Excessive Pro-Life

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

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.

[abe]

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.

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 )?

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

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.

[*DAMN Bander]

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

[*DAMN Bander]

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

[*(SPU) mono]

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.

[kami]

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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[*(SPU) mono]

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 ...

[-SW- Baz]

"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

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[3az]

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...

[tasty]

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).

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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?

[Mr. Lothario]

     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?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

That's where I call BULLSHIT.

Here's where I really deconsrtuct, hold on to your hats.

First off, vital life functions means breathing and having your heart beat.  The things it takes to live from minute to minute.  

Well, if you take a fetus out of the womb at 36 weeks, it can then "live" on it's own.  Even many at 34 weeks never need to be put on a vent or any other measures.  So, You picked Birth as the moment a while ago, but now you use an example that shows, by your definition, they could be "alive" before that.

I'm even ignoring that it's breating and it's heart is beating long before that.  I'm just talking about if you seperate it from the mother, it will live (by your standard, without assistance in those vital functions) before it's "birth time".  So if you abort it right before birth, you killed something you just said was alive.

Secondly, people who need a ventalator to remain "alive" are not alive by my definition of alive.  

So, if you get in a car wreck, and they have to put you on a vent until your flail chest heals, you are no longer alive?  That's what you just said, right?

You would have a great chance of a full recovery, come off the vent and live a normal life.  But you are not alive, and they should just kill you?  Or, more to your point, anyone could unplug you and watch you die and it wouldn't be wrong.  Do I have that right?

Oh, one last thing.  The "slavery" or any other human rights argument is still alive, because you just said babies are human.  

And so many people here are so afraid to touch that argument.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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.

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.

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.

can we leave it at that or will this result in a challenge (i.e you calling me weaksauce for dodging the arguement )?

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree 100% with Bondo.

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

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?

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.

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

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?  

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 ...

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.