of rape victims, today there are already existing methods of birth control that when combined [Spermacide + Condom + BC pill when use properly = Almost about as effective as a less than 1/the number of times that a person has sex in their life] Make pregnancy almost impossible, and i find it ironic that abortions havn't been looked on as immoral because they seem so largely avoidable... But it doesn't surprise me in another respect, since people are lazy after all.

You find it ironic abortions have NOT been looked on as immoral? I'm not sure I'm reading correctly, I thought there were several arguments on the immorality of abortion.

I'm surprised there's not a general consensus that Abortion is immoral since it's so avoidable, There is still some controversy because a few of the pregnancies of today are fit into the category of 'circumstances beyond control' PS; You DO NOT have to beleive that abortion is not immoral for you to be pro-choice. I think abortions are a sign of human weakness, but i contend with the fact that it is legal, as to plenty of moderates.

But I do agree that man tends to re-define certain things in a moral setting as need arises. In times of desperation the standard always seems to revert to dog eat dog and "anything goes".

Let us say that man has the LUXURY of making things moral and immoral at certain periods of time. I think that describes it fairly well.

But any who, once this devise is created, The need for an abortion is removed, and god mighty and ever inconstant as he is, decides that once again that abortion is an immoral practice. And that only uncivilized people engage in the pratice.

I'm waiting to see if God has another kid or something. Maybe a wife pops up, who knows? I find it far more interesting that God seemed to take anger management once Jesus was born.....

I'm pretty sure there is some existing theological argument in regards to why god was less interested in smiting human kind. My theory is, if there really is a top secret abrahamic god somewhere, the slaughter that ensued for the next 2000 years following jesus' death removed god's need to throw lightning bolts at villages. He still does it from time to time though.

But yes, again, man has the luxury of designating a morality. Those with the luxury naturally will then look down on those without. And hence we have the nature of the world where man engages in a natural Superiority Complex over the stupidest things.....

Like European Socialism. :D

But for now, we must contend with the slaughter as we had with slavery, the bubonic plague, and witch trials. [Witch trials count, since now that we know that there are no witches, there is no need to perform witch trials anymore.]

This is the part of pro-life I do not understand. The "suffering" or "pain" element. By having the child be born, that doesn't erase it's pain. If anything it amplifies it over a lifetime, through both physical, spiritual, and mental realms. Life can be quite the painful journey, no? But once death occurs, pain ends. We say things like this all the time; putting people "out of their misery", "rest in peace", etc.

I always ask the same question and always (like you) receive zero replies:
Painful life, or peaceful death?

Then i shall be the first.

It's always fun to look at a philosophy in it's widest practical application. So...

Yes, but i wouldn't stop at fetus', i would destroy the entire human race. From an atheistical standpoint, human technological progress has done nothing. Wars, Diseases, poverty, all exist because natural laws dictate that that's the way things work. End the suffering of future generations. I'd wager that whether or not a human once born is going to live a good or bad life is really a toss up. I'd Contend with abortions for the same reason i would kill the infirm, the poor, women in the middle east, and so on i would of course make sure that their deaths were quick and painless. Suffering is kind of a bad criteria if you want to justify abortion.

infallible Thesis of Atheism + Mercy = Destroy the human race.

Now of course, i would never destroy the human race, but the reason i wouldn't do this is because as an animal, my collective consciousness tells me that i have to ensure the survival of my race. So while destroying earths human population would be the most merciful thing anyone could ever do, it goes against my biological programing.

well hopefully Smilez I made a smart enough post that mine will equally be ignored, and we can have ourselves a nice private conversation.... ;)

At 1/23/08 02:32 PM, Imperator wrote: Was that a Godwin's Law? Anywho, it's also been used in this country too. Three-Fifth's Compromise is a good example. As my high school history teacher once put it, "This means that legally a slave was 3/5 human and 2/5 shovel".
In any case, categorizing and creating a hierarchy of humans has been a proponent of human history, not just nazis and pro-choice people.

A hierarchy of humans should not include "non-humans." Just to put someone into a hierarchy of humans is assuming that they are a human.
Both parties are labeling human beings as non-humans so that they can do what they will to them.

I think what pro-choice people argue more strongly is that the fetus is not a human being because it doesn't operate as a single organism that would make it so. Just like how the individuals cells in my body aren't also counted as separate beings.

That's a different thing than a human being living off of you while it grows. A fetus is under no control whatsoever by the mother. Mothers cannot simply make their baby dance in the womb.

In fact, many mothers are surprised when the baby moves around, pushing at the walls of the womb. When was the last time any part of your body just started moving without you telling it to?

At 1/23/08 04:59 PM, Christopherr wrote: A hierarchy of humans should not include "non-humans." Just to put someone into a hierarchy of humans is assuming that they are a human.
Both parties are labeling human beings as non-humans so that they can do what they will to them.

Agreed. Both suck.

That's a different thing than a human being living off of you while it grows. A fetus is under no control whatsoever by the mother. Mothers cannot simply make their baby dance in the womb.

Fair enough. But again, neither can I make my individual cells perform operations. My heart beats whether I want it to or not.

I can't even make groups of cells, like my organs, operate or not operate.

In fact, many mothers are surprised when the baby moves around, pushing at the walls of the womb. When was the last time any part of your body just started moving without you telling it to?

Reflex Arc.

Heart. Lungs. Organs in general. Eye lens widening or retracting, neurons in my brain firing (or not firing), individual cells undergoing protein synthesis, hair growing, fingernails growing, etc.

The question's not whether or not the group of cells known as the fetus is life, it's whether it's human.

And the problem with the label is the definition. Is my spleen a human? Is my arm a human?
Is a fetus a human? Is an embryo a human?

What you have to ask yourself is whether or not the object is the whole, or simply a piece of the whole.

At 1/23/08 03:23 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
The world is becoming LESS conservative, not MORE conservative.

Good. Globalization is a good thing.

# of people who think that having safe sex without getting pregnant is a sin < # of people who think that unsafe sex with an abortion is wrong.

Not sure what that has to do with....well....anything.....

I shouldn't really have to prove it, since Anyone who thinks that Sex is a sin already thinks that sex PLUS an abortion is a sin, the same however is not true.

Nor that......

It doesn't work like that. There needs to be a reason.

I'm well aware of that, I was just pointing out that even if such an invention were to come along, there would still be two opposing sides.

I'm surprised there's not a general consensus that Abortion is immoral since it's so avoidable

well it could be a case of simply shunning the "Other" as it were. Most people don't necessarily correlate access with immorality either.

I'm pretty sure there is some existing theological argument in regards to why god was less interested in smiting human kind. My theory is, if there really is a top secret abrahamic god somewhere, the slaughter that ensued for the next 2000 years following jesus' death removed god's need to throw lightning bolts at villages. He still does it from time to time though.

So humans just screw themselves into divine punishment......
Meh, works for me. Explains the amount of genocides we've had in the last several centuries, that's for sure.....

Then i shall be the first.

I'm not sure you answered the question..... ;)
It wasn't a yes/no.
It was multiple choice. Painful life, or Peaceful Death?

Suffering is kind of a bad criteria if you want to justify abortion.

My point was that it's bad criterium for justifying pro-life as well.

At 1/23/08 05:21 PM, Imperator wrote:

And the problem with the label is the definition. Is my spleen a human? Is my arm a human?
Is a fetus a human? Is an embryo a human?

Considering that people who have no arms and/or legs are still called "human"...

Like I said. All they're trying to do is find some excuse or "loophole" to consider that certain something "not human" so that way people will better about themselves (or feel not as bad). Is it not true that people will attempt to come up with whatever exuses they can for their failures?

If people can suddenly come up with a definition of "human" out of the blue, then they can come up with literally ANY reasons for why that certain something/someone is not human.

Some people will claim that the lack of self-awareness means a fetus isn't human. Don't we still refer to the dead as "he" or "she" rather than "it"? After all, he or she may be dead, but couldn't we still call it a dead human/person? Wouldn't you consider that state as even less "alive" than a fetus?

As stated above: With these technicalities we make up, we can accurately say that a person born without a limb is less human (but still human, just not a full human). Or someone who is deaf. Mute. We could also then say that an infant is less human because it still is going through development. And since these people are less than human, why would it be worse to kill one of them than a regular, average adult? But obviously no one would say such due to social backlash by the community.

My reasoning is:
-The Fetus will grow into a full adult by development.
-All humans were, at one point, a fetus and had to grow.
-A fetus is just a cycle of life.

Therefore, I can say: It is a human.

At 1/23/08 05:31 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/23/08 03:23 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
The world is becoming LESS conservative, not MORE conservative.

Good. Globalization is a good thing.

Fiscally and Socially.

# of people who think that having safe sex without getting pregnant is a sin < # of people who think that unsafe sex with an abortion is wrong.

Not sure what that has to do with....well....anything.....

"believe it. Now watch what the people will say about the device itself. Use of it is immoral, vs use of it is a choice."

You beleive that people will think that the usage of a devise that stops pregnancy will considered immoral. Safe Sex is becoming more and more acceptable, this is full proof safe sex.

I shouldn't really have to prove it, since Anyone who thinks that Sex is a sin already thinks that sex PLUS an abortion is a sin, the same however is not true.

Nor that......

It doesn't work like that. There needs to be a reason.

I'm well aware of that, I was just pointing out that even if such an invention were to come along, there would still be two opposing sides.

I am trying to explain what the 2 sides will be;

1) This side thinks that this new invention renders Abortion unnecessary, because pregnancy is completely preventable
2) This side thinks that Abortion should still be allowed because people have a freedom to use it.

It's the same as Slavery Vs. industrialization, one removed the need for the other, but there was still controversy over whether or not it should still be allowed. Yes, there WERE people who thought industrialization [In this case, it's the pregnancy devise] was immoral, but they're numbers were much smaller than that of confederates or abolitionists. [Just like the number of people in western countries that think sex is immoral are dwindling, or atleast narrowing it down. Sex with the exception of procreation is immoral, Sex before marriage is immoral, unprotected sex at any age is immoral, Etc. etc.

So humans just screw themselves into divine punishment......
Meh, works for me. Explains the amount of genocides we've had in the last several centuries, that's for sure.....

Then i shall be the first.

I'm not sure you answered the question..... ;)
It wasn't a yes/no.
It was multiple choice. Painful life, or Peaceful Death?

I pick Choice C] none of the above.

All humans are subject to the possibility of a painfull life, we live through a painfull life because we are biologically programmed to do so. A peacefull death needs to be extended to a more broadly. Republicans call it a double standard, i just call it a 'lets experiment'

If i am to kill them because i don't want them to suffer, I'd be a hypocrite for not treating the entire human race as the same. [We were all fetus' at one time] The starving children in Africa could do without living. People who could have lived a marvelous existence are killed when young in many means, disease, murder, accident, and abortion. People who were wanted in the world could end up poorly and miserably.

Maybe if i believed in this new deity called god, who is sad at the world but is willing to save souls who die and let them live happily, i would be ok with ending the Fetus' life.

But i don't beleive in such a person, and i hold no such feelings.

At 1/23/08 06:06 PM, Memorize wrote:
Considering that people who have no arms and/or legs are still called "human"...

Yeah but the arm itself isn't. I think that's the issue people try to make it into.

If people can suddenly come up with a definition of "human" out of the blue, then they can come up with literally ANY reasons for why that certain something/someone is not human.

I don't think this is relevant, and it borders on a pseudo-Godwin Law, where the pro-choice argument is compared to everything BAD and pro-life: Everything GOOD.

I don't think either side really gives a rat's ass about the child one way or another.
Pro-choice people don't care about it before it's born, and pro-"life" people don't care about it after it's born.....

Some people will claim that the lack of self-awareness means a fetus isn't human. Don't we still refer to the dead as "he" or "she" rather than "it"? After all, he or she may be dead, but couldn't we still call it a dead human/person? Wouldn't you consider that state as even less "alive" than a fetus?

Again, I don't think it's relevant. This almost borders a philosophical argument on linguistics and the role of the "spirit" than it does on abortion.

You also refer to cars, boats, the Earth, etc as "she".

I hate the life argument too. The damn thing counts as life regardless. Any argument made that it isn't "alive" or "life" is pretty damn stupid IMO.

As stated above: With these technicalities we make up, we can accurately say that a person born without a limb is less human (but still human, just not a full human). Or someone who is deaf. Mute.

I was gonna address this, but I think you were just using this as an example of shitty pro-choice arguments, right?

Grading the race in general leads to the shit everyone likes to accuse the Other of doing, not grading it in "correct" ways.......

My reasoning is:
-The Fetus will grow into a full adult by development.
-All humans were, at one point, a fetus and had to grow.
-A fetus is just a cycle of life.

Like the first two, throw out the third. It's not relevant.

At 1/23/08 07:22 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Fiscally and Socially.

Works for me. I always loved making comparisons to Rome, which, actually, seems more socially global than America's Melting Pot theory.....

You beleive that people will think that the usage of a devise that stops pregnancy will considered immoral. Safe Sex is becoming more and more acceptable, this is full proof safe sex.

Ah....I still think there will be people who will bitch.

1) This side thinks that this new invention renders Abortion unnecessary, because pregnancy is completely preventable
2) This side thinks that Abortion should still be allowed because people have a freedom to use it.

Gotcha.

I pick Choice C] none of the above.

Ah.

All humans are subject to the possibility of a painfull life, we live through a painfull life because we are biologically programmed to do so. A peacefull death needs to be extended to a more broadly. Republicans call it a double standard, i just call it a 'lets experiment'

So Peaceful Death x the world= choice C.
Makes sense. Wouldn't want to appear "hypocritical" for not bestowing the same gratitude to everyone else now.....

Like the first two, throw out the third. It's not relevant.

*I* like the first two, throw out the third......

Damn Latin seeping into my English again......

At 1/23/08 07:35 PM, Imperator wrote:

I don't think this is relevant, and it borders on a pseudo-Godwin Law, where the pro-choice argument is compared to everything BAD and pro-life: Everything GOOD.

You asked what classifies it as "human".

I said that you can actually come up with any definition for it, even for it/him/her being less or more human.

And that's exactly what we've done. Because of our selfishness, although we call it a "human fetus", we leave out actually calling it a "human" because abortion would be more seen as "killing a human" rather than "killing an unconscience fetus".

Like I said: It's a move in order to make people feel better about generally negative decisions.

I don't think either side really gives a rat's ass about the child one way or another.

Of course not.

Pro-Lifers hardly ever bring up a Child after birth.
And Pro-Choicers go as far as to say that women have the right to an abortion, but if we did find and could alter the "gay gene" to make the fetus grow up to be straight, it'd be wrong as "the potential life has a right to be born gay".

But as I said previously in another thread:
-48% are repeat abortions
-60% are by women who already have at least 1 other child.
-55% are done by women who are middle class and up.

Again, I don't think it's relevant. This almost borders a philosophical argument on linguistics and the role of the "spirit" than it does on abortion.

I call it simple logic.

All humans were a fetus.
A fetus will develop into an adult.
A fetus is nothing more than a cyle of human life, much like infant and adult.

Connect the dots.

You also refer to cars, boats, the Earth, etc as "she".

Heh.

Like the first two, throw out the third. It's not relevant.

Why?

It fits in with the other 3 and can be used a reason to call it "human". And it is fact, isn't it?

At 1/23/08 07:41 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/23/08 07:22 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Fiscally and Socially.

Ah....I still think there will be people who will bitch.

Well that's your calculation, but if abortion is the worst thing that's happening in a neo-conservative world such as we have now, a more liberal open world would have the issue of safe sex as something worth arguing about. How many politicians do you see arguing about the 'sex is a sin' factor? or 'using condoms is a sin?'

Hardly any, by my calculations.

1) This side thinks that this new invention renders Abortion unnecessary, because pregnancy is completely preventable
2) This side thinks that Abortion should still be allowed because people have a freedom to use it.

Gotcha.

I pick Choice C] none of the above.

Ah.

All humans are subject to the possibility of a painfull life, we live through a painfull life because we are biologically programmed to do so. A peacefull death needs to be extended to a more broadly. Republicans call it a double standard, i just call it a 'lets experiment'

So Peaceful Death x the world= choice C.
Makes sense. Wouldn't want to appear "hypocritical" for not bestowing the same gratitude to everyone else now.....

Exactly!

At 1/22/08 06:46 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/22/08 06:33 PM, DeathAura wrote: umm dude, its there dicision if they want to fuck up they're baby. Why are assholes going up to them and saying "OUR WAY IS BETTER!@!!!, NO ABORTION!!! GPD DOESN'T LIKEZ YOU ANYMORE" i mean its just gay. Most religions are fucking stuck up.

Come again, trollmeister? I'm religious and against abortion, but I do not disagree with abortion because of my religion. I have non-religious ideas for why it should be illegal (unless a medical reason exists) In fact, most of the arguments in this thread are non-religious.

1. your the one trolling by saying "troll miester" and its the religious groups that are trying to decide abortion, I refer to religion in a whole because to me they all have the same content. And is it couinqidence that you are religious and against abortion? Most non-religious people i met didn't give a shit cus it wasn't their lives. Religions look at people in a whole. That they're all under god, and if you kill a "person" it is a sin. You may not know it, or disagree with it, but you are actualy being against abortion because of your religion. It may sound odd, and i'm not trying to bash you. I'm not being a stereo type, but many religious parties are against it. There's a diffrence from generalizing, and being a stereo-type. Sorry if I affended you. Because i wasn't talking about you (i should of made this more specifific).

To those "Its her body" supporters:

I say FUCK THAT NOISE! Its my child as much as hers and if a women were to kill my child even when I would agree to take care of the child and her not even have to see it ever again I swear vengance would be swift and with out any mercy. I normally loath the thought of a man hurting a women but if some one ANY ONE even the mother threatens the life of my child I am going to act. If its her body and she has all the rights to if that child lives or dies why the FUCK should I pay child support if I dont want the kid? If she can kill the kid with out my say if she doesnt want it what right does she have to ask me for money if I dont want it?

THREAD OVER.

You'd have to be a stupid fucking imbecile to be against abortion....

I don't care about this issue either way but I have something I would like you all to read.

Abortion rates same whether legal or not

So, what's the point in making it illegal or legal? Woman are still going to do it either way.

Just a little something I found to be interesting in the abortion argument.

Personally, I don't think people need to take such extreme stances on either end of the spectrum...within the first trimester, I think it should be legal, because at that point the embryo has no actively developed CNS or anything of that nature, to my knowledge. After the first trimester though, it should be unallowable (outside of major complications), because the CNS begins to fully develop. Just my 2¢ though.

At 1/23/08 08:59 PM, DeathAura wrote:

its the religious groups that are trying to decide abortion

Prove it.

:I refer to religion in a whole because to me they all have the same content. And is it couinqidence :that you are religious and against abortion?

:Most non-religious people i met didn't give a shit cus it wasn't their lives. Religions look at people in :a whole. That they're all under god, and if you kill a "person" it is a sin.

Yes, because only Christians can believe in the universal value of human life (sarcasm). Obviously, atheists have values too, and for all (sane) atheists, life is a fundamental civil liberty. People seem to be against abortion because they see it as a convenience, and are scared of having to raise a child. That's why I'm for more free and accessible birth control, as the primary solution to abortion.

:You may not know it, or disagree with it, but you are actualy being against abortion because of your :religion.

No, it's because of our ethics. It's because we believe in civil liberties and a universal right to life. Ironically enough, the Bible does not support a universal right to life. So its pretty hard to argue that abortion is opposed on fundamentally Christian grounds when the main text which Christians follow doesn't support the basic tenets of the Pro-Life movement.

I redirect you to the first commandment, King James Version:

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare
in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break
their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no
other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and
they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their
gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou
take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a
whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after
their gods."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?boo k_id=2&chapter=34&version=50

:It may sound odd, and i'm not trying to bash you. I'm not being a stereo type, but many religious :parties are against it.

And many religious people breath. Does that make breathing bad?

:There's a diffrence from generalizing, and being a stereo-type. Sorry if I affended you. Because i :wasn't talking about you (i should of made this more specifific).

What are you generalizing on the basis of? Your own bias?

I personally think that Pro-Choice groups try to make Pro-Life groups look religious, so that they can feel comfortable with their positions, and not have to even listen to any conflicting evidence/views.

At 1/24/08 11:42 AM, Buddhist wrote:

Personally, I don't think people need to take such extreme stances on either end of the :spectrum...within the first trimester, I think it should be legal, because at that point the embryo has no :actively developed CNS or anything of that nature, to my knowledge. After the first trimester though, it :should be unallowable (outside of major complications), because the CNS begins to fully develop. Just :my 2¢ though.

Women who have abortions should not be charged with murder. It's simply too impractical, and most women who have abortions don't consider the fetus to be a person, so it's tough to say that it's more of conscious murder than manslaughter (should the fetus be worthy of personhood at the time of abortion).

My proposed policy would be this (Let's say Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I'm president, and congress is on my side):

-Improve distribution of birth control. Cost of birth control should be entirely subsidized by the government and placed so that it is accessible to people from a variety of social and economic backgrounds

-More education in schools showing the degree of fetal development and the problems with using abortion as a means of birth control.

-Immediate ban on abortions occurring 10 weeks after conception, with exceptions provided for maternal or fetal health and rape or incest. Must have notes from multiple doctors to perform a third trimester abortion. Doctors who use fraudulent information or lie about the doctor's notes to perform a third trimester abortion should be charged with 1st degree murder.

-For third trimester abortions where the fetus is viable (and can be delivered safely), a serious threat to the woman's health or a serious and imminent threat to the fetus's health must be proven for an abortion to be legal. Diseases or disorders within the fetus

-Law requiring doctors to inform the woman about the stage of fetal development, consciousness, and mental capacity before a procedure can occur (at any stage, this should be a requirement).

TO SUMMARIZE:

-Woman's choice from conception to 9 weeks. Information must be provided to mother on embryonic development, though, to ensure that her decision is consistent with her own morality and definition of person hood. (If she has the idea that person hood begins when the first neuron develops, she should have the right to know that her baby has neurons).

-From 10 weeks to the beginning of the third trimester, illegal with exceptions for: Rape, incest, woman's health, imminent threat to fetal health

-Illegal during the third trimester, with exceptions for: woman's health, imminent threat to fetal health