Excessive Pro-Life

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

...but I don't agree and nobody has told me why I'm wrong.

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

Summary post number 58 by Bucc

I'm not going to quote the whole thing because it takes up too much space

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.  

[tasty]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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....

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.

and finally rights- imo, forcing a mother to have a child against her will, when abortion is an option,

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.

and speaking of rights: you have made some pretty libertarian statements in the past (i.e pot or gun control).

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

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.

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Damn us unchristian savages

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.

I know what wet nursing is Bucc, but it is not typical in modern society.  

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Summary post number 58 by Bucc

I'm not going to quote the whole thing because it takes up too much space

Buccaneer, I want to make a point about your posts.  

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?  

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.

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.

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?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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.

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?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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

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

Because it doesn't have the capacity to live on its own

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

because it doesn't have awareness of self

Open to debate.  Isn't it?

because it hasn't been born.  

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?

There are many reasons why it can be considered not to be human.  You haven't been accepting/acknowledging them apparently.

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?

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.

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?

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

In most other monkey species ...
It is at this time and only at this time that the species will partake in sex.

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?

In humans the time when the woman can become pregnant is hidden because sex is a vital tool in bonding the couple,

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.  

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.  

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

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. . .

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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.  

[jn.loudnotes]

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

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.

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.

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?  

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.

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.

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?

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.

[3az]

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.

[PY]

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!