*DAMN R6 Forum

Read a clip about this in my newspaper...

A 9 year old girl in Nicuagua (sp?) was raped and became pregnant.  As the country is heavily catholic they have strict abortion laws and basically, unless three different doctors agree that having the baby will risk her life, she can't get the abortion, even though her family and seemingly her desire to have the abortion.  The doctors think that she can safely have the baby so she can't get an abortion.  So now this 9 year old girl is going to suffer incredibly in addition to the suffering already experienced from the rape, all because the Catholic church is so strict on abortion.

Now, I don't hide that I'm pro-choice, even if one claims the fetus is human I think abortions should be allowed until the end of the second trimester because if a parent doesn't want the child or can't afford to be a parent, that child will have a crappy life.

While that is my view, I can certainly understand the pro-life people who think abortion shouldn't be allowed simply because someone doesn't want a baby.

But when the baby is the product of rape, incest, or any other sexual harrassment, or if the mother is below the age of say 16 or there are other health problems or deformaties, sticking to the pro-life stance to me is sickening.  By having the baby it adds excess suffering to that that would take place with the abortion.

Any comments?

     No comments; I agree with you.

I agree with you on all but one thing
a crappy life is better than simply not living at all. plus, a crappy life is america is practically a luxury one in other countries.

anyway, i don't think abortion should be completely outlawed but I also think that people need to start being held responsible for their actions.

While this is about as extreme as circumstances could get, I still don't believe you can condone an abortion. The rape has happened and nothing is going to change it. If you kill the baby, does that make you any better than the rapist?

Well, rape is immoral no matter how you look at it.  Abortion isn't.  Aborting a fetus does not cause pain and suffering to the fetus, it merely ends its life.

Yep, here's one.  You are back to shitty arguments.


So, it's the Catholic Church's fault?  Even though the government makes the laws?  Even though many non-catholics don't believe in abortion?  

Weaksause.


First, I'll echo Cookie.  A crappy life is better then no life.

Second, I'll call BULLSHIT.  You just said that all those kids that have been adopted over all these many years of it happening have crappy lives.  Yep, Dave, the founder of Wendy's had a crappy life.  All the kids he adopted did to.  Oh, wait, they were all happy, healthy, and well off.  Wow.  I guess an adopted kid may have a good life after all.  Especially since, the peole that are going to raise him, want him.  Or her, as the case may be.  

Third, if you don't believe that the fetus is human, what difference does it make which trimester it's in?  I mean, if it's not human, 20 minutes before it's born should still be ok with you.  Or, for that matter, what's wrong with 20 minutes after?  A baby doesn't have much in the way of thinking going on, it's running on instinct for the first few weeks more then anything.  They don't even see right.  Why not abort it a day after it's here?  Give the parents a chance to see what they are getting first?  How is any of that different?  

Logically, you argue that the kid doesn't have any rights until they are born.  Well, they don't have full rights until they are 21, so what?  Does that mean we can abort them anytime before they are adults?  Ok, maybe because while in the womb, they are dependant on the mother, well, aren't they dependant on the mother post partum?  

You are drawing a line that says when a zygot/fetus/baby/child/adult have rights.  What makes your line the right one?  Why is it that life of innocents is precious to you, but you don't consider that life?


Gee, suffering.  And this rape is the fault of the unborn child any more then it is the child's that was violated?  So it should suffer (not pain, but consequences) so that the mother suffers less?

What happened was as shitty as it gets, but I really don't get why it's ok to stop someone from living, to ease the burden of someone else.  I really don't.  For any liberal, that was arguing how no innocent people should ever have to die to think that abortion is no big deal really floors me.  It is the ultimate in hyprocricy.

Innocent people should never suffer or die.  Guns are bad because they kill people.  Oh, but it's ok to single out that group.  We've decided that they don't have any rights.  We've decided that the rights of this group of people are much more important.  Why, no silly, we can't do it because of their sex, nationality, or race.  No, it's because of their age.  They haven't actually been born yet, so they don't count.

<sarcasim>Yeah, It all makes such perfect sense to me now. </sarcasim>

Cookie, I'm with you.  I think there are always cases where you can't say "oh, the death penalty is always wrong"  or "there should never, ever be an abortion for any reason."  I don't think the world is black and white enough for that.  But I also don't think that abortion should be used as birth control either.  I think that the fetus should have rights too.

One last quote by Bondo:


So abortion isn't immoral?  I hear lots of people saying it is.  

<sarcasim> Oh, I get it, if I kill someone and don't cause them pain and suffering in the process, it's ok.  So if I just put a .45 to the back of their heads, making sure to hit the brainstem, stopping all pain, it's ok to kill them.  I shouldn't be punished at all.  Who's first?</sarcasim>

And if you say that causes suffering, I'm gonna ask how you know.  And then I'm gonna ask how you know that a fetus can't feel pain.

With that last post, welcome back the dumbassville Bondo.  You have used all the stupid arguments.

That's an odd statement to make. It's like someone telling me "I'm not going to step on your toes or even shoot you in the foot, I'm going to kill you!" I also find it odd how you use "merely" in the context .o O

I agree with Bondo too. Good thing women have control over their own bodies in the USA and we don't have to worry about such things. 8)

Oh man, I may have to get my rant on big time.

For anyone that believes completely in the "it's a womans body and she has the right to control it" argument, I have a quick question.  Then why is there child support?

I'm a guy (gasp).  And I have a woman that is pregnant right now (shock).  Now, lets say that I didn't want her to have it.  I wanted the baby aborted.  Can I make her?  No fucking way.  But can she still make me pay child support for the next 18 years.  Bet your ass.

Now let's turn that around.  She wants to have an abortion (because she doesn't want to lose her figure).  I want to keep the baby, even if she's not involved.  Can I stop her from having an abortion?  No fucking way.

Now, if the child is half my responsibility, then I should have half the say in what happens to it.  If I have no say, I should have absolutely no responsibility in it.  One way or the other.  But no.  That's not how it works.  There are no fathers rights, just mothers.  

And Bucc, you are back to weakly criticizing my argument.

You say I shouldn't blame the Catholic Church...well guess what, it is the official religion of the country and thus has major influence on what is legal and not legal.  If it weren't for the Catholic church's stance on abortion, the country wouldn't have that same stance.  Therefore the blame lies exactly on the Catholic church.

About my drawing the line at the second trimester...well, it is called compromise.  I think it is the right of the woman to have the choice to get an abortion.  From a political stance you can't ignore that the opponents of abortion will accept one limit over a later one.  I think in general it is the most reasonable one.  You are trying to argue slippery slope.  It doesn't really apply to law, only to logic.  I wasn't trying to make a logical argument for when babies have rights, I was trying to say at what legal point abortions would be allowed.  No moral implication involved with that point.

As for adoptions.  Just because you give the right to have an abortion to people who don't want or can't raise a child doesn't mean they are going to take that right...just like now.  I logically assume that since I am not technically saying the law should change that it would be the same as it currently is with many going through with the delivery and putting the child up for adoption.

Now let me state this.  The people who currently carry the child and put it up for adoption will continue to do so.  The people who carry the child and don't put it up for adoption, will either continue to do so or abort it if it is made more avaliable.  So the only ones being aborted are ones that weren't going to be adopted...they were going to be raised by uncaring parents who can't provide and thus the children that would be aborted are ones with shitty lives.

As for men's rights to the baby.  This is biological based.  In nature, females take full responsibility for raising a baby and the father while it may provide some support is not as involved.  Biologically it is the woman who is responsible and thus has the control.  You can argue that in our culture that is sexist, but until you start carrying the developing fetus around for 9 months and the breastfeeding it for another 9, you really don't get that say.  You can easily have another baby, women can't as easily.  Women bear the burden in all respects so they also get the choice.

Merely was intentionally used.

There is a difference between someone killing you and the aborting of a fetus.  There would be pain/awareness as a result of you being killed.  A fetus has not been shown to have the capacity to feel pain or awareness of being killed, thus it is merely being done.

what are u saying bucc, that youd rather have half a baby?? doesnt work like that....besides, your not the one trying to squeeze a baby out of your ass.....im sorry if im being a little crude here.
first off congrats on becoming a daddy....
second, fetuses, zygotes and embryos are neiter counted in the census, nor do they have a passport or birth certificate (duh, theyre not even born yet) so i dont think they are entitled to the same rights as you and I.

overall, my feelings on abortion are two-fold: my mind agrees with with the die-hard pro-choicers who say that its the womens right to decide what she does with her uterus and that until the baby pops out the "hatch" it is not a human being. at the same time, my heart understands the objection of the pro-lifers and pulls me towards a more moderate stance on the issue.

you are right that bondo is in no position to decide when life begins, but neither are you or anyone else. the compromise is that during the first trimester you can abort, the second trimester only in exceptional cases but at all not during the third. this seems reasonable and also accomodates my conflicting views on the subject.

Could you please elaborate on how the Catholic Church should be "blamed" for believing in the sanctity of human life? You blame the Church for not letting this girl get an abortion when you should be praising them for saving a life.


Bondo, despite what you may think, this lies totally on the basis of the morality or lack thereof of abortion. Laws are based on the morality of the society, and apparently some people think it's moral if we kill a baby early enough so it has become legal. There is no legal reasoning why the third trimester is any different from the second trimester, but for some reason people believe that a baby magically becomes alive after a certain number of days in the womb. By setting this arbitrary date, they reveal their despicable hypocrisy as they realize that a baby is alive before it leaves the womb. However, in order to justify their murders, abortionists say that as long as you abort the baby soon enough it is "ok."


While it doesn't mean that they will necessarily have abortions, it means that they can do so legally. If we made rape legal, I doubt everyone would go outside and rape someone tomorrow, but I'm sure a bunch of sick fucks would. However, does it make it right just because it has been deemed legal? I'm sure you will agree with me when I say "Hell no."

Also, what gives you the right to say that a child will lead a "shitty life" and therefore should be killed. That seems pretty damn pompous and arrogant to me. In essence, you are playing God with the child's life.

This will basically come off as a "Yeah, what Bucc said" but I just can't stand the bullshit flying around. First, the baby is half the man's. If you would like, I could arrange a basic biology lesson and explain the birds and the bees to you bondo. It doesn't matter that that the woman has to carry it for 9 months, the baby is still a living being that is half from the father, half from the mother. I don't see why a man should have to see his baby murdered while having ZERO say just because the woman doesn't want to carry it.

Second, in our society it is blatantly obvious that responsibility for the child rests at least half, if not more, on the father's shoulders. If a guy decided, "Hey, I don't want this kid." and left, he would get his ass tossed in jail for being a deadbeat dad. Ditto for if he stopped making child support payments. And all this is with NO guarantee that he would even get partial custody of his kid.

Bondo, if you came up while I was sleeping and shot me so I died instantly, I would have neither the capacity to feel pain or awareness of being killed. However, we call this murder. Abortion is no different.

Thi has been bugging me for a bit, and i just have to point it out. In recent times, it seems that (almost) everyone who is pro-life is for this war in Iraq, and everyone pro-abortion (I refuse to call it pro-choice, sucha  stupid name) is against it. This is what this boils down to in my mind:

For the pro-life pro-war people, killing is not an acceptable thing to do to an unborn child, but is acceptable to do to thousands of adults.

For the pro-abortion anti-war people, killing is not an acceptable thing to do to thousands of adults, but is acceptable to do to an unborn child.

...right...

I think you are generalizing and assuming, Capt. There are many people from both parties for and against a war...it really doesn't boil down to the battle lines on the abortion issue considering virtually all democrats are "pro-choice," while many republicans are "pro-life" and some are "pro-choice."

If the lines of war were the same as the lines for and against abortion, a majority of Congress would be against war.

Added-on: Killing someone to save a life (in their personal opinion) is hypocracy (sp?). You can't justify the slaying of abortion doctors, regardless of your argument.

Why should anyone be allowed to tell a woman if she's allowed to abort her child or not, it IS her body and not anyone elses. The fetus might have half the genetic material from the father but it's not like the father should have any control over it just because of that.

A fetus don't have a brain to think with and therefore it's not a person. That's what science says atleast. So in my opinion, aborting an unborn fetus is just like killing a bug. And you're right, I'm not christian at all and I don't believe in the ?sanctity? of human life...

capt.anarchy: I mostly support bush's policy on iraq and ive made my views on abortion pretty clear, but i guess im an exception. that was a rather broad generalization on 2 completely unrelated issues, which led you to draw a pretty retarded conclusion. no offense, but you sound like zaitzev calling me a republican when in fact, i'm anything but that. quit labeling people and making lame observations. some people DO actually think about the issues and reach their own conclusions, instead of adopting the entire agenda of either side of the liberal/conservative spectrum.

I'm going to generalize even further for the purposes of law, which is really what this debate should be about.  Due to religious and moral concerns, abortion is a completely polarizing issue.  Most people feel very strongly one way or another, and they're not easily changed.  

Therefore, I take issue with the idea of


See, the whole idea of the "pro-choice" movement is that law should not restrict abortion.  Some people, such as Bucc and Ace, are probably always going to be against abortion.  They have good reasons, which are difficult to argue against.  Likewise, people such as Bondo will always support choice, for similarly defensible and strong reasons.  

However, it shouldn't be the role of the government to impose restriction on such an issue, especially when it is so personal.  Although the majority rules the minority, our government is not designed for the majority to suppress the minority.  And if pro-life is the minority, they lose nothing if people retain the right to choose.  The lack of additional (unwanted) members does not harm our society.

Really, I think the idea of "pro-life" is that which is ridiculous.  It's inflammatory and intolerant of those who really want only to preserve the rights of women.  No one is for abortion.  No one is "pro-abortion" or relishes the idea, unless they have lost their humanity.  However, it is not morally wrong to acknowledge that some people will have an abortion if necessary.  Morality or otherwise, the government should not be there to step in the way.  (Now I would segue into my views on legalizing drugs; just think of it along the same lines)

----

Heh, I think I'm really beginning to enjoy this whole "middle-ground" positioning.

I agree that "pro-choice" it is a stupid name. It should be changed to either "pro-death" or "con-life" to properly relfect the postion opposite "pro-life."



Works both ways, doesn't it?

That fetus is going to be a scum bag just like his dad. I say pwn it before it rapes someone.

Capt...Loud was exactly right.  There is an incredible difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice.  I personally would never consider advocating someone get an abortion unless it risked her health, or was caused by sexual abuse.

I am just a supporter of women having the option to have the abortion if they don't think they can care for the baby and don't thus want to go through the pregnancy.

I'm not in favor of abortion as birth control at all although you can't draw that distinction in the law.  I think the morning after pill is the way to go if the pill or condoms or other contraceptives fail.

I think kami supported my reasoning for why it is the woman's not the man's choice well enough so I won't waste time arguing that.  For the record, if my girlfriend got pregnant in a few years and wanted to have an abortion, even if I personally wanted the child, I would give way to her choice because it is her choice.  I have no responsibility really in helping the child between conception and birth, that is all the mother's doing.  Once it comes out then I once again have responsibility and thus say.  For the record, she agrees with most of my views...but we both want children so we would definately not consider an abortion unless it was a risk to her or deformed (in which the body would normally self-abort).

I should mention that I'm not Christian so Christian morals mean nothing to me and should not rule me.  To make laws based purely on religious dogma is unconstitutional.  Like loud said, Majority rule, minority right.  Pro-lifers have the right not to get an abortion just like pro-choicers should have the right TO get an abortion.

Ace, I'm not really blaming the Catholic church for not letting her get an abortion, I'm blaming them for the unjust suffering and hardship and possibly risking of life she will go through to have a baby that is the result of a rape.  The girl is NINE fucking year old.  She is a baby herself.  It isn't right to force her to have a baby.  At least in my opinion it is far more morally reprehensible than aborting a fetus.

Also, I never said they have a shitty life thus they SHOULD be killed, I just think it should be an option for the parent.

Anyway, I've gotten enough general support from some of the respected people here to know that I'm not being dumb or spouting bullshit.  You are pro-life and that is fine Ace...but don't let the difference of opinion here be so upsetting to you.  Nothing I'm saying is to be taken as fact.  There are facts that say the fetus is not alive and thus isn't murdered when aborted...there is religious belief that it is alive and is wrong to abort.  Basically you can't have one right...or they would have found it already.

Just a thought...Melanie Chisholm (Sporty Spice) is 9 years older than me and for a while I had a huge crush on her.  9 years is within range of a sexual attraction...it just isn't right for that to be the age of my mother.  20 years or more (35 in my case) is a much more acceptable difference.  Not saying this is a strong point...just something to think about.

In response to comments about my generelization... that was what it was.. a generelization. The vast majority of Americans fall into those two categories, Democratic and Republican, and the vast majority of them follow their party mandate. Just a strange hypocritical thing I noticed about the major American political parties. And i'll assume right here that my generlization will work for at least half of all Americans.

Yes, some people DO actually think. Many others don't.

To state my opinion on the matter: I believe that abortion is wrong. However, this does not mean I believe it shoud be completely illegal. I think it woudl be ok if it was only used under circumstances such as rape, underage pregnancy, etc. But to use it as birth control just because it would be inconvienient finiacially or otherwise to have a baby at that time is obscene. Sure, people are poor. My mom is currently supporting a family of four children on a single teachers salary. But there's no way in fuck i would want me or any of my brothers to have been aborted just to ease the fininacial burden.

If you have gone and willingly done the act to bring a new life into this world, you should be able to commit to that child. You could always put them up for adoption or have a relative help raise them. Yes yes, all the same arguments. But this is an argument in which few poeple sway and each side ignores the others arguments, so few new points are ever brought up.

Kami - Yes, it's her body. But the body growing inside it isn't. And until scientists can pinpoint the exact moment during a fetuses development when it becomes "aware," I'll have to say conception sounds most likely, for that is when it begins to develop.

Abe - I don't see how you can accept killing in any fashion.. no matter what relilgion or philosophy you subscribe to, killing cannot be logically justified. Yes, there will be exceptions to that. And yes, abortion is killing.

Loudnotes, Bondo, et all. - I use the term pro-abortion to describe anyone who finds abortion acceptable for anything more than medical necessity or if the child is a product of a rape. Too many people use it simply as a form of birth control.

All I could find with statistics was about 5 years old on a  pro-life website, but its numbers were 5% were due to rape, fetal abnormalities, or mothers health problems combined. Ok, they're biased. Give them a 500% margin of error. That's still only 25%. One quarter. That number should be 100% due to "hard" reasons.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm (http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm)

I think I covered everything...



(Just realized I contradicted myself, saying some abortions are ok, killing cannot be justified, and abortion is killing. There's one of them exceptions.)

     I'd like to chime in on the side of this argument. A live human is in the womb the instant after conception. Two cells do make a person. Because of this, I am against the "morning after" pill. In fact, I don't think this argument goes quite far enough. I think that they are human BEFORE conception. The sperm, the egg, they're each half of a human, right? I move that we lobby for new legislation that would outlaw condoms and contraceptives of every kind and make it illegal to waste a sperm or egg. Sperm have a lifespan of three days; every man on Earth should impregnate a woman at least once every three days, and masturbation will carry a mandatory three-consecutive-lifetime sentence for mass murder. Any woman found menstruating will be tried for murder.

     I sincerely hope that everyone detected the sarcasm dripping from that. Ace, no one ever claimed that the fetus was NOT alive in the womb. So yes, the argument is exactly as you stated: if the abortion takes place early enough, it is "ok". Now for my actual position: it is not the right of the government to dictate morality, and the right to choose abortion IS a morality call. Yes, choice will be abused. But that does not mean that it is right or better or necessary to take away the choice in question. Abortion is not a good thing. Neither is alcohol, yet people are freely given that choice every day. It results in thousands of deaths per year, yet no one (well, hardly anyone) talks about taking away the drinker's right to choose. As far as the morality of abortion is concerned, it seems to me that it's perfectly ok in the minds of most people to kill anything that isn't human. So, when does a fetus become human? I argue that it is when the fetus has a brain with which to be aware. At conception, there is only one cell. Thus, by my definition, there is not yet a human in the womb. In the third week following conception, the fetal heart starts beating. At this point, the fetus is inarguably alive, but the question of awareness is still open. Between the sixth and tenth week, motion begins. The brain is functioning well enough to provide motor control, but again, awareness is an open question. I would personally have qualms about aborting a fetus any older than about ten weeks--after that, the fetus begins demonstrating reactions and sensitivities which require more complex areas of the brain, and thus is much more likely to be aware. There will always be an arbitrary distinction between "non-human and thus ok to kill" and "human and has a right to live". The difficulty lies in deciding where best to draw that line.

BULLSHIT.  You don't know that.  You can never prove it.  It's a shitty attempt to blame them.  Can they influence it, yes.  But if the Catholic Church was in charge, there wouldn't be the three doctor rule you talked about.  So the only "blame" that can really be assigned is to the government.  


BLAH BLAH BLAH.  Nice attempt at side stepping that issue Bondo.  WHY DO YOU SAY THAT LINE?  I wasn't asking about the law.  You said you think that's a good place, so answer my other questions.  WHy is it a good place?  Because less people will fight about it?  Bullshit.  Avoidance of the issues I presented.  Cover those if you can.


BULLSHIT.  When abortions were back alley, many women carried them to term and put them up for adoption.  Many chose to do that instead of the back alley ways.  So don't ingore them.

You just said that every woman that gets an abortion now, that wouldn't if they were not legal, would keep the child and not put it up for adoption.

If abortion wasn't an option, there'd be many more children up for adoption.  Look at our country now.  We don't have a glut of orphans waiting to be adopted (as was the case long ago).  No, now there are waiting lists years long, and people go to other countries (like South and Central American ones, along with Asian and Russian) to find them.  And, as shown, adopted children don't have lives that automatically SUCK, like you implied.


Bondo, you just ignored half the points.  Way to go.

First, in nature, there are animals where both parents take responsibility for the children.  I can bring examples.  (You and your absolute arguments, didn't we talk about them being so weak?)

Second, breast feeding isn't a requirement.  There are plenty of ways around it that don't include the moter, from wet nurses to forumla.

Third, considering that the mother of my child could have died, twice, if it weren't for taking care of her and getting her to the hospital, I'd say that I had some effect, wouldn't you?

Last,  BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT.  How can you say that a woman bears the burden in all respects?  I pointed out financially, or isn't that a burden?  In nature, that would be providing food and shelter (and some animals the male does, in others it doesn't).  

Oh, and since when aren't we supposed to be better then animals?

Weaksause Bondo, try again.  You didn't touch over half my points, and make all these universal arguments that are not universally true.

100 years ago, blacks and women didn't have the same rights as me either.
150 years ago, slaves didn't have the same rights as me.
200 years ago, non-landowners didn't have the same rights as me.

Did that make it right?  Weaksause Abe.

Just because we don't recognize the rights of an unborn child today, doesn't mean we are right.  We've trampled the rights of plenty of people and groups in our history.  Same for the whole history of the world.  So, it doesn't make it right. Or, since we've had slavery for most of our world history, I guess that would make it ok too.

No.

As for not being able to draw the line myself, you are right.  I'd rather show everyone that the line should be drawn on the side of caution.


This is an argument of mine as well, but usually used with the death penalty.  War is a different matter, but only slightly.  The difference is, both with my stance on the war, and with abortion, it should only happen to protect a life.  Yes, I think that when the mothers life is really in danger, it is an acceptable reason.  I believe killing to protect your own life is ok too (or the lives of others).  But not over land, money or resources.


Why the hell not?  I've asked it, all you said is no.

This child is growing in her womb, but being formed from half of me.  She would not be here without me.  She will be my daughter (she already is).  By everything we hold moral and legal, she is half mine after her birth, why not before?  You tell me that.


So, there is something magical that happens in the seconds when a baby takes it's first breaths then Kami?  That's when it get's a brain, like the scarecrow in the Wizzard of Oz?  My little girl is a fetus, right up until she pops out, at which time she is a baby.  So, tell me, since you aren't christian, how does this miracle happen that it gets it's brain and feeling at the moment of birth?

Tell me, where and when in it's development can it feel pain?  You can't.  Scientists can even only speculate.  It's known that react to things at a very early stage, but you can say that's instinct, that they can't reason.  But like I pointed out before, that doesn't change at birth, so is it ok to abort it after it's a 2 week old baby?  If not, why not?  What is so special about that moment in time?

One big hole in this Loudnotes.  The government is supposed to protect the members of it's society.  Murder, Rape, Racism.  Those are all very personal crimes.  Plenty crimes of passion out there to chose from.  But we want our government to protect us from those dangers, don't we?  

Don't we say it's ok to take the liberties of some people away everyday?  People that have raped and murdered for example?  Haven't we, as a society, said that we have to protect the weak?  Have to protect the helpless?  Not just those that can help themselves, but everyone?  We not only do this, we expect it.  It's one of the basic building blocks of a society.  We band together to protect each other from dangers.  How is this not the government's role?  Should we have no laws to protect people anymore?

Don't like the murder or rape examples, substitute Racism or Hate Crimes based on them.  Put in any civil rights argument.  We don't need those kinds of laws at all?

So, if you agree with that, the question really comes down to, does a baby have rights?  and when do they start?  And Why?  

I know what the current situation is, but for the "pro-choice" people out there, I want to know why they think it?  None of you has touched that slippery slope argument yet, I'm waiting.


BULLSHIT.  If nobody was pro-abortion, then there wouldn't be so many.  Look at the stats.  Look how many abortions are because there is a serious problem with the mother or child.  Then look at all the others.  Look at how many there are, because she just didn't want it.  Look how many there are because they wanted a boy, not a girl.  Do these not exist?

It's easy to say, sure, anything will be abused.  But with these numbers, it's being abused 95% of the time (if they should only be for health / rape issues).  Well, that tells me that there are plenty of people that are for abortion.  You can soften by saying that they've lost their humanity, but so has everyone that turns a blind eye to that kind of abuse.

I like your logic for the most part, and feel the same way about drugs, but it's a premise that abortion doesn't hurt anyone you are using, even if you don't directly say it.  I don't agree with that.  Abortion hurts people too.

Are you ready for some hypocricy?  It's here:


And in the very next paragraph:


Now, in the top quote, he would never advocate it unless it was a health or abuse issue.  In the next quote, he says he supports it they just don't want to go through the pregnancy.  

How can you be both??  Can anyone say BULLSHIT?


Why not.  Have three doctors agree that it's a health issue.  Explore ways to make the distinction.  What's wrong with that?  I think it would be easy to draw that distinction.  Just as easy as it is to draw the line between a murder and a justifiable killing.  


I don't think you or Kami addressed half my points Bondo.

Oh, and that last line, bullshit.  If she's your girlfriend, you don't have say, just responsibility.  You have to fight for say.  The laws are really fucked up in these situations.  Here (state laws due varry), they can start garnishing the fathers wages the day the child is born, with no tests, unless the father goes to court to fight it.  He has to fight for everything, unless he wants to pay huge amounts of cash without any say or visitation rights, which is the default judgement here.  Maybe it is better where you live, but Michigan is pretty liberal in many regards, so I don't know how much better it gets with protecting a fathers rights.

And I still think a father has rights before the baby is born.  Biology isn't a reason for discrimination, is it?  I mean, should women not be promoted or make as much money because they are women?  Oh, fuck equal rights, they should have more?  That's what you are saying?


Since when is the Christan Faith the only one with morals?  I'm not a practicing catholic either, and don't follow the church at all.  So what.  Morals are morals.  Ending a life is (with exceptions) a universal moral no no.  So what this all comes back to is, why is it ok to end that life?  Why is it ok to end that life in that time, but not when they are older?

None of you have really touched that.  I've heard the "her body, her choice" mantra over and over, but with little or nothing behind it.  "Of course it's her choice, it's her body".  BULLSHIT.

There are two big issues at the heart.

Why doesn't the father have rights earlier?  Why doesn't the woman have superior rights?  What happened to equality?

And

What about the unborn child's rights?  When should they begin (and why then)?  If it's because they can't think, why not later?  If it's because they can't feel, why can't I kill you as long as I make it painless?  

Why do most of the people that say they are for it only under certain circumstances (which I agree with) turn a blind eye to the fact that this isn't the practice of pro-choice?  If you only agree with it for some small conditions (health, rape, whatever), but not for birth control, then how can you not be for more and better laws?  How can you support a system so abused that it is a method for birth control 95% of the time?

Do none of the pro-choice people see the illogic in that?

It can be both because you can't read.  In the first it says I don't advocate getting an abortion except for the few special circumstances.  In the second I say I support the OPTION of having an abortion.  I never say I support having the abortion.

You are really tossing around the bullshit claim a lot here Bucc, but you really should try to understand that your side is no less opinion than anyone elses.  You say the fetus is alive and should be protected.  That is all well and good but it is your opinion that it should be protected.  You say killing in war for protection is ok.  The one thing I wonder, what happens to the protection of the parents.  Not just in direct health but financially and mentally.  Some people can't take the burden of having a child and doing so will cause great harm to them.  This harm should be respected as well by giving the option to remove the harm by aborting the fetus.  Sure we can give the fetus rights, but its rights shouldn't be more important than its fully alive and aware mother.

I never claimed adopted children's lives suck so I don't really know what you meant with that statement.

Here is a bit of information for you.  In Poland I think it was, when they outlawed abortion, birth rate didn't go up compared to when abortion was legal, nor did it go down when abortion was once again made legal.  Basically the people who are going to have abortions are going to have abortions.  Better to have safe legal ones than unsafe illegal ones.  Thus the reason for having the choice.  I say BULLSHIT to your claim that if there wasn't abortion that the number of kids up for adoption would increase.  It just isn't proven in past examples.

Bucc, I don't have to acknowlege all your points as legitimate because you most certainly don't do the same so don't yell at me for ignoring half your points, it is hypocritical.  I mention this about the men's right for the baby.  I don't consider the genetic information of the baby reason to give the man rights.  I don't consider financial support for the baby as reason to give the man rights.  I do give carrying and caring for the baby as reason to give the mother rights.  And you say babies can just have formula...that isn't really correct, babies NEED breastmilk to be healthy.  Formula isn't nearly as healthy for the baby.  Perhaps they can survive on it but it is dangerous to say it is a replacement for breastmilk.

Finally, since you say I'm ignoring or side-stepping to not talk about it, the slippery slope argument.  I can remember back to about when I was 3 so I say that is the age when someone is truly aware and fully human.  You say bullshit or weaksauce, but I think it is fully legitimate and I had some agreement about it, that it is acceptable to pick a time when abortion is still acceptable.  I said through the second trimester, Loth said 10 weeks.  Whatever you want and whatever reason, it is still ok to set a boundry even if there is no real logical argument why that specific spot is picked.  A spot needs to be picked because that is how laws work, they need to be specific.

Firstly, I don't answer to all your points because I don't have the time and I really can't be arsed.


You don't have to carry the child in your womb for 9 months, you're not the one feeding the child for 9 months, the only material that actually comes from you is some of the genes... After the child is born, both you and the mother can take care of the child and that's why.


Look into a newborn baby's eyes, what can you see? Nothing at all 'cept confusion... They aren't aware of that they are at all until atleast a couple of weeks/months. They're like lowly developed monkeys. The fact that it's not a part of the mother's body after birth is why I think that it's not ok to abort a 2 week old baby and also, it's medically inconvenient to abort a baby after say 15 weeks, you'd have enough time to consider abortion in 15 weeks.

     Thanks, Bondo. I was beginning to think that my posts were invisible or something. ; )

I don't really want to become entrenched in this whole argument here, but since no one has brought up this reasoning I thought that I would give my justification for abortion. When I look at many different issues, the factor that often makes my opinion on them is human suffering. Real, quantifiable human suffering. In the case of abortion, if the fetus cannot feel pain or does not have the mental capacity to experience anguish as a result of the procedure than I am much more easily able to go along with the procedure. All the other moral stuff is just that, arguing it really seems like beating your head against a wall.

Just to develop this argument a bit, I thought I'd apply it to some of the examples that have been thrown out here so far. Civil rights laws protect members of minority groups from facing mental or physical anguish. War causes physical and mental anguish on both sides. The death penalty causes plenty of anguish for the families involved. So, if there isn't any human pain being experienced, I am usually able to look at something through a utilitarian view. And abortions end unwanted pregnancies, ones which are typically a mess regardless of the outcome.

stop quadruple posting bucc...don't you have your own forums to spam on?

I doubt that there are many, if any, religions that would find abortion acceptable.

To tasty, we just have to re-hash the same old argument. A bad life is better than no life at all. And if they really don't want to go on, there's always suicide.

Supporting the wide open option is supporting it.  Anything else is a word game.  You can't support the option without supporting the act (indirectly).  Indirect support is still support.  So I call Bullshit.  It's like saying that the people that buy street drugs are't supporting gang warfare.  What do they think the gangs are fighting over (who owns that corner to sell the crack on) and where do they get the money to buy the guns (from that cash they just paid).  No, they aren't supporting it, are they?

You don't have to say you are for something to actually be supporting it.

Oh, and go back to your first post in this thread, where you support "abortions" up to the second trimester because if the parent doesn't want or can't afford the child.  Sure sounds like you supporting abortion for birth control to me.

HYPOCRITE!


Actually I say that there are reasons for killing.  As a society we have always had reasons that excuse killing.  Right?  I'm saying that there are exceptions, in the law even, on when killing is "allowed" or "right".  And I've said in the past that war should always be the last resort, but that sometimes it's needed.  Well guess what, my feelings on abortion are the same way.  There are some few reasons that some should be allowed.  But not that many.  Not for birth control (which is how most are used). And I think it would be just as easy for law to be made and enforced in this case as in any other.


If you are saying the harm of a super high risk pregnancy, I agree.  If you are saying the harm is raising a child, I say bullshit.  They can carry the baby to term, give birth, and give it up.  There's no harm in that.  

I've never said 100% of them should be outlawed.  I've said that true health concerns are valid reasons.  But just the inconvienence of a normal pregnancy isn't.


Yes, you did.  It was one of those lovely absolute statements you like to throw around.  You said that if the parent didn't want or couldn't afford the child, it would have a crappy life anyway.  That was pretty absolute.  That's why we say your arguments are weak so often.  It's completely ignoring adoption.  Which is why we brought it up.


No, what you proved is that when it's easy to cross a boarder to break a law, people will cross the boarder.  It was very easy to get around that law, so people did.

As for being better to have safe legal ones, rather then unsafe illegal ones, I say BULLSHIT.  

Protecting people that break a law is no reason to change it!  Should we change other laws to make the country a safer place for rapist to comit their crimes?  Or murderers?  It would be nice for them to feel safer, wouldn't it?  LMAO, that is the dumbest argument of all, and I don't care how often it has come up in the past.  There is no logic in that argument.

Bullshit.  I don't ignore points I don't agree with.  I point out that they are bullshit if that's what I think they are.  And I point out arguments you make that I agree with.  But I don't ignore them. I agree or refute, but I don't do very much ignoring.


And again, I ask why?  Like I keep saying, why discount the genetic code, baby wouldn't be here without it?  Why discount financial support, the father (in the cases we are talking about) is providing it?  And HOW IS THE FATER NOT CARING FOR THE BABY??  If he's providing the food, clothing and shelter for the mother, he's providing it for the unborn baby, isn't he?  Isn't that caring for it too?

And you again didn't touch why a fathers rights are age dependant.  Why he has rights after the baby is born (even if he has to fight for them when not married), but not before.  Why do they not come until later?  Reasons?



First, fucking quote me and don't keep twisting my words.  That pisses me off Dumbass.  You take my words out of context, change a word and base an argument off it.  FUCK OFF WITH THAT.  

I said there are ways from wet nurses to formula.  I never said they can "just have formula".  That's you putting a slant on things.

Second, you are still wrong.  Formula isn't as good as mother's milk, true.  The biggest reason for this is that a baby can't be alergic to it, at all.  There are more.  Mother's milk is full of anti-bodies, which help to protect the child from illness.  It's a really intersting topic, as I've been learning about it in birthing classes for the last 8 weeks.  But, what else do we learn?  By the way, I think my woman has picked the fucking most liberal, left wing class she could.  The Bradley Method.  Anyway, while it is accepted that mother's milk is the best option always, it has not been shown at all that formula is not a good substitute.  There are millions of babies raised on it and not mother's milk every year.  No study has shown any negative effects on them.  It's just that it is impossible for it to adjust to the baby automatically, like mother's milk does, so it can never be as good.  

Oh, and another bullshit absolute up there.  "Babies NEED breastmilk to be healthy."  That's what you said.  BULLSHIT.  I was a super healthy baby, and never drank from my mothers tits.  Many people my age were never breast fed.  Were we all unhealthy?  NO.  Tell me where in the hell you got that formula was dangerous too??  I cry bullshit on that as well! What in the hell have you been reading??


Yep, you still side stepped it.  You and everyone else so far.  I asked for you to support it, with your reasons, not the law.  


That's getting close, but are you saying that abortions should be allowed until age 3 then?  Do you have the balls to actually say that?  


WHY?  Why is it ok to set a boundry without logic?  For the love of humanity, why?  If one needs to be set, why not use one that can be argued with logic?  Why pick something that has none?  Why?

bucc,

i might have expressed that thought somehwhat oddly, but give me a break, plz. slavery, civil rights movement and poll tax?? that is SUCH bs. first of all, we can go up to women, blacks and non-voting people and ask them how they feel about being discrimated against, but we cant ask a fetus, because it isnt there. also, my post clearly said that, from a purely rational point of view, i don't think a fetus qualifies as a human being and only obtains that status (and all the rights involved) when it pops out the cavity. again, ill also have to point out that when i bring my gut feelings into this i feel that the 1st trimester is a good compromise. and this is what the question ultimately comes down to: where do you consider life to begin?

and capt.: how can u accuse me of condoning murder, when ive made clear that i only consider it to be a human being after it is born. how is it murder to kill somthing that i dont consider human.


i think that pretty much invalidates your above arguement, although im sure many other non-christian religions have other views than that of the catholic church on abortion as well.

one final point i would like to make: do you guys really think that women conciously use abortion as a means of contraception. if that were the case, id be revolted too, but the fact of the matter is that, for women, an abortion is an extremely intrusive and invasive procedure, that they would much rather avoid by using a pill or a condom. abortion is typically a last resort, so stop making it sound like all these women will choose to go get laid without protection and then decide to get an abortion instead.

So taking care of both the mother's and babies needs before the birth means nothing, eh?  The food I'm giving the mother isn't the food getting to the unborn baby?  

Why is the location of the baby the only important factor in your opinion??

Abe, look at the statistics.

http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm (http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm)

I'll be the first to admit that this is a heavily pro-life website. Problem is, no pro-abortion websites have them. But on the websites study, it breaks down to

---

* Wants to postpone childbearing:? 25.5%
*   Wants no (more) children:? 7.9%
*   Cannot afford a baby:? 21.3%
*   Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
*   Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
*   Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
*   Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
*   Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
*   Other: 2.1%

---

As you can see, only 18.3% adds up to "hard" cases, those too young or health risks.

As a note, i have to retract my previous statements about 5% due to "hard" cases, that was from a different set of statistics that wasn't as thorough.

Yes, but is that all?  I'd say they protect the rights of minority groups.  The rights to life, liberty and the, ok, I wont finish it.  But really, taking ones life is considered the ultimate civil right violation, isn't it?


Yep, and usually there is plenty of it before a war too.  Usually they start after there's already been anguish going on for a long time.  Not a universal, but a majority I'd say.


So did the crime.

And what if there are no families involved.  What about then?  You know, some vagrant that killed another?  Or someone with no ties that is found guilty of treason?  Is it ok then?


But what if only one person wants it ended.  What if it's not universially unwanted?  Doesn't that count?  Isn't that even more anguish?

And how is giving the kid up for adoption less anguish then abortion?  Different anguish I'd say, but not more.

Capt. Anarchy, thanks for looking them up and correcting them.

Bronto, fuck off.  If you have somthing intelligent to add, then feel free.  If you feel like spamming, there is a thread for that.

Ahh, found the original study in its entirety, for anyone who wants too read up:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

That's why abortions happen.

capt. anarchy: the only developed countries on that list, other than the US, are finland and japan. the reasons for getting abortions are different in third world counties....
the authors of that study deliberatly compared apples and oranges and deliberatly put the US statistics last. the only thing those statistics tell me is that women in africa, south asia or latin america have other reasons for getting abortions than women in japan and the US. nobody is disputing that....

heres a link for you:
http://www.voters4choice.org/facts/myths.shtml

there is plenty of info on both sides of the issue.

btw, aborting a rapist baby is NOT going to correct a wrong that has already been done, but i WILL ease the womens suffering and anguish. can u imagine having to care for the baby of somone who raped you and the kind of emotions that would stir up in you? i cant.

Abe, I cited that page because it is the actual study that has statistics for the reasons abortions are preformed in the US. I didn't even look at the statistics for the other countries.

The link you give me has no statistics. All I see on the reasons abortions are preformed is the "women use abortion instead of birth control" "myth". But it also generalizes and says those against abortion are against birth control.

Same here...Bucc works with computers so he seems to have plenty of time to read (and quote) every point and reply.  It takes a good bit of work to do all the quoting of individual segments so I just reply more generally and touch on points in seperate paragraphs.  And I skip things I don't have a strong desire to reply to, in an effort to further save time so I can use my time to type the messages I do want to get across better.

Loth, of course I'm reading your posts :)

Bucc, you ignore my points by simply refuting them without truly understanding or considering them often.  That is why your alleged refuting doesn't really refute anything.

Bucc, I recently took Human Sexuality class.  In the text it cites studies about the benefits of milk.  Babies who have their mother's breastmilk are smarter, have less allergies and are in general healthier than babies that have formula instead.  Also, when formula was used in a baby ophanage, the mortality rates were catastrophic...something like 98%.  I am in no way overstating when I say needing milk to be healthy.

Bucc, if I am in favor of legalizing pot and having it be an option to smoke it, are you saying I'm supporting it and can't possible think smoking pot is a bad thing?  It is just the same as me being in favor of having legal abortions but personally thinking it is a bad thing.  I'm not supporting the action itself, merely having the action be legal.  You can call names all you want but it doesn't change that my view is in no way hypocritical.

It is your opinion that the hardships and pain of carrying a baby to term isn't enough reason...but your opinion doesn't make other opinions invalid or wrong.  So I can hold the opinion that being forced to go through the pains of pregnancy is enough reason to have an abortion and it is no more or less valid as saying it isn't.

Bucc, I say again, I never said the life of an adopted child is crappy, I said the life of a child that is raised by a parent that didn't want it or couldn't afford to support it would be.  If they give the child up for adoption it wouldn't be under that category.  And stop calling my statements absolute.  Every rule has exceptions, that is a fundemental truth so if I say something is some way, obviously not everything is exactly that way, just the general result.  I have never claimed that any of my statements apply for every single case ever.  You are saying my statements are absolute when they aren't...your misinterpretation of context isn't my fault.

Odd, so the many advocates of safe legal abortions, the many advocates of needle exchange programs, etc are just stupid morons?  There is a very good reason behind these stances and that is caring about humans.  Rape and murder are violent crimes, abortion and drug use aren't.  There are distinctions between crimes and you can't just say something is good for how to treat one crime that it is good for any other crime.

Sorry, but I bring a fact about the effect of banning abortion is that it has no effect other than to risk the lives of mothers but you are free to disregard it and continue to think your opinion is more valuable than my facts taken from textbooks.

Let me ask a simple question.  If a couple does everything in their power to prevent a pregnancy...basically the woman is on the pill or the man wears a condom.  Shouldn't they be able to get an abortion if she gets pregnant?  They obviously don't want a child, but it isn't like they were careless and then use it to make up for it.  They were careful not to have a baby and they did anyway.  Why shouldn't they be able to use the one method for preventing it after the fact as well?

Heh...this is good stuff. I apologize for the roughness of this but I'm in a rush.

Think of this. You're saying a baby doesn't have life until the second trimester. How are you defining life? Because I'm pretty damn sure that the egg that's fertilized by sperm is alive and well with cells. Cells are alive. They're an important part of our life cycle. Without them...we die. So yes....a baby is alive in the womb no matter what. From start to finish. Laws were made so women and men who "screw up" have an exuse to get rid of a life they don't want. They can fuck all they want without the risk ("the risk" would be from their point of view) of having a child. It's fucking sad that someone considers childbirth a risk. Your parachute not opening when you're skydiving is a risk...not childbirth.

For those that believe in Jesus. What if Mary had just lobbed off Jesus' head because she didn't want to have a child out of wedlock? What would you say then....Oh it was her body and she could do what she wanted with it. HAH! You just killed the son of god.

If that tough-ass sperm can break through the condom, survive the contraceptives, and fertilize that egg, I think it fuckin' deserves to have its child born.

exactly why they call it "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion"  ;D

uh, no.

if a terrist manages to get through our borders, elude the FBI and intelligence community and put a canister full of Vx gas into the A-train in NYC, would that mean that he deserves to kill thousands. i think not....maybe the analogy is a bit far fetched, but i think u get the point.

Py, i like to have sex (a lot, actually) not because i wanna make babies , but i because i like to get laid. given that i have no income of my own and wont have enough to support a child for some time, at the present moment, i consider my girlfreind getting pregnant a risk. that doesnt mean that it will be a risk 20 yrs from now. people DO have sex for other reasons than making babies, so there are circumstances where pregnancy is a risk.
also, its funny to see pro-life people get all scientific on you...
py, an amoeba (sp?) is also made up of cells, yet killing one is not murder. furhtermore, your sperm cells are alive too.....are you committing murder everytime you wank off? should women have funerals every 28 days?
i hope one day (provided you ever get laid  ;)), you will be in a postion where u screwed up and have to decide between an abortion and your absolutist views on the subject.....
in the end, if im deciding between the rights of fetus and those of an adult woman, ill go with the women who has a name, a personality and a life, none of which the fetus has.
bondo, just remember its impossible to argue with people who have g-d and "morality" on their side. i guess were just g-dless and immoral people.(sarcasm)

why exactly do they call it "pro-life" and not "pro-trampling-on-women's-right-to-decide-what-to-do-with-their-body"?
even "anti-abortion" would seem a bit more appropriate and neutral, considering how many "pro-life" people are for the death penalty as well.

Abe, because that was too long and didn't serve their cause, of course.

Also, that analogy is a little more than far fetched... nobody dies when a child is born... quite the opposite.

And for the last time.. it's not "her" body. It's her childs body.

Also, since obviously the perspective of the man has already been covered here, I thought I would enter an argument from the perspective of the woman. This is part of the transcript from the actual Roe v Wade case argued at the supreme court, from the winning lawyer in that case (Sarah Weddington).

I can't imagine how horrible it would feel to end a human life either.  But peolpe seem to be getting past that by devaluing the life potential of an unborn child.

So, I went to your link.  And it didn't add anything.  Nobody has brought up any of those "myths" but one or two.  Out of the nine they site, most haven't been brought up, and they even got a couple wrong, and one was written in a misleading way.

What they got wrong:
They say it's a myth that abortions happen in all nine months.  Then they go on to show the percentages.  And guess what, they show abortions happening in all months (more of less).  They point out reasons and low percentages of these late term, but that goes to show it's not a myth.  The myth would be if someone said most happen late.

They say that all the groups that don't agree with abortion, also don't agree with birth control.  While this is often true, it is also often not.  They are perpetuating a myth of their own like that.

They presume that all women that get abortions are responsible, because they'd have to be to come to that decision.  That is a circular argument.  And it is just as wrong as saying that all women that gete abortions are not responsible.  Neither is extreme is true.

Where they played word games:
They say "women use abortion instead of birth control" is a myth (to them).  Tricky wording.  Nobody has said instead.  I've said "as a method", not the only method.  Nobody has argued that these women don't use other forms of birth control.  But the article words it as if it is not being used as birth control, if another form of birth control has failed.  That's not quite true.  Secondary birth control is still birth control.

They say "adoptioin is the solution" in the myth, not "adoptioin is A solution".  They say giving up the baby can be traumatic.  But they don't site any studies.  When they do site them earlier, they mention two (there are more, but these two fit their view) and it's LONG TERM PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS.  But, when talking about adoption, they say it "can be traumatic".  Hard on the one side, soft on the other.  

So I see lots of fluff.  Lots of word games.  And no mention of the child, just the mother.  So it completely ignores what's better for the unborn child, just what's good for the mother.  It completely ignores the father.  

It's a very narrow view.

capt.

duh, thats why dont use that name.....it was a rhethorical question, genius. however, i still don't understand what the problem with "anti-abortion" is. imo, it is more accurate, since most of the people who endorse the "pro-life" agenda are against abortion, rather than being for life. or how about pro-fetus or pro-embryo. theres a positive one that would convery your message rather well.

second: you completely missed the point of that analogy. i was simply saying that just because a sperm/terrorist gets through, doesnt mean that it is welcome. thats all. try this: just because rabbits get through the fence in your yard, get past the dog and start proliferating (i.e. fucking) in your backyard, does that mean you have to let the rabbits stay? after all, they ARE bringing life into this world, even though you never wanted a rabbit colony in your backyard.

finally, the fetus is only officially a child once it pops out the cavity, so as long as shes carrying the baby in her womb, it IS her body and she should have the right to decide whether she wants to go through childbirth (which, i gather, really isnt that much fun itself) and be responsible for raising a child. i'm completely against the notion that the child has any sort of claim or rights, especially when people make them out to be more important than the rights of an adult female.

I can understand not having a strong desire to reply to things that you can't refute.  I can really understand you not having a strong desire to reply to many questions, that you just can't.  Why would you have a strong desire to reply to them?  It's hard to  defend your position when you haven't thought it all the way out.  When you don't have an answer.


Do me the honor of proving that.  Show me where I don't consider them.  I never call bullshit without explaining why.  You may not agree with me, but you are just as likely not to understand my reply as I was to not understand your point in the first place.  So I call bullshit and ask you to prove where I have not considered them OFTEN (not just once, but OFTEN).  Can you do that?


They haven't proven the smarter part.  It is a theory right now according the books they have us reading (the very pro breast feeding books).  But yes, I've agreed that breast milk is better.  You have ignored twice the comments about a wet nurse (do you not know what it is, or just don't want to accept that they exist)?


98% of the babies died in an orphanage?!  OMG.  That place should have been torn down and all the workers never allowed to touch a child ever again.  To ever look at a child.  Where was this death camp for babies.  I don't think a jew in a Nazi concentratioin camp had that bad of odds.  Only 2 out of every 100 babies survived?  Where was this??

Oh, and tell me what it had to do with formula?  Was it poisoned?  Was this hundreds of years ago, when it was gruel?  Was it last year, with a baby formula that was approved by the FDA?  Was it a good formula, very close chemically to mothers milk?

Tell us all about it!  I've never heard of any place that killed 98% of the babies.  Not on fucking accident.  Tell us!


I'm saying that if you are in favor of legalizing pot, you support people smoking it.  Cut out anything else, it's fluff.  You are supporting people to smoke it.  Can you think it's bad and still support it.  YES.  I support the legalization of pot too.  But I don't lie to myself about it.  I believe it is the right of people to do things that are bad for them, if that's what they want.  So I am supporting them and their choice.  Just like you are.


Yep, it's an opinion.  And I say it is.  But, you don't give the whole opinion of mine.  Do it justice.  I don't think it's reason enough to end a life.  And that's the issue pro-choice advocates ignore the most.  What you are talking about is ending a life.  And that life is as innocent as it gets.

Nope.  I pointed that out the very first time.  YOU DIDN'T SAY RAISED BY.  Don't blame me, or anyone else, if that's what you were thinking.  Because that is not what you wrote, and I wasn't the only one here to catch it.  

And even when we touched that side of the argument, we said a crappy life is better then no life, and the kid could always kill itself if it was that bad (since you are for suiside).


Bullshit.  It's the way you write them.  You use words like ALL and EVERY.  Not my fault you can't use words like MANY, SOME, A MAJORITY or A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE instead, where they belong.  You often accuse me of ALWAYS doing something.  And when I point out it isn't always, you start to waffle.  Is it my fault you had a shitty education in logic?  Well, that or it just didn't take, you tell me which one.  It's been said in many ways, and I'm sorry you don't get it, but they are weak arguments to use those absolute terms.

So write what you mean.  If you don't mean them as absolute, don't write them that way.


AND HERE IS THE CRUX OF MY ARGUMENT!  WHY ARE UNBORN CHILDREN NOT HUMANS IN YOUR OPINION?

How am I not caring about humans in my arguments.  I'm caring about the father and the child, besides just the mother.  You are caring only about the mother.  Who is caring more about humans in that case??

And I say that abortion is a violent crime.  That's my opinion.  To drop to the level of some others here, I'll get graphic.  You are ripping the baby to pieces.  How is that not violent?  But, that's actually not as important to me as the fact that you are just ending a life.

<sarcasim>So because I care more about the rights of all the individuals involved, I don't care as much.  That was a solid argument there.  </sarcasim>  LOL


I didn't ignore it.  I addressed it and gave you an opinion on why we should protect those breaking the law.  That's not disregarding it.  If you want an example of disregarding things, you completely disregarded my response.  What a fucking hypocrite.

You got a fact out of a textbook.  It doesn't mean I have to agree with a conclusion you draw from it, does it?  Did I say that the number was bullshit?  NO.  I said I don't think it is a reason to make things safer for criminals.  Especially ones I consider VIOLENT CRIMINALS.  And I asked what you thought about making it safer for rapist and murderers.  

That's not disregarding, that's failing to see the importance of.  

You keep saying it.  I keep asking WHY.  Sooner or later, I'll get an answer.  Like I said, living and growing in her womb doesn't make it any more her body then a tapeworm is part of her body.  

Which brings us to rights:


Again, I keep hearing this, I'm not hearing a why.  I ask again.  WHY?  


Well, that unborn child is as innocent as any human can claim.  They haven't done anything wrong yet.

But, more to the point.  I've never said they should have MORE rights.  But they should have the basic right to life (in my opinion).  

If it comes down to the mother's life or the childs life, well, nobody has said the child comes first here, have they?  Equality may be argued, but the only people arguing one persons rights over the others are the people that say only the mother has rights.

I've written a lot there, so I wanted to sum up a bit.

Most of my argument is:

You are giving more rights to the mother, then to the father of unborn child.  This isn't new for the human race, we've done it to just about eveyone we could.  That kind of thinking brought us slavery, racism and sexism.  This is no different.  200 years ago, you could kill a slave in this country, because it's life wasn't thought to have as much worth.  It didn't have rights.  Well the "it" was people.  And we changed our tune, those people have rights, and aren't slaves anymore.  So, who was right?  The slave owners that could kill them, legally?  Or the civil rights activists?  Anyone here for slavery?

Well, anytime we give more rights to someone, we give less to someone else.  And in every other case we see this as wrong.  Why not in this case?  I can come up with excuses on why whittie should get paid more then the black man (KKK and American NAZI sites are full of them).  I can come up with plenty of excuses on why men earn more pay then women.  Or why they should be promoted more.  I can come up with plenty of excuses as to why arab-americans should be herded like cattle and their liberties suspended for the good of the country.  But they are all excuses.  Logic will tear most of them to shreds in seconds.  The ones that logic cant tear to shred are just too based on opinion and stated worth.  But does anyone here think that any of these things should still exist in America?  Should they?

Half of what was in that tidbit from Roe v Wade was out of date (and I'm happy it is).  Women don't get kicked out of school anymore, or fired, or most of the other things that used to wrongly happen to pregnant women.  Not because of abortion, but because they were wrong, and we see that now.  Just like other civil rights.  Should we go back to those ways for any reason?

So, what I'm looking for is a real, logical reason why the mothers rights are more important the the fathers, and the unborn childs.  Why, when we keep breaking down that barrier of putting one group ahead of others, does this one still linger?  

I've heard because it's painless.  But we can kill anyone and make it painless.

I've heard because it's part of her body, but I don't agree and nobody has told me why I'm wrong.

I've heard because illegal abortions are more dangerous.  But, if they are illegal, why should they be safe?

I've heard because our society says so.  But our society said slavery was ok to.  Is it?  Can't we learn better?

Anyone?  Anyone out there have a logical reason why unborn children don't have rights, but a baby one second out of the womb does?  

And if they do, how do they feel that if you shoot a pregnant woman, and kill the unborn child, it is considered murder in most states?  Why is it murder when someone other then the mother is doing it? (I'd have to look up before I say all, learn that lesson Bondo).

bah, i erased my whole post. ill try to recreate the main points.

bucc, i dont consider an embryo to be a human being for the same reason i dont consider a fertilized chicken egg to be a chicken.....i doubt you will take that as an answer, though.
tapeworm- who are you to tell a women whether she should remove a tapeworm or keep it. she is the one whose gonna be losing weight, shitting soup and feeling sick, not you. the same goes for the fetus, imo

next point- now, given that i don't consider the embryo to be a human being, why should it have any rights? your whole arguement hinges on the notion that an embryo or "unborn child", to use your emotional terminology, is, in fact a human being......my arguement hinges on the opposite assumption, so i guess thats where the difference in opinion comes from....

and finally rights- imo, forcing a mother to have a child against her will, when abortion is an option, is infringing on her rights to liberty and to pursue happiness. since, as ive made clear, i dont view the child as a human being per se, i dont think it should have, why should i acknoledge that it has any rights.

and speaking of rights: you have made some pretty libertarian statements in the past (i.e pot or gun control). you are against the government regulating firearms (eventhough they kill countless fully hatched americans each year), but you are for them regulating the most intimate part of a women's body? i find it somewhat contradictory to want to keep the government out of your gun cabinet, but at the same time want the government to regulate a women's uterus.

First off, props to abe, I'm with you on pretty much everything (I would say everything but then if I ever disagreed Bucc would yell that I'm making absolute statements that aren't true).  Damn us unchristian savages ;D

I know what wet nursing is Bucc, but it is not typical in modern society.  As for the ophanage, yes, it was an example from probably a hundred years ago.  But it did have to do with being fed a replacement for mother's milk even if not the current one.  I could point out other examples such as the huge amounts of deaths of infants in third world countries where formula when mixed with contaminated water.  A problem that wouldn't occur with breast feeding even if it isn't a direct result of the forumla.

You say you think it isn't reason enough to end a life...and that pro-choice people ignore that it is ending a life?  Well, I think that it is reason enough to end the life, there I'm not ignoring it.  Whether it is a HUMAN life or not is debatable.  No one is debating that it isn't alive in some form.  Regardless of what the result of the action is your opinion that it isn't enough reason is no stronger than mine that it is.

We've told you why we disagree, but since it is a mater of opinion can't tell you why you are wrong.  On the other hand you are telling some of us that we are wrong when it too is opinion and thus you should only be saying you disagree.  You seem to be thinking that there is a right answer and everything else is wrong and unless we prove fully that your view is completely wrong that it must be right.  Yet you critcize me for not defending my opinions completely.  Guess what, they are not the RIGHT view that has no holes whatsoever because that view doesn't exist.  So pardon me while I don't try to attain the unattainable.

Buccaneer, I want to make a point about your posts.  Heaven forfend that I agree with Bondo on something, lest I lose all credibility in your eyes, but I think he's correct in questioning your post breakdowns.  I have to acknowledge, it's very effective the way you go line by line in attacking each individual idea.  However, sometimes you're taking points out of context.  It does very little to add to debate if you quibble over details irrelevant to the overall point of the posts.  You're not the only one to do it, but please, unless something is really completely outrageous, don't nitpick.

For example, what you said in the summary post I quoted above was all you really needed.  It eloquently expressed your ideas, which can now be much more easily digested.  For one, you often chastize Bondo for failing to respond to your points.  However, it's nearly impossible to debate every one of your statements when they all reference other statements.  Debate the idea, not the wording.  

In reading through the arguments here, I've found about a dozen or so different ideas that I disagree with in some form or fashion.  However, I've also found others' responses that I felt adequately addressed those points.  I suggest that you try for a little while to answer those points, which have been missed because you only noticed the most egregious statements.

For example, you said, "That kind of thinking brought us slavery, racism and sexism.  This is no different."

Instead of arguing just that one debatable statement, wouldn't you prefer I were to analyze the entirety of your argument?

Now, to add one idea to the mix, perhaps here's a thought slightly less absolute for you.  What if the unborn child does have rights, only they are less than those of the mother?  Do you really think that everyone's rights are always equal?  

Furthermore, you asked: If a stranger kills your child-to-be without your consent, of course it's a crime.  Murder is a definition that could be debated (as you said, most, not all states classify it as murder).  If you choose to kill the child yourself, that's your decision, a completely different situation.  Of course, to recognize that, you must recognize that the rights of the child are less important than those of the mother.

And I suppose that's really the ultimate source of debate.  

Loudnotes, on the argumentative style I agree with you completely. But if someone does it to your post, you pretty much have to do it back to avoid looking like an idiot. Otherwise it looks like you just posted a bunch string of untrue statements that you can't backup. I also think that if people are engaged in one of these lengthy arguments that they should acknowledge points that the other person makes that they agree with rather than responding to only what they disagreed with.

Exactly as you just did tasty.  You mentioned what you agreed with, while dissenting on the necessity of such posts.  But I think if we all just stopped posting in that manner, there wouldn't be a need for long-winded follow-ups either.  But yeah, of course you'll need to defend yourself if someone's dissected your every word.  It's just not simple to do.

I agree tasty...I certainly have been made out to be an idiot for not replying to Buccs posts as he replies to mine.  I agree with Loud of course (seeing as he was in part agreeing with me) and I think he expanded on my feelings that may come out being more defensive rather.

Going on the point Loud talked about with a violent crime resulting in the miscarridge of the baby being different than the mother's choice to abort it.  I think an analogy to this would be suicide vs. homicide.  Now given, the person committing suicide can't be punished as they are dead.  But it is less wrong an act than another person killing that person.  To make it more easily comparable.  Attempted murder is a serious crime that gets somewhere in the 10-20 year range in jail term.  Attempted suicide just results in mental treatment usually.  There is a distinct difference in the punishment of two similar acts, the attempt to kill a person.  Just as the person trying to kill themself is not punished, the mother aborting her fetus can also be unpunished for that action.  Yet in both cases the stranger killing either is a punishable offense.

I don't, because it's only part of the stages of life inside the womb.  An unborn child goes grows from an embryo to a zygot to a fetus (correct me if that's the wrong order, I'm tired).  It spends most of the time in the mother as a fetus.

The other thing is, the egg gets the same rights as the chicken.  NONE.  


Way to miss the point Abe.  Don't mix up my examples.  The tapeworm example was talking about the fetus being "part" of the womans body, or not.


Actually, not all of my argument hinges on it.  

But a large part of my argument is, WHY NOT?  I'm not making an assumption, no more then white men that thought black men were human too, and deserved their rights were making an assumption.  Most Americans didn't consider them human, or worthy or rights not that long ago.  

So I've been asking, why don't they deserve the rights.  I keep hearing people repeat that they don't agree, but I'm not hearing much about the WHY.  That's what I keep asking.


Stop it right there.  You are using your conclusion to support your argument.  If i'm arguing that aborion ISN'T an optioin, how can you point out the flaws in my argument while saying it is an option?  It's a logic trap.


Yep, I'm as close to Libertarian as to any single party.  Not that it has anything to do with this discussion.


Abe, either you haven't read, haven't understood, or just twisted my words around.  I believe in gun control (control does not equal less guns though).  I believe that people kill people, guns are just a good tool for that job.  I believe that criminals should be punished more, and non-criminals should be left their liberties.  And I don't believe that being anti-abortion means that government regulating a womans uterus anymore then I think having a law against shooting someone is the government regulating my trigger finger.  Read that one carefully.

I just want to take this oppertunity to point out the fucking assholes out there that keep assuming things.

Have I said I'm christian?  Have I based any of my arguments on being christian?  Have I brought it up at all?

I would like to point out that the only people bringing up any faith here are the people in favor of abortions.  Why?  Because dumping me or others in that bucket somehow discredits our arguments.

SO FUCK OFF WITH ALL THOSE COMMENTS, I'M SICK OF THEM.


Not typical, but still goes on, and is still available to those that look for it.  And is an option, like I mentioned.


No, the kid would just die later from drinking that same contaminated water.  Ok, that was a typical Bondo Answer, so let me do better.  Those children didn't die because of using formula, they died because their caregivers were to stupid to boil water.  We can go back and forth on any example you bring up, but you'll not get it to a direct cause and effect.  

And I still want to hear that example.  What orphanage, when?


DAMN, you guys are slow on the uptake.  I've been debating that it is a human life, with human rights for a while, but that is the issue that keeps getting side stepped.  

Stop saying you disagree with it, and say why!  Debate that issue.  Yes, you've been ignoring it, and you still did, with a word game.

And the logical reply to your question why is why not as we learned a while back in your logic quiz.

We HAVE answered the why though.  Because it doesn't have the capacity to live on its own, because it doesn't have awareness of self, because it hasn't been born.  There are many reasons why it can be considered not to be human.  You haven't been accepting/acknowledging them apparently.

And you have done no better in telling us why it IS human as opposed to not human.  I didn't say you haven't answered it...you have by saying it has human genes, but that answer is no greater than our answers saying it isn't human prior to birth.

I'll start there.  Don't change a quote.  You put a quote attributed to me up there, without it being my words.  That is as low as it gets Loudnotes.


I believe that idea is important, but how it's worded can make a difference.  Poorly worded shit is how most lawyers make their living, and if we all did a better job of how we word things (me included), we would need less of them.

And I disagree with you about it expressing my ideas.  Quotes are quotes because people (especially around here) twist words and misquote people.  That's very rude.  

I also don't find it nearly impossible to debate all points.  Just lenghty.  But my chastizing of Bondo comes when he ignores big points, especially when repeated multiple times.  For example, he didn't quote me, and made a few points where it sounded like I said Formula was just as good as mothers milk.  I never said that.  He also represnted me posts as if formula was the only option, when I was saying there were more, and not just wet nursing either.  

Also, when responding to a large number of posts, or when many posts have come between, I find it easier to follow if there are quotes that are being responded to.

Last, the quotes are often a jumping off place, not just a response or reference to another statement.


No, I'd rather that you included the part right before it, that included what kind of thinking I was talking about, then hit it.  Since you asked my opinion.


Hell no.  I think they should be, don't you?  Don't you think everyone should have equal rights?  Isn't that something worth fighting for?

What's your stance on it?  You responded, but not with even an opinion.


So you missed the point.  Why does the child have more rights when it's a stranger, or the father doing it?  The mother is given more rights in this case then anyone (that is a fact today), why?  If it's not a crime for her to kill it, why is it a crime for someone else to?

Again, that question goes unanswered.

You managed to talk around the core issues even better then Bondo.  How about debating those core issues?

Both are punishable offenses Bondo.  Your analogy was ok until you got to the conclusion.  A person trying to kill themselves can, and often is punished.  And they still comitted a crime.  They are still found guilty of a crime.  Punishments are just not applied in the same way.

This isn't nit-picking, it's just plain disagreeing with the conclusion drawn (and a couple little assumptions he made disguised as facts).  

They get different punishments based on how the crime is looked at (again, both crimes).  Just like manslaughter and murder are punished differently most places.  In both crimes, someone got killed.  But they aren't treated the same either.  Not punished the same.  It doesn't seem to be showing that there is nothing wrong with either issue, but that something is wrong with both.


I also don't agree with the assumption that a mother killing the unborn child is comparable to suiside, since it ignores the baby's rights.

Again, we assign rights and worth to that baby's life, unless the MOTHER says otherwise.  The government has already given that unborn baby some rights then, haven't they?  If you agree with my analogy (about the baby being killed) and the law in this case, then you are giving the unborn baby some rights and worth as well.  

So some of you've gone from NO rights or worth to SOME rights or worth.  Right?

Either a bad attempt at assing, or you still don't get the whole logic thing.  


Neither does an infant, but they get rights.  How is this different?


Open to debate.  Isn't it?


And I've asked, what happens in that moment that changes things?  It's still dependent on the care of others.  Is it more aware 30 seconds out of the womb then it was 30 seconds before it was born?  Honestly, what about that moment in time makes it different?


I asknowledge you saying them, but that doesn't explain them.  I don't accept reasons that are put, more or less, "because I say so".  

Maybe you just don't get it.  Saying it isn't born like that actually means something, after I've asked what that means at least 5 times before now, is just stupid.  Is it that you can't think of anything deeper?


First of all, nobody has really asked.  Nobody has really asked why I consider it a human, with human rights.  Close as it got was the chiken and egg comment, but it wasn't the question.  

Second, even without the question, I've pointed out more then the genes.  And I've also pointed out how we didn't consider blacks as humans or as having rights a short while ago, which nobody has cared to take up.  Is it that you don't see a possible connection?  Or are afraid to see the point?

Abe...so what you're saying is that a human life is no more important than an amoeba? or the sperm you abort every night?....yes its alive...but i tend to think the egg (where human life originates) is the most important part. Screw amoebas....they don't grow up to become presidents or scientists. Sperm regenerate. An egg is the most precious part. Without it we'd be fish under the bridge. Childbirth shouldn't be a fuckin statistic....it should be revered like the beautiful thing it is. A human life is more important than your having sex every night (with the same woman we'll never know...SLUT). So if you have sex...you'll have to accept the fact that you just might have a child. DEAL WITH IT! PROCESS OF LIFE! YOU MADE THE DECISION TO STICK YOU WANK IN HER CUNT! THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS!! Those organs were orginally there to make babies....now people perverted it and they're just there for sex. SEX SEX SEX. No wonder people hate America.

Actually Py, evolution perverted sex and made it not about having babies.

In most other monkey species along with most other mammals females go through what is known in lamens terms as "in heat".  In this time is when the female is able to become pregnant.  It is at this time and only at this time that the species will partake in sex.

In humans the time when the woman can become pregnant is hidden because sex is a vital tool in bonding the couple, something that is needed because human children have a greater requirement on resources to be raised.

Therefore because of evolution sex for purposes other than to have a baby is natural.  Because of this contraception and even abortion are reasonable things to further ensure that this sex for bonding and to reduce anxiety (another use for sex in humans and bonobo chimps) can happen as is natural with some say on if pregnancy happens.  It is no less reasonable than is getting antibiotics so as not to die from an infection.  It is a scientific development that can be used for humans to control their life better.

So you can make your argument about the morality of abortion, but I find the excuse that it is the risk of sex to be a weak one.

Bucc: As for wondering why birth is a moment to be considered.  That is pretty simply describe in that it is a moment that is absolute.  The baby is either in or out of the mother.  No other absolutes exist in life other than the moment of conception.  Even death isn't an absolute on when you are actually "dead".  Given that birth is such a defined moment it naturally becomes a good marker of when it is a human baby compared to still a fetus or other seperate distiction.

I think Bondo needs to go to the Ape House at his local zoo.  Masterbaition is their favorite activity as far as I can tell.  And while those little girl monkeys seem to only get horney when they are in heat, it's not the only time that they "get laid".  I also know that my female greyhound is often having to beat off the affections of Dumbass (the mastiff that is looking at death row if he eats another pizza off the table before I get my hands on a slice.  Bastard ate two whold pizza's the other night).  He still tries to give it to her on a nightly basis.

I'm really not seeing this mamals only have sex when in heat thing.  Got any studies on that?


Someone help me here.  What was that series that ran on PBS and then a bunch on Discovery.  It was a many parter on human sexuality.  One whole 2 hour bit was on the outward signs that women give off when they are ovulating (or, to put it crudely, in heat).  

We may not be as in tune with it as the animals, we don't pick up the sent and know directly what it means, but we do pick it up.  (he shows examples like women living together's periods getting in sync, etc).  He also shows how there are outward signs on women, breasts enlarge, eyes get more clear and dialated, pick up more color in the face, a bunch of others.  All subtle, but there and outward.  


Better.  You are half way there.  You gave a good, solid, logical reason.  But, (You knew there was a but coming) you only came to two points in time.  You never said why the one (birth) is more important then the other (conception).  

So, we find ourselves finally getting to it.  Why is birth (in your opinion) more important then at conception (my opinion).  Now, I've given you starting places.  The fact that we give rights to the baby when anyone other then the mother choses to end it's life.  We've established that it's a crime for the others.  I've also given you the civil rights side of it, that we (humans in general) always use the excuse that they aren't human to trample the rights of those being opressed.  And, related, I've given you that by putting the rights of one idnividual over others (the mother's rights over that of the child or father) is a slippery slope, saying one person or groups rights are more important then others.  If you can find a reason for one, you can find a reason for many.

Bucc, animals in captivation are NOT valid subjects for instintual behavior.  The popular thought that monkies masturbate a lot has only been seen in captivity, not in the wild.  And males in most species don't have cycles (elephants do have certain periods of heightened competition and sexuality) and thus have a more constant sex drive.  The females are the restriction on sex.  And you said it yourself that the females only get horny when in heat.

Your dog example is a product of captivity as well and thus not a very strong point.  In the wild, sex only happens when the female is willing and unless she has alterior motives (such as when she is pregnant and a new alpha male takes over so she pretends to be in heat so he'll have sex with her and thus he can think the baby is his and he won't kill it).  Additionally females are almost never willing when not in heat.  Sorry, but my point is scientifically documented that humans are vastly different in their use of sex as having intentional infertile sex throughout the female's cycle.

As for women having signs.  Last time I checked, I didn't see any of the girls at school walking around with a greatly enlarged reddened clitoris.  Sure, there are hormonal changes that result in various subtle changes that could potentially be spotted, but that doesn't contradict my point that their time of fertility is hidden.  I bet you a hundred dollars that you can't from ten feet away look at twenty women you don't know and tell me which are and aren't in the fertile part of their cycle.  And if I won that bet my point would be proven.  Are you saying you would win this bet?

Ok, now that we have the two absolute moments, conception and birth I will expand.  After birth the baby can live from moment to moment on its own.  When still in the woman, it depends on the female through the placenta for support of all of its life systems.  I don't consider any person that would die if it didn't have a social or mechanical support system keeping it alive...yes that extends to people in comas.  They aren't alive if they are relying on machines to be alive.

As the baby isn't alive in this manner, it isn't entitled to the rights of a live human being.  And btw, I never said I agreed with someone being punished for the baby's death when they kill the pregnant mother.  Certainly I don't think it should be treated as a live human being killed, but since the parent had the intention of giving birth it should have some weight, but not equal to its mother.  So there I've outlined why the fetus can have less rights than the mother.  And guess what, you can't use the slave argument because slaves were living unlike the fetus by my definition.

Wow. . .this is really ludicrous.  You've gotten so habituated to reading line-by-line that you're completely missing the point of the arguments.  Which, by the way, was the point of my argument.  I didn't change your quote, but YABB wouldn't allow me to post it without my text running over into two posts, which I don't like to do.  All I put was, to paraphrase, "this is post number 58, which summarized bucc's other posts"  Since all I was doing was referencing, and not dissecting your miniscule wording details, there was absolutely no need to quote the post in its entirety.  Maybe it wasn't clear, but the "quote" symbol doesn't automatically mean that the text around it was spoken by the quotee.  Remember the post entirely of quotes that I made?  There was a point to that you know. . .


Heh, some lawyers that's true.  But another thing lawyers are fond of doing is bypassing content and arguing details.  If you look hard enough, you can find a loophole in any rule, and a "hole" in any argument.  I promise you that anyone with your intellect could find something wrong with everyone's posts in every board.



Once again, I never misquoted you.  But perhaps you could try expressing your ideas without solely referencing others'.  What is really the point of such minutiae if everyone does it?  You've made your point about others' poor writing, but it's no fun to debate if you breakdown every word.

 

Fine, so maybe Bondo has made some mistakes.  Frankly, I have no idea, because I don't have the kind of time required to digest and reply to such overly analytical posts.  I don't really know how you do.  You can easily get your ideas across in a more concise manner without directly attacking everyone you disagree with.  

Well, on to my second page using this thoroughly ingenious debate tactic you've popularized, Buccaneer.


I agree.  But quote just one aspect of it, instead of a line-by-line thesis.  Most people remember what they themselves said, and usually can see what's just been written a few posts before yours.  Save the hyper-quoting for topics a couple pages back, or in a different thread.




Heh, I guess I could get to the point if I could get through the quotes.  The point was, I came to the argument a little late, found it impossible to condense the volume of quoting, and wanted to express my desire for slightly broader debate.  Here's a thought - you don't have to respond to every idea expressed by anyone.  I think abe and Bondo have already said their opinions on rights.  I haven't had a chance to read through your response to that yet.  However I agreed with them for the most part.


Nope, I actually just never got to the core issues.  After we've cleared up this tangent I'll be happy to start afresh.  However, if you read what I'm saying beyond the individual sentences and paragraphs, you'll see that I've already answered your questions, or at the very least I've agreed with someone else who phrased it better.

if anyone of you has taken a course in philosophy, here is a simple,
SOUND DEDUCTIVE argument, the strongest to a fair person

Because all humans have human DNA,
And because fetuses have human DNA,
Therefore fetuses are human.


BTW - did any of u know that 3,000 abortions happen in the US everyday?



also one more point,
waay back in the 1800s, a few of the "smartest" people in the world ruled that Africans weren't people. (US Congress) As we look back upon that decision, every one of us sees that it was wrong. In a hundred years from now, people will look back on OUR generation and think, "wtf were they thinking?!" just like we do to the slavery issues 200 years ago.

I guess by saying a fetus is human you're saying its alive. Otherwise I sure as hell hope everyone here understands that its human. Unless for Bondo....YOU SLUTMONKEY!  ;D

Ok, so you've proven to me that fetuses are human.  Too bad that doesn't matter unless people agree that it is wrong to kill humans in all cases.  Whether the fetus is human or not is irrelevant.

How about this one for you...
All living things perform vital life functions unassisted.
Fetuses require assitance.
Fetuses are not living things.

There, you've shown that they are human, but I've shown they aren't alive.  Now where are we...square one.

py, i was actually gonna stop replying here because its pointless, but after reading some of the dumb shit you spout out.......i just couldnt keep still.
so you are also against birth control and condoms. btw, if the egg is so important, is it a tragedy whenever a woman has her period. do you even think about what you say? people perverted "those organs"? bah....

maybe people "hate america" (its actually a specific dumbass demographic, which you are included in, that they hate) because of hypocrites like you who keep talking about how great and free america is when in fact they want to restrict the rights of anyone, who does somthing they find objectionable (i.e. abortion, drugs). or maybe it's because morons like you go to europe, act like you own the place and ppl should bow in front and suck your cock because your granddad fought the nazis, then can't handle their beer and act stupid going telling people their "silly euros" and puke all over......people all over the world like to have sex (and do so more often than americans) and you say it's because of that that ppl "hate america"? again, do you even think about what you say? it sure as hell doesnt sound like it.

baz, you have drawn a spurious (sp?) conclusion. your arguement is anything but sound. just replace the word <fetus> with <dead person> and tell me if that makes sense. human (adj) maybe, but they arent humans or persons.

24,000 (8 times as many) "non-fetal" people die from starvation worldwide everyday. should'nt they be your priority?

and your last point: your comparing two different and unrelated things: the rights of a "hatched" black person or woman and an "unborn" (to use your terminology more appropriately) child. this comparison just doesnt work.

and bucc, im sorry but im too lazy/tired to reply to your whole post, but you have very resonable and well articulated opinion on the subject (which you can hardly say of py). i just happen to disagree. can we leave it at that or will this result in a challenge (i.e you calling me weaksauce for dodging the arguement ;))?

Abe...you're quick to anger there pal. I guess I forgot to add the <sarcasm> sidenote. It would be pointless to argue with anyone here on the forums because most of everyone is stubborn or pig headed. So it would go on and on until a thread is locked. If you really want to argue go find someone you can actually look in the face. You get more from it.

I agree 100% with Bondo.

How can a mother love the child of her raper?
When american-christians cant even love their foes?

as they go to eliminate their foes, that mother will go and eliminate the seed of her foe in her.

better go and help protect human life where it is needed. usually i am also critical about this but in this special case i agree on what bondo said.

Bander

@3as: U wont belive it: Iraqis also have human DNA. Maybe they are human also ... wohooo spooky!

lol bander ... spooky inded :)

also, it is obvious that there aren't (many) girls here; the problem is the same everywhere, in this thread, in families, in politics: males think they are godly enough to make decisions on what a female has to do (or not to do) with her body. bah. imho, the ultimate decision has to be the one of the women only. if she decides to carry out her aby, so be it. if not, then not. just my opinion, flame along.

Right on top of it Mono. That's why it's called pro-choice.

[Bucc mode] But what about the choice of the man who contributes half the genetic material to the baby and is forced to pay child support.  Why does a woman have more rights than the man just because she carries the child? [/Bucc mode]

Hehe, oops, I put the reason why women have more rights than men right in the question.

omg, if the guy did stick his thing into her, he should've thought about it before, no? ever seen a girl *forcing* you to stick your dick into her, without leaving you any choice? lol
also, usually it's not the women's right to carry out the baby that is contested by men, but her right to abort it ...

"All living things perform vital life functions unassisted.
Fetuses require assitance.
Fetuses are not living things."


unsound, inductive argument bondo (-1 point!)

your first statement is wrong, because many things require assistance...artificial breathing, drugs, medicine, etc etc etc

btw - me thinks this is gay how you people post opinions online where no one ever changes their opinion, even if it's total bs

First off, vital life functions means breathing and having your heart beat.  The things it takes to live from minute to minute.  So drugs/medicine isn't a proper reason.  Secondly, people who need a ventalator to remain "alive" are not alive by my definition of alive.  It is valid certainly, you didn't argue that.  Now you can say it isn't logical because my first premise is unsound, but that doesn't make it unsound.  It all depends on how you define alive.  I defined alive as I wrote it and in that manner it is sound and thus logical.

your definition of "alive" is wrong, just because you think something, doesnt mean it's true
 (aka Subjectivism)

also, fetuses have beating hearts within 5 days of conception, assisted yes, but all this horeshit about them not being human is sickening

would it be offensive to you if i said "your mom shoulda aborted you" ? (im saying this hypothetically as an example, nothing personal) - because if you do, hmm that's contradiction...

Sickening to you 3az and many other pro-life advocates, but unfortunately not everyone sees it the same way. I think that if you are going to argue for the woman's right to choose, you cannot admit this point. This is the central point to the abortion debate. Pro-lifers believe that the child is alive almost immediately after conception, pro-choicers define alive differently. People can see abortion from different viewpoints, but I don't realistically think that anyone's mind is going to change about this one point and therefore I don't think anyone's mind is going to change on how they feel about abortion. That's why this is one of the most undebatable controversies there is. At least on foreign policy issues, people can argue philosophy and not science or religion. These issues just hit too close to home for some people. No one will ever be "right" or "wrong" on these issues. I have my own beliefs on who is right and who is wrong, but there can never be one set of morals that everyone believes in. It's utopian to think that it will ever be that way and unrealistic to ever have that expectation. So my advice to everyone out there arguing this issue is to just stop. It's futile for the purpose of convincing people of your viewpoint, unless you really derive pleasure from arguing (as I do).

In what way is it a contradiction if I think it is offensive for someone to say my mom should have aborted me?

As for my view of what is alive, I wouldn't deny that it is subjective.  But it isn't wrong, it just isn't the only possible right.  Things aren't black and white about that.  And if it is, what is the absolute right way to determine if something is alive or not?

     Why would someone take offense to a statement like that? It has the same meaning (although not the same emotional content) as saying something along the lines of "your dad should have married a different woman [or vice versa]," or "your parents should never have gotten pregnant." Either way, the person in question wouldn't exist. If my mom had aborted me, I wouldn't be able to care that I didn't exist, so I wouldn't care. Why should the idea bother me?

Loth, one might interpret that statement to mean you don't deserve to be alive and thus it is a judgement on who you are now.  So I don't see how favoring or not favoring abortion really impacts its ability to be offensive in the present.

Since when should anyone overlook one bad thing over another?  Two wrongs don't make a right, and pointing in another direction is a cheap trick Abe.  If anyone supported the people starving to death, you'd have a point.  Otherwise, it's just misdirection.


Why doesn't it work?  Look at the whole situation.

Once upon a time, people were unenlightened.  They considered that some people should have more rights then others.  They didn't deem these people as equals.  Or even human in some cases.  Well, as a society, we have evolved (slightly, and not completely to be sure) and said that we were wrong, they are humans and do deserve equal treatment under the law.

Now, I bring up another case, where there are two "groups", Fathers and Unborn Children (and that's not meant to be emotional, but reflective, since there are so many stages).  We, as a society, are giving mothers more rights then either of these other two groups, even though we recognize both these groups should have some rights.  Both are given some rights.  But the Mother can override their rights just like a slavemaster could.  

So, what I've been saying is, we should recognize the rights of all the groups equally.


I just want you to take a stab at that Abe.  It doesn't need to be heated, I just want to know why it's still ok to put the rights of some ahead of the rights of others?  

See, this is why I'm a moderate.  The so-called Liberals around here just don't believe in killing adults it seems (no to death penalty, no to war, no to "eye for eye" arguments).  While the so-called Conservatives seem to think killing adults is ok, but not children.  Gun control is the same.  the so called left doesn't want them at all, and the so called right doesn't want any changes.  I want control without banning or restriction, which can happen.

I say, everybody should enjoy equal protection under the law.  I say for the law to take away any humans right to live (war, crime, abortion, anything), there has to be a mitigating circumstance.  In the case of people, defending yourself.  In the case of abortion, a high risk to the mother.  I say, as a society, we have to give everyone equal rights, because if you can give Mothers more rights then Fathers or unborn children, you can make the same case with cutting the rights of any group.  Or setting one group above another.  

And, if these people were really liberal, and really socialists, they'd want the state to take care of the unwanted children, so they could grow and become useful members of the society.

First off Bucc, if you are going to quote, use it properly.

Second, I picked through the second trimester as when abortions should be allowed, not until birth.  You say babies can be alive by week 36...well, that is in the third trimester isn't it.  Put it this way, no baby by 6 months could live unassisted, it isn't developed enough, so that is a safe point to allow abortions to so as not to be killing a living being.

Also Bucc, just because something isn't alive doesn't mean it should be killed.  Things that have potential life aren't devoid of rights.  I've never argued that they have none.  I simply am stating that there is a reason for the mother's rights to be weighed heavier than the unalive fetus.  In the case of someone recovering from a car crash that has a reasonable time table for healing, no other person's rights are great enough to overcome the unalive person in a coma or whatnot from having the right to heal and become alive again.  But certainly I think it is reasonable to pull the plug if the hope on becoming alive again is only at extreme cost and hardship on living people.

Finally, your slave argument does not apply because they are undoubtedly alive just as much as other humans and other animals.  The debate that applies there is whether they are human or not, which is different than my argument of if they are alive or not.

Another so-called liberal that brings god into it.  

She can always not love it, and give it up without killing it Bander.  She doesn't have to sink to the level of her foe, does she?


Mono, I don't agree that it's just her Body.  The issue is much bigger then that.  Afterall, take that a little more down that slope.  Why should you tell me I can't use my body to break Bondo's neck?  You think you are godly enough to make that decision for me?  

It's nonsense, isn't it?  The law was written, not to protect my rights to do things, but to keep me from infringing upon others rights (Bondo's in this case).  It's the same with abortion.  I'm not arguing against a womans rights, but for the rights of the father and unborn child.  

Do you not see that?


hehe, oops, you put the EXCUSE you gave.  Like I said before, why is only the burden she carries in the equation, and not any other burdens?  


Mono, except in rape, the woman is just as responsible as the man for creating the child.  They should be equals.  

And saying that it's usually not the case where men want to have the child aborted is bullshit indeed.  I know plenty of guys, paying child support for a kid they don't get to see, that believe in abortion, that offered to pay for it and the woman said no.  So don't cry it doesn't happen.  And don't use that as an excuse for ignoring it.

If you believe that abortion is ok, why shouldn't the man be able to make that decision too?  You are still giving one group more rights then another.  And it's not just that one group that is effected, to think so is just as ignorant as thinking it was ok to do what we did to Native Americans and Afro Americans.