After 49 days, it has a soul and is considered murder.

Souls are the creation of religion and religion shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not abortions are allowed. Laws based on religion are biased.

The government should have no say in it. Or anything else.

Yes they should, considering they're the ones making the laws, otherwise this privelege would be abused.

As long as something is done out of love, and with faith in God, it doesn't really matter.

Most times, I don't think 'god' has anything to do with sex. The whole reason abortion is there is because the mother doesn't think she can handle having a kid.
<3

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1999606

End woman's suffrage! Seriously.

Most men are dead or in prison by 18, they get under repressented like a MF. This wouldn't even be a debate if women couldn't vote because there would be no such thing as child support.

Souls are the creation of religion and religion shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not abortions are allowed. Laws based on religion are biased.



I agree, laws based on religion like "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not not commit perjury" are soooo 800 BC.

Yes i know these laws appeared in nonreligious sources too but to claim that laws which are based in a particular faith are automatically biased is not correct.

Souls are the creation of religion and religion shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not abortions are allowed.

No, religion is the creation of souls.

Yes they should, considering they're the ones making the laws, otherwise this privelege would be abused.

Privelege? There are no priveleges, only rights, which is determined by might.

Laws do nothing but harm us.

Most times, I don't think 'god' has anything to do with sex. The whole reason abortion is there is because the mother doesn't think she can handle having a kid.

If you had any idea what God is, then you would understand that God has everything to do with everything, or nothing to do with everything.

I agree, laws based on religion like "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not not commit perjury" are soooo 800 BC.

Yes i know these laws appeared in nonreligious sources too but to claim that laws which are based in a particular faith are automatically biased is not correct.

What the hell? Are you kidding me? Everything is biased, that's what you get when you experience reality subjectively. Bias.

I agree, laws based on religion like "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not not commit perjury" are soooo 800 BC.

Yes i know these laws appeared in nonreligious sources too but to claim that laws which are based in a particular faith are automatically biased is not correct.

Religion is based on set principles. Each religion has it's own set rules that vary from religion, otherwise we'd all have the same faith. In saying this, I would think that that would automatically make the views biased because they only reflect the views of a minority/ often majority of people.
<3

What the hell? Are you kidding me? Everything is biased, that's what you get when you experience reality subjectively. Bias.

Also true. Reality is an illusion brought on by soberiety or a lack of caffeine.

No, religion is the creation of souls.

No, religion is the creation of beliefs and faith in a higher power.


Privelege? There are no priveleges, only rights, which is determined by might.

No, a right is something we're entitled to. If you were going to give your child an allowance, would that be it's right or privelege? Most things are priveleges, but are mistaken as rights.

Laws do nothing but harm us.

Without laws, there is no society. Without a society, we're just animals.


If you had any idea what God is, then you would understand that God has everything to do with everything, or nothing to do with everything.

From a religious point of view you'd probably make sense. But that's the thing about you religious nutcases, you can't seem to pull yourself out from your world of faith and look at it from an athiests POV. Hell! I can't believe in god but it doesn't mean I don't take a few seconds out to consider your POV at times.
<3

No, religion is the creation of beliefs and faith in a higher power.

No, a faith in a higher power and such gave birth to religion. The beliefs in these things were spawned from psychedelic drugs, which is why I say at 49 days you have a soul. You have a pineal gland at 49 days, as well as a gender.

No, a right is something we're entitled to.

By whose standard? A "right" in the context of government is just a dressed up privelege. It's not actually a right.

. If you were going to give your child an allowance, would that be it's right or privelege?

Would WHAT be its right/privelege? Recieving an allowance? Yes, it is that childs right to be able to set up circumstances that would allow it to recieve an allowance, if it so can.

Without laws, there is no society.

Bullshit. Early Christian societies didn't have rules, per se, but guidelines as everything is about the spirit of things.

Also, early "pre-civilization" gynocentric societies show no evidence of having laws, but of definitely being a society.

Without a society, we're just animals.

Animals have societies, too. Does that make monkeys humans?

rom a religious point of view you'd probably make sense. But that's the thing about you religious nutcases, you can't seem to pull yourself out from your world of faith and look at it from an athiests POV.

You, sir/madam, are a grade A arrogant jackass. I was an atheist and a nihilist from the age of 12-17. I argued and studied from an atheist POV incessantly. The problem with you irreligious "nutcases" is that you can't seem to pull yourself from your world of faith in atheism long enough to consider the idea of a higher power.

Hell! I can't believe in god but it doesn't mean I don't take a few seconds out to consider your POV at times.

You can't believe in one? Spare me...

Most Confusing Poll Ever.

I voted they should be allowed to abort for any reason, but everyone should be informed. So whores who abort 6 times because they can't keep their legs closed would be labeled as such. Also, women should tell serious partners about any abortions they had, and what their stance is.

We are all endowed at birth with the universal inalienable right to live as we see fit with no guarantees as to consequences. Guilt is for suckers, consequences are for people who overestimate their winning personalities.

Any guarantees as far as consequences are concerned are a privledge that have as much credibility and power as their issuing authority.

Yeah, religion doesn't have laws. Just guidelines. You can't get punished for breaking a guideline. Oh wait, I must have forgotten when they used to tear people in half for no believing in God.

=CK=

You can't believe in one? Spare me...

I'd buy it. I can't believe in invisible pink unicorns no matter how hard I try. Some people are incapable of faith and spirituality.

The difference is between believing your inability to explain something makes it without explaination, and believing your inability to explain something means you don't know it's explaination. I'm part of the second school of thought.

No, a faith in a higher power and such gave birth to religion.

Which is exactly what I said. "religion is the creation of beliefs and faith in a higher power."

The beliefs in these things were spawned from psychedelic drugs, which is why I say at 49 days you have a soul. You have a pineal gland at 49 days, as well as a gender.

Not that that made sense, but evidence?

By whose standard? A "right" in the context of government is just a dressed up privelege. It's not actually a right.

A 'right' is what we're entitled to, and 'privelege' is what we've earned.

Would WHAT be its right/privelege? Recieving an allowance? Yes, it is that childs right to be able to set up circumstances that would allow it to recieve an allowance, if it so can.

Recieving.

A 'right' to set up circumstances, yes. But it's still a privelege to recieve it.


Bullshit. Early Christian societies didn't have rules, per se, but guidelines as everything is about the spirit of things.

Also, early "pre-civilization" gynocentric societies show no evidence of having laws, but of definitely being a society.

Maybe they weren't set in stone at the time, but there were obviously understandings within these societies in order for it to function.

Animals have societies, too. Does that make monkeys humans?

Society in the animal kingdom is totally different to human society. In fact, it's a different type of order all together. Animals eat each other, they don't solve problems passively and there's only a basic form of society, not even.



You, sir/madam, are a grade A arrogant jackass. I was an atheist and a nihilist from the age of 12-17. I argued and studied from an atheist POV incessantly. The problem with you irreligious "nutcases" is that you can't seem to pull yourself from your world of faith in atheism long enough to consider the idea of a higher power.


I go to an all girls catholic school. This stuff is drilled into my head everyday of my life. I used to be catholic, I've been through the bible more times then I can count, so have I put myself into a catholics shoes? Yeah, well I have been one. The idea of a higher power seems a bit trivial to me at this stage but that's because I've looked at it all already. It's by choice from experience.

<3

Dude, I can't even remember last night. You have no idea what you're talking about but you're pretending to. Please STFU/GTFO.

There's a difference between forgetting something, and being physically incapable to remember it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Abstract anthropomorphization of higher reasoning and sapience.

to claim that laws which are based in a particular faith are automatically biased is not correct.

Stem cell research is illegal. It isn't funded by the government. So instead of looking for ways to save people's lives and cure terminal dieseases, we'd rather just save one soul. And for what? So that we can play the chances of 5 cells growing into a person that will survive long enough to contribute enough to society with the same impact as taking the 5 cells appart and growing body organs? Or maybe because the 5 cells are the makings of a messiah? Does any of this make sense to you?

=CK=

Higher power without description is meaningless and not worth discussion. Unsupported description of higher powers is unfounded and not worthy of debate. Believe in more powerful forces guide the universe than human desires and physics by all means. Just don't bother bringing a description of these powers to the table as relevant until you have scientific evidence to support them. Otherwise unfounded assertions on the will of a higher power become a universal rationalization for anything. Most people who talk about this, interpret the bible to their needs, and then translate these needs as the will of the universe. In other words "God wants everything to be just like I want them to be."

I don't like the direction this thread has taken.

If abortion is illegal, we get:

a). People making illegal abortions, which is bad for obvious reasons.

b). Mothers giving birth to unwanted children, resulting in suffering of both the parents and the children. Those kids are brought up without their parent's love and care,
and are more likely to cause unwanted children in the future.

Exactly what I was getting at.


Yeah, religion doesn't have laws. Just guidelines. You can't get punished for breaking a guideline. Oh wait, I must have forgotten when they used to tear people in half for no believing in God.

Amazing. Your use of specific details to sway me has left me weak in the knees. Continue.


I'd buy it. I can't believe in invisible pink unicorns no matter how hard I try. Some people are incapable of faith and spirituality.

You use faith with everything. As we experience a subjective reality, one can never be sure of anything besides one's own existence.


The difference is between believing your inability to explain something makes it without explaination, and believing your inability to explain something means you don't know it's explaination. I'm part of the second school of thought.

What the FUCK?


Which is exactly what I said. "religion is the creation of beliefs and faith in a higher power."

No, you said


Souls are the creation of religion and religion shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not abortions are allowed.

Souls are not the creation of religion.

Not that that made sense, but evidence?

DMT - The Spirit Molecule, by Dr. Rick Straussman.

A 'right' is what we're entitled to, and 'privelege' is what we've earned.

One man's "entitlement" is another mans hard-earned privelege. It all comes down to how arrogant you are...

Maybe they weren't set in stone at the time, but there were obviously understandings within these societies in order for it to function.

Thusly not laws. Laws imply legislation, legislation implies government.

Society in the animal kingdom is totally different to human society.

I didn't realize humans weren't part of the animal kingdom anymore. When did we transcend nature, exactly?

In fact, it's a different type of order all together.

Different type of order...?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Either it's logical, it's illogical, or logic doesn't apply.

Animals eat each other,

So do we.

they don't solve problems passively

What does that mean?

I go to an all girls catholic school. This stuff is drilled into my head everyday of my life. I used to be catholic, I've been through the bible more times then I can count, so have I put myself into a catholics shoes? Yeah, well I have been one. The idea of a higher power seems a bit trivial to me at this stage but that's because I've looked at it all already. It's by choice from experience.

I didn't realize I said anything about Catholicism, and any religion that doesn't include some form of gnosticism is just another attempt at government and should be completely disregarded.

You may have read the Bible, but have you read the Nag Hammadi library?


There's a difference between forgetting something, and being physically incapable to remember it.

No, no there isn't. When you forget something, you can't remember it. When you remember it, you're physically capable of doing this.

You can remember all the way back to the beginings of your child hood, you just can't rationalize it in the same way you do more recent memories though. You weren't indoctrinated into a system of thought. You didn't have a set-in-stone language.

You never lose a memory. I learned that during a trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Oh wow! A wikipedia link! I never would have thought to look there!



Abstract anthropomorphization of higher reasoning and sapience.

I may call a chair a "sitting device", or I could call it "an object for sitting". They aren't mutually exclusive.

Higher power without description is meaningless and not worth discussion. Unsupported description of higher powers is unfounded and not worthy of debate. Believe in more powerful forces guide the universe than human desires and physics by all means. Just don't bother bringing a description of these powers to the table as relevant until you have scientific evidence to support them. Otherwise unfounded assertions on the will of a higher power become a universal rationalization for anything. Most people who talk about this, interpret the bible to their needs, and then translate these needs as the will of the universe. In other words "God wants everything to be just like I want them to be."

God > logic > science

No, you said

That was a direct quote, check again.



Souls are not the creation of religion.

Am I to believe that the afterlife where we rejoin 'God' isn't the creation of religion? I may be mistaken so explain this part to me please.

The belief in the afterlife/heaven/hell/purgatory/nirvana/whatever (which IS an essential part of religion) is where souls go, right? Who created that according to your beliefs? God, hence if there was nothing after death then what would be the point of 'God' creating souls?



One man's "entitlement" is another mans hard-earned privelege. It all comes down to how arrogant you are...

It's a matter of perception.
We'll have to agree to disagree.



Thusly not laws. Laws imply legislation, legislation implies government.

Government doesn't rely solely on legislation alone. Conventions make up a large foundation on how a government is run.


I didn't realize humans weren't part of the animal kingdom anymore. When did we transcend nature, exactly?

So, as part of your belief in 'God' do animals go to heaven aswell? Humans aren't animals, the bible says it aswell. Man was place on earth to look after gods creatures, making us separated (since you want me to look at this from a religious POV).



Different type of order...?

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Either it's logical, it's illogical, or logic doesn't apply.

We aren't animals, our practices aren't the same, hence a different order.



So do we.

So you go to McDonalds and order a serve of fries with your human, do you?



What does that mean?

It means we don't always resort to violence, we can negotiate issues, unlike animals.



I didn't realize I said anything about Catholicism, and any religion that doesn't include some form of gnosticism is just another attempt at government and should be completely disregarded.

You may have read the Bible, but have you read the Nag Hammadi library?

Obviously I haven't since I'm in another country. But that doesn't mean catholicism is the only thing I know.
<3

That was a direct quote, check again.

What?

Am I to believe that the afterlife where we rejoin 'God' isn't the creation of religion? I may be mistaken so explain this part to me please.

Religion is ABOUT rejoining to God, but religion didn't MAKE this up.


The belief in the afterlife/heaven/hell/purgatory/nirvana/whatever (which IS an essential part of religion) is where souls go, right? Who created that according to your beliefs?

Um, besides the obvious answer of "God" (
:p), nobody "created" it, it was merely discovered through the catalyst of psychedelic drugs.

God, hence if there was nothing after death then what would be the point of 'God' creating souls?

I don't believe there is any difference, to the soul, between life and death. There is only sin, or the Kingdom of God.

It's a matter of perception.
We'll have to agree to disagree.

We have to? Shit...

Government doesn't rely solely on legislation alone.

I don't remember saying that.

So, as part of your belief in 'God' do animals go to heaven aswell?

Nobody "goes to heaven", but all beings that have a soul have a chance to reach the Kingdom of God. Some situations are easier to achieve this, though. It's very hard for a dog to understand God (I...think. who am I to say?), so they will not be able to reach God until they're reincarnated to a position that is suitable for reaching Him.

Humans aren't animals, the bible says it aswell.

And everything the bible says is 100% true, right?

Humans are animals, to some degree.

Man was place on earth to look after gods creatures, making us separated (since you want me to look at this from a religious POV).

What the fuck? No he wasn't. God's creatures don't need any looking after, although to look after someone out of love is always a plus in God's eyes.

We aren't animals, our practices aren't the same, hence a different order.

All differences arise only out of a percieved chaos that comes from ignorance(sin). There is One order.


So you go to McDonalds and order a serve of fries with your human, do you?

I hardly see how this is relevant. Humans are animals and we eat other animals. Humans are also known to eat other humans, as tabboo as that may be ATM.


It means we don't always resort to violence, we can negotiate issues, unlike animals.

..."Issues"...?

Animals don't have issues, they have survival.


Obviously I haven't since I'm in another country. But that doesn't mean catholicism is the only thing I know.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Enough already people, keep the religious element directly on topic.

I don't know what you're arguing anymore Rizzo.

Abortion should be allowed, it benefits society and that's the overall picture despite anyone's religious beliefs etc etc I have a HB poll to win
<3

What do you mean by "should be allowed."

What does that mean?

Allowed by who?

What do you mean by "should be allowed."

What does that mean?

Allowed by who?

I meant that women shouldn't be prevented by law to have an abortion if they want one.
<3

What do you mean by "should be allowed."

What does that mean?

Allowed by who?

La w?

I meant that women shouldn't be prevented by law to have an abortion if they want one.
<3

So you mean it should be legal, as in, decided by a bunch of old, impotent douches that are out of touch with reality and have sex with underage boys more than women.

Grand idea.

ps: im just busting your balls so don't take anything I say too seriously.

I'm still deadly serious though.

So you mean it should be legal, as in, decided by a bunch of old, impotent douches that are out of touch with reality and have sex with underage boys more than women.

Grand idea.

That's a gross generalisation.

ps: im just busting your balls so don't take anything I say too seriously.

I'm still deadly serious though.

You, my friend are an enigma.

It's 3am, you probably shouldn't take what I say too seriously either.

On the other hand. Internetz: srs bsns.
<3

That's a gross generalisation.

I'm a gross person. :)

You, my friend are an enigma.

I should put that on my business card, along with "Official Pope of the Erisian church".

Not that I have a business card, or a business, or that I even work at all.

Or that I'm official.



It's 3am, you probably shouldn't take what I say too seriously either.

On the other hand. Internetz: srs bsns.

you're right.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v407/nofuturechaosuk/1168702253-1167481579703.png

Was this made before I made my thread? If so I apologize.

No your's was first. And also it was your thread that kind of reminded me that i needed to make good on my promise to do a 'free' abortion thread.

Religion really gets in the way of people's choices.

QFMFT.
<3

Really?

I'm able to do anything I want, (negative) consequence free now.

The only problem is truly understanding what I want.

As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, I'm fully pro-choice as long as both involved parties agree on it (or in nonconsensual cases). A lot more should be done to educate people at a younger age, though, and fuck scare tactics and misinformation.

Jack I was quite surprised by your post.

Are you religious? Or just value life?

And although you can be a bi-sexual (I've read your other posts), I think it's weird to so directly have gone against christianity in that aspect, and so strongly follow it in another

Also the people in the clinics can die and thats a-okay?
So theoretically you think that because the clinic being destroyed will prevent hundreds of abortions, in the long run its a good thing

What does that sound like....stem cell research?....and in my opinion, worse

The more I think about it the more ridiculous it seems...

People have such strong religious convictions that they think murdering people in gods name is perfectly fine.... what does that sound like again.....

I'm sorry Jack it is just I'm a minority in that I'm bi-sexual or whatever I may be, and I irrationally fear persecution, like I will be killed for no good reason. And it is just sickening to me that you would say such things, because it proves my irrational fears correct that there is someone out there that would make claims so easily about killing someone like me.

Well first off I have to say that my views on abortion have really very little do with my faith (which demands of me forgiveness).

I view my take on abortion as the stand of an anti nazi.I find very little more fascist than someone deciding that someone else has no human rights, no right to life, simply because they don't appear human and that to allow them life might mean us missing a few disco nights or an episode or two of Neighbours. I don't subscribe to the 'turn the other cheek in all instances' theology. If I'd had the chance I would have pumped so much lead into Mengele he would have been declared a bio-hazard.

Souls are an abstract anthropomorphization of sapience and higher reasoning, and you don't have that until you're about 3 years old. Can YOU remember your own birth? That's right.

There have been studies that show we forget our births, because it tends to be the most traumatic period of our lives. There are people with prenatal memories, so this point is really moot.

I'm going to say that past 20 weeks, an abortion shouldn't happen. That's about the point where a child can live outside the womb.
However, abortion should not be banned. We've seen proof, time and time again, prohibition does not work. Period. End of story. We ban drugs, organized crime flourishes, government intervention jails thousands, and addiction becomes commonplace. We ban guns in England, gun crime rates soar. 1933, we legalized alcohol, and violent crime rates dropped 65%. Last time we banned abortion, physicians were still doing the procedure, and if you couldn't find one of those, go grab a clothes-hanger.

NEVER, never legislate opinion! When we have the government trying to take care of us, make decisions for us, where is the freedom that we thought we had?

or an episode or two of Neighbours.

I would have never picked you as a neighbours fan, you just became cool.
<3

I would have never picked you as a neighbours fan, you just became cool.
<3

Oh christ...i sure hope you meant that in a bitingly sarcastic way cos otherwise you need some major pharmaceutical assistance, girl.

I picked Neighbours cos it was simply the first really crappy idiotic TV show that girl's like to watch, that came to mind.

Oh christ...i sure hope you meant that in a bitingly sarcastic way cos otherwise you need some major pharmaceutical assistance, girl.

I picked Neighbours cos it was simply the first really crappy idiotic TV show that girl's like to watch, that came to mind.

Lulz, thought not. Yeah, I watch alot of trash, I'm in the middle of nowhere. Call me what you want.
<3

Lulz, thought not. Yeah, I watch alot of trash, I'm in the middle of nowhere. Call me what you want.
<3

Thank fuck for that! Call me a misogynist, a pro life loon, or an evil murdering bastard...that all fine by me.

But a Neighbours watcher? Thats low, real low.

:P

Thank fuck for that! Call me a misogynist, a pro life loon, or an evil murdering bastard...that all fine by me.

But a Neighbours watcher? Thats low, real low.

:P

Hahaha don't get my hopes up like that Jack! It's a long way to fall. I actually thought we may have had something normal in common, but at least now I'll know what to call you if we're ever in a flame war and I want to flee :D
<3

the beat kicks, the beat kicks! the beat kicks, the beat kicks!

then I start rocking.

I am Pro Life. Very much so a lot. I believe that abortion for any reason, except in cases when a clear and present medical danger to the mother exists or the child can be shown to be so deformed as not capable of life, is murder and that the abortioner and abortionee should be tried accordingly (inculding the Death Penalty if they live somewhere like Texas.
Exactly my position. If the mother will die, it's acceptable to abort the child instead. Any other case, though, I cannot see how abortion is justified. If a woman is raped, for instance, the child is not a rapist; it does not deserve to be killed for the sins of its father.

I do think that for a short time after conception it is not murder - morning after pills and the like are okay. That's about it, though.

I have two views on abortion. One for my potential child and one for everyone elses. Which should I vote for in the poll and get on my soapbox about?:D

Mmmmm...... What about women who are raped and fall pregnant to the evil bastard! Are they then to be punished further by having to give birth, nurture and pretend to love something that was forced into their lives!

I think the woman has the right to choose, its her body.

If men are so pro-life concerned they only have to wear a condom! (but of course that may affect your pleasure a little bit so you don't)

I honestly don't believe a mans opinion counts for shit in this thread as you probably wank off 10 million lives every day.

and pretend to love something that was forced into their lives!

No one is saying she must keep it.

If men are so pro-life concerned they only have to wear a condom! (but of course that may affect your pleasure a little bit so you don't)

QFMFT!!

I honestly don't believe a mans opinion counts for shit in this thread as you probably wank off 10 million lives every day.

Actually I take a similar view that a woman's opinion also counts for little in this thread. Only the childs.

And as I am probably one of the few here who survived an abortion...

No one is saying she must keep it.

But why should she wish to bear it!



QFMFT!!

Yup that just about sums up the male species attitude.



Actually I take a similar view that a woman's opinion also counts for little in this thread. Only the childs.

And as I am probably one of the few here who survived an abortion...

There is no child until it is born and the womans opinion is the only opinion that matters as she is the one that takes the responsibility.

Giving birth to a child that resulted from a rape is not something a woman can do easily, its 9 extra months of remembering something you wanted to wash away in the shower + agonising over the fact that a part of that child however violently it was forced on you is a part of yourself, but a part you wish had never happened.

You really do not have a clue about the reallities, just a typical male attitude and a "sun" readers opinion.

Giving birth to a child that resulted from a rape is not something a woman can do easily, its 9 extra months of remembering something you wanted to wash away in the shower + agonising over the fact that a part of that child however violently it was forced on you is a part of yourself, but a part you wish had never happened.

and that should be reflected in the sentence of the 'father'

You really do not have a clue about the reallities, just a typical male attitude and a "sun" readers opinion.

Not according to the poll..or maybe all other totse males are atypical (quite possible I suppose).

A Sun readers mentality is probably preferable to that of a Spare Rib readers. Although I confess I probably did read that far more often than the Super Soar Away Sun...I was young, these things happen.

Mmmmm...... What about women who are raped and fall pregnant to the evil bastard! Are they then to be punished further by having to give birth, nurture and pretend to love something that was forced into their lives!
What about the baby? Is it to be punished further by being killed?

And like jack said, "pretending to love" doesn't come into it. She may not even have to pretend.

I think the woman has the right to choose, its her body.
No, it's the child's...

I honestly don't believe a mans opinion counts for shit in this thread as you probably wank off 10 million lives every day.
Even if this made sense, I'd like to point out that an embryo or fetus is much different from a spermatozoa.

There is no child until it is born
Yeah, it just magically becomes a child once it leaves the womb.

Giving birth to a child that resulted from a rape is not something a woman can do easily, its 9 extra months of remembering something you wanted to wash away in the shower + agonising over the fact that a part of that child however violently it was forced on you is a part of yourself, but a part you wish had never happened.
It's horrible, I agree, but it's no excuse for murder.

You really do not have a clue about the reallities, just a typical male attitude and a "sun" readers opinion.
You really do not have a clue about the realities, just a typical female attitude and a "Wyman Power" reader's opinion. :p

and that should be reflected in the sentence of the 'father'

"Rapist" not father. My point being.



Not according to the poll..or maybe all other totse males are atypical (quite possible I suppose).

A Sun readers mentality is probably preferable to that of a Spare Rib readers. Although I confess I probably did read that far more often than the Super Soar Away Sun...I was young, these things happen.

Being pro-life is fine but consider.........your wife/partner gets raped by some evil fucker. You then and your wife/partner have to accept that, she gives birth to someone elses child which you are going to have to bring up as your own knowing that one day this evil bastard is going to show up and make claim as the leagal father

How much of a strain would that have put on your relationships over say 18 years or so of your marrage!

Being pro-life is fine but consider.........your wife/partner gets raped by some evil fucker. You then and your wife/partner have to accept that, she gives birth to someone elses child which you are going to have to bring up as your own knowing that one day this evil bastard is going to show up and make claim as the leagal father

How much of a strain would that have put on your relationships over say 18 years or so of your marrage!

Are you taking the piss?

Or have you really forgotten that THATS EXACTLY WHAT WE WENT THROUGH??(well not exactly, the child was crippled to boot!) You seem to remember everything else I have ever posted, but not that?

I watched the wife I loved go insane over this one.

Never tell me I don't understand what giving birth to a rape-child means.

I see it everyday when my wife stares at the wall for 8 hours solid.

Are you taking the piss?

Or have you really forgotten that THATS EXACTLY WHAT WE WENT THROUGH??(well not exactly, the child was crippled to boot!) You seem to remember everything else I have ever posted, but not that?

I watched the wife I loved go insane over this one.

Never tell me I don't understand what giving birth to a rape-child means.

I see it everyday when my wife stares at the wall for 8 hours solid.

To clarify: who raped your wife? You or another man?

I thought I was fine with abortion until one of my loved one's actually went through with it.

I had to go with her to get it done, since I was the only one out of the family that actually knew she was pregs.

I totally supported her throughout it, and I think its the own persons choice, but me...I could never ever get it done.

The place was so depressing, and my cousin went back and got an ultra sound done, and when she came back she said, "ew it was gross, and I want it out of me" that just made me sick, and another girl that came in, it was her 5th abortion, you could hear the machines and it was so depressing, when I came out of the place I swore to myself to NEVER EVER get one. I feel so bad for my cousins poor baby, she didnt want ANYTHING to do with it. It just made me sick, and hate the doctors...even though I had no right to hate them, its their choice and I should respect them.

hell yeah pro father.. (cept rape) if the father wants to keep it he should have a say too. fuck you women that think otherwise, and fuck your body too. j/k sorta but the father has created life as much as the mother. if the mother faces death in complications that is another story too.

This poll kinda... doesn't show all the options.

What about:
□ Destruction before exiting?

Or even the controversial:
□ Destruction after exiting?

lol.

Not a topic to laugh at.

And for the Hippy Douche, think of abortion as cleansing of the body.

Kind of like pooping.

Fuck I didn't realise it was a multi-choice poll.

One thing that disgusts me the most about the poll is the people that consider it wrong for rape victims to get an abortion.




Absolutely fucking disgusting.

Not a problem, just tell us which boxes you would have ticked and i'll include them then in the final math.(that goes for anyone else too).


I admit I have been surprised by some of the results so far. That the majority of the board would go for the Pro-Choice Full option was pretty much a given but some of the other results are surprising.

I think most of us feel that way when we see options we personally consider wrong getting votes.

Sweet you can add:

Social reasons ARE/ may be valid reason for abortion (ie not finishing school, lack of money)


Underage girls should have total anonymity/confidentiality.

I think most of us feel that way when we see options we personally consider wrong getting votes.

No, there are others that I see getting votes that I would never agree on, but seeing that one, makes me sick to my stomach.

What does "validation process" mean?

Your poll is poorly designed.

Like I couldn't have guessed:P

There's probably several other people who had the same problem you did. But I did want the poll to sat something more than simply that the majority are Pro Choice(like I said we don't really need a poll to tell us that, do we?)

And it has surprised me so far that the there as been some support for the present system of validated Pro Choice.

Try reading the original post.

Like I couldn't have guessed:P

But there's probably several other people who had the same problem you did. But I did want the poll to sat something more than simply that the majority are Pro Choice(like I said we don't really need a poll to tell us that, do we?)

And it has surprised me so far that the there as been some support for the present system of validated Pro Choice.

You should look at who voted on validated pro choice ;) . I believe women should be recommended to counselloring and to see a doctor before they get it done (which I think is standard here in new zealand).

You should look at who voted on validated pro choice ;) . I believe women should be recommended to counselloring and to see a doctor before they get it done (which I think is standard here in new zealand).

*wipes coffee from monitor*

OK, I admit I DID NOT expect that one!

*wipes coffee from monitor*

OK, I admit I DID NOT expect that one!

Lawl I don't see a validation process being a way of talking women out of an abortion but a way for them to find information, to know the procedure and to know that they can talk to someone afterwards about it for how ever long they need. The doctor here is must, you dont NOT see a doctor when you get an abortion. The rest is there choice, but at least its offered.

Lawl I don't see a validation process being a way of talking women out of an abortion but a way for them to find information, to know the procedure and to know that they can talk to someone afterwards about it for how ever long they need. The doctor here is must, you dont NOT see a doctor when you get an abortion. The rest is there choice, but at least its offered.

Call yourself a feminist??!

:P

I was fairly sure you'd be for the Walk-in Anonymous Abortion Clinic run by trained fem-nazi lesbians kinda option.

Thats what happens when one makes assumptions I guess.

People have the wrong idea on what a feminist is - most are NOT bull dyke/in-your-face/man haters!

I like the way that the abortion clinics are set up here, well they're actually called sexual health clinics because you can go there for everything to do with sexual health. The system is of alright standard (of course, its under funded but meh?).

As far as I see it, its just support for the women to be able to have the option of talking to someone if they want.

I am still not sure whether I am supposed to vote on my personal stance, or if I am voting on what the law should be.

The 'opinion' is the clue.

People have the wrong idea on what a feminist is - most are NOT bull dyke/in-your-face/man haters!



As with all fanatics, its the quiet 'normal' ones who have actually thought about what they believe who are the really dangerous ones.

As with all fanatics, its the quiet 'normal' ones who have actually thought about what they believe who are the really dangerous ones.

Ya, watch out I might come stabby you, you misogynist bastard!

2007-04-30 13:39
by kAtE- Go to last post


weirdness....(it keeps putting up the present time as the last post time).

I agree, laws based on religion like "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal", "thou shalt not not commit perjury" are soooo 800 BC.

Yes i know these laws appeared in nonreligious sources too but to claim that laws which are based in a particular faith are automatically biased is not correct.

They're not based on faith dummy, your faith just happened to incorporate them because people want those things naturally. And uh, perjury? Even you know that has nothing to do with religion, ye olde justice involved rocks and arms to fling them

Laws really based on religion want to ban contraception for example

Are you taking the piss?

Or have you really forgotten that THATS EXACTLY WHAT WE WENT THROUGH??(well not exactly, the child was crippled to boot!) You seem to remember everything else I have ever posted, but not that?

I watched the wife I loved go insane over this one.

Never tell me I don't understand what giving birth to a rape-child means.

I see it everyday when my wife stares at the wall for 8 hours solid.

What?! And you'd still wish the same fate on other innocent women? What kind of a monster are you?

. And uh, perjury? Even you know that has nothing to do with religion, ye olde justice involved rocks and arms to fling them


I took the liberty of 'translating' the commandment 'thou shalt not bear false witness' into modern parlance for people like yourself.

Or did you in your ignorance assume I meant 'per jury' (that would tie in with your comment about rocks)?

No, there are others that I see getting votes that I would never agree on, but seeing that one, makes me sick to my stomach.
It makes me sick that so much of the board is for "full" pro-choice. Can people seriously be so stupid? I want to punch all of you in the face.

Oh well. At least there are a few people with another stance. :p Kinda confused me, because I assumed there'd be more pro-life; in debate threads it's always half and half.

It makes me sick that so much of the board is for "full" pro-choice. Can people seriously be so stupid? I want to punch all of you in the face.

Oh well. At least there are a few people with another stance. :p Kinda confused me, because I assumed there'd be more pro-life; in debate threads it's always half and half.

freedom > a lot of other stuff

I took the liberty of 'translating' the commandment 'thou shalt not bear false witness' into modern parlance for people like yourself.

Or did you in your ignorance assume I meant 'per jury' (that would tie in with your comment about rocks)?

Perjury is lying under oath and carries the whole courtroom drama feel to the word. Combine that with a dreadful memory (can't even remember the commandments now that I think of it) and you get a post that's a bit off. Sorry about that, you're right, it is bible crap. Still, common sense, I really doubt Bible was the one to come up with the revolutionary idea of telling people not to get eachother's hands chopped off by lying of their supposed thieving when they're innocent

Old time justice was brutal and stoning was one of the methods

It makes me sick that so much of the board is for "full" pro-choice. Can people seriously be so stupid? I want to punch all of you in the face.

Full choice within a time limit, what'd we miss? I don't care if you abort because you didn't feel like using condoms, it's your own business. You pay for it afaik anyway. I only care about life that's already around long enough to grow a personality and some intelligence. Yes, I'd leave a baby to burn to death to save the mother if I had to choose. I could care less about your retarted notion of kids being better than adults (and feel sick when I hear "women and children first" as if they were more valuable but that's irrelevant)

I'm in favour of allowing first trimester abortions. I have no problem with a blob of cells getting wiped. Late term abortion however should be ONLY permitted for pressing medical reasons.

One thing I've always disagreed with was the argument that "it's the woman's body". Quite frankly I see that as a load of horse shit. As soon as there's a semblance of sapience on the part of the unborn it is its body. If a person can be charged for punching a woman in the stomach and killing an unborn baby (killingan unborn child in addition to the assault charge), why is it permitted for the mother to kill it with no repercussions.

why is it permitted for the mother to kill it with no repercussions.

Because the mommy that gets punched in the stomach probably wanted the baby and will be distraught over the death of her child

Actually Ketch I didn't recall that particular post, although now you mention it, it does ring a bell. (Stalking skills are low must find power up)

So my little example was pure coincidence, and for that I am sorry.

No piss take intended.

I was, in a roundabout way refering to somthing that happened to an aunt of mine, back in the days of illeagal abortionists and knitting needles. Women need to have a safe option to choose to give life.....or not.

She was 13 when it happened, the man who raped her was her fathers employer! Back in the 50s for a young girl there were no alternatives, she would have been held to blame regardless and disowned........

Needless to say he couldn't be arsed to wear a condom either.

I was probably being alittle over sensitive. Not about what happened, but because I get really pissed at the 'men have no idea' prejudice. Some of us know damn well.


Women need to have a safe option to choose to give life.....or not.

Since when do women give life?

Since when do women give life?

All the time!.........show me man who is capable!

the man who raped her was her fathers employer! B

I see your 'raped by father's boss' and raise you a 'raped by police officer and landlord' (as in my wife's case).

Which meant not only wouldn't anyone believe her but she felt she daren't risk telling me either ,in case i DID believe her :(

UHm I admit biology was never my strong point at school but i kinda remember being taught that life is 'given' by the sperm and da egg getting it on ? Something like that anyway.

I wasn't aware the woman somehow decided to give the embryo life?

BUt hell, what do I know?

Maybe its one of thsoe secret girl things [/sarcasm]

(sorry rocker, I know you know i was being sarcastic but if I don't put the 'close sarcasm' thing in then someone will no doubt think...)

Thats sad Jack.........lifes a shit..... if my earlier comments offended, Im sorry.

Im a nice person really......Honest!

Wait I'm confused...So Jackketch's wife was raped by a police officer like 2 months after giving birth to her first child, got pregnant with her second child who was born with cerebral palsy and that is why she's insane? Then of course she got pregnant AGAIN within like 3 months, which probably only put further stress on her fragile mental health.

Jackketch: Has your wife ever considered taking a pottery class? I take one every Saturday and even though I truly suck at making anything except coffee mugs, I still find it to be a real help in keeping me sane. Sometimes it helps me to just get away from the oppressive atmosphere that home can be...You know?

Because the mommy that gets punched in the stomach probably wanted the baby and will be distraught over the death of her child

Then why the creation of a law specifically making the act of killing an unborn child a seperate offence? If we were looking at it solely from the perspective of the mother's suffering, then something like assault occasioning grievous bodily harm would be the more fitting charge. It was actually the charge used, prior to the creation of a seperate offence.

Basically I'm annoyed by the inconsistency. I should have made that more clear.

EDIT: I'm not too sure how far I'm allowed to stray into the legal side of things. Maybe Jackketch could let me know how much further I can go before receiving a beating?

Foetuses are not considered alive until they take their first unassisted breath.

You wouldn't object to someone having a tumour removed, so what's the problem with getting rid of such a parasite?

^That makes absolutely no sense. Comparing a fetus to a tumor? Are you some type of 12 year old kidiot?

Then why the creation of a law specifically making the act of killing an unborn child a seperate offence? If we were looking at it solely from the perspective of the mother's suffering, then something like assault occasioning grievous bodily harm would be the more fitting charge. It was actually the charge used, prior to the creation of a seperate offence.

Because the mommy wanted to have the child. Fertilized egg has as much potential as a seed in a desert if the parents intend to abort it, an egg that the parents intend to let grow will most likely be a human one day. Difference between will be and could might maybe game

^That shit made absolutely no sense.

Oh yeah, so if you can't breathe on your own you're not alive. When you take your first unassisted breath, you suddenly become ALIVE and DIFFERENT than you were before!

That makes a lot of sense. People who require assistance to breathe aren't alive? .0001 of a second before it breathes, a fetus is somehow different than .0001 of a second after it does?

Because the mommy wanted to have the child. Fertilized egg has as much potential as a seed in a desert if the parents intend to abort it, an egg that the parents intend to let grow will most likely be a human one day. Difference between will be and could might maybe game
It's got the exact same potential. The parents' intention does not magically turn it into something different. I could say "you have as much potential to live as a seed in the desert if I intend to kill you tomorrow", but does that make my killing you right? No. It's because of the killing that you/the fetus has no potential; it's not like the killing is just taking care of something already fated to happen.

Because the mommy wanted to have the child. Fertilized egg has as much potential as a seed in a desert if the parents intend to abort it, an egg that the parents intend to let grow will most likely be a human one day. Difference between will be and could might maybe game

My argument would still stand. "Because the mommy wanted to have the child" is saying that the victim of the crime is the mother. Considering that she is alive, though likely suffering from extreme mental trauma as well as probable physical damage, the charge of "assault occasioning grievous bodily harm" would be appropriate. It is only if we consider the fetus the victim, that the seperate charge becomes fitting. If we consider a fetus to be a potential victim, then how can we allow its termination to be legal?

Fetuses aren't people.

The rights of people take presidence over those of non-people.

End of Story.

*Edit*

The statement that first breath determines personhood is somewhat flawed. It's immoral to kill a newborn and not immoral to kill a fetus because the newborn no longer burdens the mother. There is no more infringement of rights at that point so the newborn is safe while a fetus a minute before birth is not.

My argument would still stand. "Because the mommy wanted to have the child" is saying that the victim of the crime is the mother.

It's saying that the baby was going to grow up into a human and hence, has rights. Potential for life is determined by the parents these days, not simple fertilization

I reworded the posts at least 30 times and it still comes out shit. Sigh.

It's got the exact same potential. The parents' intention does not magically turn it into something different. I could say "you have as much potential to live as a seed in the desert if I intend to kill you tomorrow", but does that make my killing you right? No. It's because of the killing that you/the fetus has no potential; it's not like the killing is just taking care of something already fated to happen.

So? If she doesn't want the fucking kid, it isn't gonna turn into a human and is considered a bunch of cells. If she wants the kid and someone else kills it, you might as well have pulled the trigger on the newborn

Law says it's okay for the mommy to decide against having the kid and that's how it's going to stay because if we stop that, it's back to coat hangers and more senseless deaths & misery. If you don't agree with it, don't abort your own kids aka mind your own fucking business. I'm talking about the assault law, not ethics

It's saying that the baby was going to grow up into a human and hence, has rights. Potential for life is determined by the parents these days, not simple fertilization

I reworded the posts at least 30 times and it still comes out shit. Sigh.


Hmm, I'm arguing the law is inconsistent because of that. The law at present considers the baby part of the woman’s body, should she wish to terminate it. But if another person makes that choice for her i.e. through assault, then the unborn is considered an entity in its own right. I'm not particularly pro choice or right to life but the lack of consistency bugs me.

That law was an inconsistency created by prolifers to errode in their direction. It was bullshit in the first place, and anyone convicted under it should be aquitted.

An easy fix for the law would be to keep the punishment the same but change the wording to an infringement upon the mothers right to pregnancy and childbirth, as opposed to saying they are killing a person which they aren't.

because the newborn no longer burdens the mother.
What? Are you some sort of alien, or do you just think newborns are magically self-sufficient? A newborn is just as reliant on the mother as a fetus; the only difference is that it's no longer physically connected. They're exactly the same in terms of development, so unless you want to say a newborn magically gets a soul or something when it comes out of the womb, you have no point.

And what the hell, relying on someone else means you aren't alive?

So? If she doesn't want the fucking kid, it isn't gonna turn into a human and is considered a bunch of cells. If she wants the kid and someone else kills it, you might as well have pulled the trigger on the newborn
You're just repeating yourself. The potential is exactly the same; it's just being terminated by a different person. Using your reasoning, someone else killing the fetus wouldn't be murder either - because the fetus was just going to die and thus would never be born. Right?

You're just repeating yourself. The potential is exactly the same; it's just being terminated by a different person. Using your reasoning, someone else killing the fetus wouldn't be murder either - because the fetus was just going to die and thus would never be born. Right?

No, law clearly states mother has the authority over the baby's life until a certain point in pregnancy via a legally approved procedure called abortion, noone else. Hence why you're punished if you kill the baby. You don't have the authority to kill it nor does the mother when it's old enough. If a mother kills the kid by jumping down the stairs for the singular purpose of killing the unborn baby, you can be fucking sure he's trialed for murder just like the wannabe boxer if they can prove intent (as in, her claim of it being an accident aren't deemed trustworthy)

Oh yeah, so if you can't breathe on your own you're not alive. When you take your first unassisted breath, you suddenly become ALIVE and DIFFERENT than you were before!

That makes a lot of sense. People who require assistance to breathe aren't alive? .0001 of a second before it breathes, a fetus is somehow different than .0001 of a second after it does?


It kinda has to be out of the mother to start breathing, jackass.

I believe there is a justified case for the use of terminal force in the fight against abortion and that any doctors, nurses,staff or 'clients' killed , say in the bombing of a clinic, can be fairly judged 'to have brought their deaths upon themselves'.

.


I've really tried avoiding posting on this thread, but since so much nonsense is being bantered about I can't remain silent....

Folks its this simple....a fetus is nothing more than an advanced form of a PARASITE. If the host dies, the fetus ceases to exist....end of story. So no, it does not get any say in anything, nor does it have any "rights". It can't dictate whether its host decides to go hang gliding, eat anchovies, smoke some crack, or go to a clinic to terminate the parasite. And for all you do-gooder Pro-Fetus whackos, when the day comes you start going to orphanages and start adopting all the unwanted kids....then and only then should you start to flap your mouth about what other folks do with their lives and bodies. Until then just shut the fuck up, because you are talking the talk, but NOT walking the walk.

Jack, I usually like your posts and think most of the time you have much to add with a lot of intellect and thought behind them. But the words above just astound me. With that logic then you would have no issues if some pro PETA weirdo decided to bomb a McDonald's one day, then that would be OK? Or if someone doesn't agree with capitalism, then its justified deaths for people working in the Twin Towers? Or if some anti-technology freak goes into a cyber cafe and lays waste to everyone surfing the internet, then I guess someone posting on Totse "had it coming to them" too, huh? If you remove your emotions from this equation and think rationally about what you just said above, you'll see how completely ridiculous and barbaric that line of thinking is. Cmon dude, you are better than that.

What? Are you some sort of alien, or do you just think newborns are magically self-sufficient? A newborn is just as reliant on the mother as a fetus; the only difference is that it's no longer physically connected. They're exactly the same in terms of development, so unless you want to say a newborn magically gets a soul or something when it comes out of the womb, you have no point.

And what the hell, relying on someone else means you aren't alive?



I never said a newborn was self sufficient. You see, there is a process called adoption where parents who have children they don't want or cannot keep can send their children so they may grow up in anothers care. A child that is not kept is not reliant on its mother. I think my point is clear and I can never understand why people never consider adoption, its like no one has ever heard of it before.

I never said a fetus wasn't alive, I said it wasn't a person or member of the moral community. Because it isn't a person, its infringement upon its mothers rights removes whatever right to life any living being may or may not have.

I agree with DaGuru in his estimation of what jack said. I also typically enjoy his posts but that train of thought is just ridiculous. Excercising your rights does not give others justification to attempt to kill or harm you. People who bomb abortion clinics are as ignorant and immoral as it gets.

You don't have the authority to kill it nor does the mother
Exactly!

It kinda has to be out of the mother to start breathing, jackass.
You didn't say "out of the mother", you said "unassisted breath". Which is it, buddy?

Either way, please explain to me what magical change in the baby occurs once it's out of the womb. Does the Soul Fairy swoop down and give it personhood once it's born, or what?

I never said a newborn was self sufficient. You see, there is a process called adoption where parents who have children they don't want or cannot keep can send their children so they may grow up in anothers care. A child that is not kept is not reliant on its mother. I think my point is clear and I can never understand why people never consider adoption, its like no one has ever heard of it before.
So if it's adopted out to someone and they decide to kill it, it's okay because it relied on them and until you're not reliant on anyone you aren't a person. Got it.

I never said a fetus wasn't alive, I said it wasn't a person or member of the moral community. Because it isn't a person, its infringement upon its mothers rights removes whatever right to life any living being may or may not have.
If it itself is alive, it has an existence separate from the mother and is a person.

I don't understand why people think a baby is somehow magically different once it's out of the mother. Being connected with an umbilical cord doesn't change a damn thing about its brain.

Jack, I usually like your posts and think most of the time you have much to add with a lot of intellect and thought behind them. But the words above just astound me. With that logic then you would have no issues if some pro PETA weirdo decided to bomb a McDonald's one day, then that would be OK? Or if someone doesn't agree with capitalism, then its justified deaths for people working in the Twin Towers? Or if some anti-technology freak goes into a cyber cafe and lays waste to everyone surfing the internet, then I guess someone posting on Totse "had it coming to them" too, huh? If you remove your emotions from this equation and think rationally about what you just said above, you'll see how completely ridiculous and barbaric that line of thinking is. Cmon dude, you are better than that.

Not sure what PETA is but i assume some kinda tree hugging animal 'rights' whack job? (I'll google it later).

I certainly would not find it ok if for some one to murder anyone because they choose to eat meat or work for a multinational (the killing someone because they post on totse thing...well...:P)

I used the phrase 'brought their deaths upon themselves' for a reason. It doesn't mean 'had it coming to them'. Its a biblical thing. My faith doesn't instruct me to violence against abortionist (in fact just the opposite). My faith however does give me the moral parameters by which I make my judgements.

I'll try and explain. Oh and btw these examples are from real life and some from personal experience.

Imagine for a moment you are walking down the street when you see a building on fire. Outside a woman stands screaming that her young child is trapped in her apartment.

Lets assume because of the country of you live in and the obvious race of the mother that the fire brigade may be a little slow in coming (like i said real life example).

Assuming you are physically able (and maybe have had some fire fighting training) you run into the building and save the child.

Hero.

Ok, so lets take it a step further. Same scenario, but as you try and enter the building to save the child, a drunk who was sleeping in the stairway of this apartment block bars your way.

He doesn't mean it in any way maliciously but he is blocking your way. You shove him aside, he falls wrong, cracks his head and dies.

Thats an example of 'bringing your death upon yourself' unintentionally . He didn't have it 'coming to him' , shit just happens and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But it goes further, and remember this actually has happened. Same scenario but this time its not a belligerent , benign, drunk but a group of skin head neo Nazis and they are hell bent on stopping you saving the 'ape baby'. You kill or seriously wound them to get to the child (we'll assume you were armed or ex special forces).

Have you commited murder? No. They brought their deaths upon themselves. Maybe they had it coming to them but that's a judgement and not one I feel I should probably make.

I'm ranting and probably not making much sense but thats how the more extreme wing of the Pro Lifers would tend to see their actions

Do you see the difference between 'they had it coming to them' and ' they brought their deaths upon themselves'?

If it is to save life then ALL sins are allowed (even if it only postpones the 'mother' from killing her child for one single day ).

Exactly!


You didn't say "out of the mother", you said "unassisted breath". Which is it, buddy?

Either way, please explain to me what magical change in the baby occurs once it's out of the womb. Does the Soul Fairy swoop down and give it personhood once it's born, or what?


So if it's adopted out to someone and they decide to kill it, it's okay because it relied on them and until you're not reliant on anyone you aren't a person. Got it.


If it itself is alive, it has an existence separate from the mother and is a person.

I don't understand why people think a baby is somehow magically different once it's out of the mother. Being connected with an umbilical cord doesn't change a damn thing about its brain.


Instead of trying to understand my arguments and actually reading them you basically decided to say the same things and misrepresent my view. The people who adopt it cannot kill it because its reliance on them can be ended when they choose. They can end its burden by merely putting it up for adoption again.

Being alive does NOT mean something is a person. A fetus has human DNA but is less like a person (in the moral sense which is all that matters for this discussion) than a fish. A fetus is just a clump of cells that leeches off of its mother. Souls are not an issue. A baby is not a person, I never said it was.

Please try to read my argument and fully understand it before you quote me, add silly sarcastic comments, and post the same criticism that I have already addressed. Thank you.

Not sure what PETA is but i assume some kinda tree hugging animal 'rights' whack job? (I'll google it later).

I certainly would not find it ok if for some one to murder anyone because they choose to eat meat or work for a multinational (the killing someone because they post on totse thing...well...:P)

I used the phrase 'brought their deaths upon themselves' for a reason. It doesn't mean 'had it coming to them'. Its a biblical thing. My faith doesn't instruct me to violence against abortionist (in fact just the opposite). My faith however does give me the moral parameters by which I make my judgements.

I'll try and explain. Oh and btw these examples are from real life and some from personal experience.

Imagine for a moment you are walking down the street when you see a building on fire. Outside a woman stands screaming that her young child is trapped in her apartment.

Lets assume because of the country of you live in and the obvious race of the mother that the fire brigade may be a little slow in coming (like i said real life example).

Assuming you are physically able (and maybe have had some fire fighting training) you run into the building and save the child.

Hero.

Ok, so lets take it a step further. Same scenario, but as you try and enter the building to save the child, a drunk who was sleeping in the stairway of this apartment block bars your way.

He doesn't mean it in any way maliciously but he is blocking your way. You shove him aside, he falls wrong, cracks his head and dies.

Thats an example of 'bringing your death upon yourself' unintentionally . He didn't have it 'coming to him' , shit just happens and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But it goes further, and remember this actually has happened. Same scenario but this time its not a belligerent but benign drunk but a group of skin head neo Nazis and they are hell bent on stopping you saving the 'ape baby'. You kill or seriously wound them to get to the child (we'll assume you were armed or ex special forces).

Have you commited murder? No. They brought their deaths upon themselves. Maybe they had it coming to them but that a judgement and not one I feel I should probably make.

I'm ranting and probably not making much sense but thats how the more extreme wing of the Pro Lifers would tend to see their actions.

Do you see the difference between 'they had it coming to them' and ' they brought their deaths upon themselves'?

If it is to save life then ALL sins are allowed (even if it only postpones the 'mother' from killing her child for one single day ).

I won't bother to criticize the fact that bringing religion into moral issues is completely irrelevant, as said fact is common knowledge

You provide several situations that are, in fact, very very different from one another.

A homeless man who makes an innocent mistake is different than a group making conscious decisions that they know could potentially lead to harm and death for them. Sure a homeless man may know he might get beaten up for sleeping in a public place, but it is unreasonable to say he can be blamed for being beaten up. I may know that there is a chance I can get hit by a car or struck by lightning if I go outside but no one would fault me for going outside.


"Have you commited murder? No. They brought their deaths upon themselves. Maybe they had it coming to them but that a judgement and not one I feel I should probably make."

Yes, you have committed murder. Killing someone for any reason is murder. I'm not saying you weren't justified but it is still murder.

I have a hard time understanding why you say "they brought their deaths upon themselves." If you mean that anyone who dies for any reason brings their death upon themselves then I can hardly disagree with you. However, if you claim they are at fault for being killed then you are very wrong.

Jack, you daring hero just killed a bunch of people abiding by the law so he can move the baby to another room where he burns to death just the same, only 10 minutes later. Your daring hero is a moron

Try an example where there is no "hero". In fact, the main character is psychotic and kills indiscriminately. Oh wait, bad scenario, that's what really happened. You're no different from the guy that kidnaps women and kills them if they're not virgins because sex is a sin

I won't bother to criticize the fact that bringing religion into moral issues is completely irrelevant, as said fact is common knowledge

You provide several situations that are, in fact, very very different from one another.

A homeless man who makes an innocent mistake is different than a group making conscious decisions that they know could potentially lead to harm and death for them. Sure a homeless man may know he might get beaten up for sleeping in a public place, but it is unreasonable to say he can be blamed for being beaten up. I may know that there is a chance I can get hit by a car or struck by lightning if I go outside but no one would fault me for going outside.


"Have you commited murder? No. They brought their deaths upon themselves. Maybe they had it coming to them but that a judgement and not one I feel I should probably make."

Yes, you have committed murder. Killing someone for any reason is murder. I'm not saying you weren't justified but it is still murder.

I have a hard time understanding why you say "they brought their deaths upon themselves." If you mean that anyone who dies for any reason brings their death upon themselves then I can hardly disagree with you. However, if you claim they are at fault for being killed then you are very wrong.

uhm maybe you have a different definition of 'murder'? I would define murder as the 'killing of another for personal gain (in whatever form) with malicious aforethought (ie planned)'

I'm mistaken, typically I don't think of the legal definition of murder and consider it a synonym for killing.

Also, is this a legal discussion, moral or both?

uhm maybe you have a different definition of 'murder'? I would define murder as the 'killing of another for personal gain (in whatever form) with malicious aforethought (ie planned)'

So bombing an abortion clinic for no other tangible result other than forcing mothers to drive to another city to abort isn't murder? You're fucking incredible

Also, is this a legal discussion, moral or both?

And religious too. Everyhting anyone wants to say/spout/proclaim and flame about abortion.

So bombing an abortion clinic for no other tangible result other than forcing mothers to drive to another city to abort isn't murder? You're fucking incredible

Thats what I am saying yes, it isn't murder.

Thats what I am saying yes, it isn't murder.

So what's the point of doing it if you get nothing but a destroyed building you'll pay to rebuild with your tax money and a bunch of dead people, including the fucking babies you oh so love?

So what's the point of doing it if you get nothing but a destroyed building you'll pay to rebuild with your tax money and a bunch of dead people, including the fucking babies you oh so love?

Well as far as i am aware those who take direct action usually try to not kill the pregnant women...that really would defeat the object wouldn't it. But the plastique doesn't pick and choose.

Oh I like to bomb kindergartens, I don't mean to kill any kids though, that'd be just wrong!

Wait, what? I could respect them doing it for the lulz but plain stupidity isn't gonna cut it

Instead of trying to understand my arguments and actually reading them you basically decided to say the same things and misrepresent my view. The people who adopt it cannot kill it because its reliance on them can be ended when they choose. They can end its burden by merely putting it up for adoption again.
I think you're missing my point. Someone being a burden is a valid reason to kill them? Or rather, someone being a burden that you cannot transfer to someone else = makes them not a person...? I don't see where self-sufficiency comes into the definition of personhood.

Being alive does NOT mean something is a person.
Being a living human does...

A fetus has human DNA but is less like a person (in the moral sense which is all that matters for this discussion) than a fish. A fetus is just a clump of cells that leeches off of its mother.
Everyone is just a clump of cells. I agree that early in the pregnancy it is not alive, but it becomes recognizably human very quickly.

A baby is not a person, I never said it was.
So... why isn't it okay to kill babies again?

Jack, I truly don't believe there are any similiarities in your "hero" scenario compared to bombing an abortion clinic. Sure it is interesting mental masturbation discussing the actual definition of murder (which by the way my analysis would be the bum is accidental, whereas the skinhead was more or less self defense in retaliation of THEIR action of malice). The scenarios I provide are more on topic comparing extremists completely anihilitating innocents for their own selfish purposes. Maybe you could drop the burning building for a bit, and answer the original questions I posed to you....

Did the teenage girl getting a pap smear "bring it upon herself", because in the same building abortions are being carried out and some pro-life extremist has planted a bomb?

Did the soccer mom and her family "bring it upon themselves", because she decided to get the Happy Meal for her kids instead of hitting Subway......all because an extremist vegan fighting for animal rights is on his kick?

Did the poor mail guy trying to make ends meet and work his way up the company "bring it upon himself", because some anti-capitalist extremist boards an aircraft?

Did the chap sipping on his espresso in a coffe shop taking up 5 more minutes longer than he expected because he is reading an epic Jackketch rant on Totse "bring it upon himself", because an anti-technological extremist was finally fed up with all the gadgets and excessiveness it creates?

In my eyes if you answer "yes" to the first scenario, and "no" to the rest.....then you are too emotionally involved to see past the abortion issue and comment rationally. Truthfully, I don't know how anyone could variate between the questions. Either they are all yes, or all no. If you do say yes, then I believe you are the consumate anarchist....and would then ask you why have any laws or decorum in any sense and lets just revert back to absolute barberism where the mighty (and somewhat damn crazy) rule the land????

I don't see a 'fathers can choose to have their golddigga wife's hellspawn cut out of her'.

I think you're missing my point. Someone being a burden is a valid reason to kill them? Or rather, someone being a burden that you cannot transfer to someone else = makes them not a person...? I don't see where self-sufficiency comes into the definition of personhood.


Being a living human does...


Everyone is just a clump of cells. I agree that early in the pregnancy it is not alive, but it becomes recognizably human very quickly.


So... why isn't it okay to kill babies again?
Its not about just being a burden, its about infringing on the rights of an existing human person that is a member of the moral community. The rights of a non-person clump of cells never overrides the rights of a full fledged person.

Full personhood is achieved when the following are fulfilled.

1. Consciousness
2. Self-motivation
3. Capacity to communicate
4. Reasoning
5. Self-awareness

Not all of the traits are required to hold some rights, but a fetus has at most a single trait. That is not nearly enough to justify its rights overriding those of a mother with all or most of said traits.

Simply having human genes isn't enough to justify the infringement of a mothers rights.

Okay yet again, why you can kill fetuses but not babies is...

Babies do not force people to sacrifice their rights. Once born, a baby can be transferred to another accepting caretaker. A baby is definitely not a person but there is not sufficient reason to justify killing it, with a fetus there is.

The important thing to keep in mind is a baby is not just a burden, it is a being which forcibly infringes on a mothers rights.


Do you find abortion morally acceptable in any situation?

I don't think that there is anything behind what he is saying. All jack is doing is using the phrase "bring it upon himself/herself" to mean, "chose to be in a place where something negative happened." There seems to be no moral, legal, or religious meaning behind what he says. It's just a pointless phrase that causes a lot of arguments.

Of course, I could be wrong and he might just have a twisted and wrong sense of morality.

Its not about just being a burden, its about infringing on the rights of an existing human person that is a member of the moral community. The rights of a non-person clump of cells never overrides the rights of a full fledged person.

Full personhood is achieved when the following are fulfilled.

1. Consciousness
2. Self-motivation
3. Capacity to communicate
4. Reasoning
5. Self-awareness

Not all of the traits are required to hold some rights, but a fetus has at most a single trait. That is not nearly enough to justify its rights overriding those of a mother with all or most of said traits.

Simply having human genes isn't enough to justify the infringement of a mothers rights.

Okay yet again, why you can kill fetuses but not babies is...

Babies do not force people to sacrifice their rights. Once born, a baby can be transferred to another accepting caretaker. A baby is definitely not a person but there is not sufficient reason to justify killing it, with a fetus there is.

The important thing to keep in mind is a baby is not just a burden, it is a being which forcibly infringes on a mothers rights.
There's a lot of assumptions I don't agree with in here. First, what right is the fetus infringing on? The right for the mother to live how she wants? In which case, if my neighbor's baby is infringing upon my right to live as I wish (say, by playing in the yard and annoying me) I can kill it, because my rights are more important than its? All rights are not created equal. The right to life trumps the right to convenience. A fetus can be given up for adoption; it just takes 9 months to actually effect the adoption. It takes a while to adopt out a born baby, as well, but I don't see you citing the time it would take as a valid reason to kill it.

Second, I find your set of "personhood rules" arbitrary, and your decision about how many are required to hold rights even more arbitrary. Third, how can you tell how many a fetus has? Fourth, a fetus will grown into something that does hold all of them - it's just developing. Killing the fetus would be the same as murdering that future person.

Do you find abortion morally acceptable in any situation?
If the mother's right to life is threatened.

There's a lot of assumptions I don't agree with in here. First, what right is the fetus infringing on? The right for the mother to live how she wants? In which case, if my neighbor's baby is infringing upon my right to live as I wish (say, by playing in the yard and annoying me) I can kill it, because my rights are more important than its? All rights are not created equal. The right to life trumps the right to convenience. A fetus can be given up for adoption; it just takes 9 months to actually effect the adoption. It takes a while to adopt out a born baby, as well, but I don't see you citing the time it would take as a valid reason to kill it.

Second, I find your set of "personhood rules" arbitrary, and your decision about how many are required to hold rights even more arbitrary. Third, how can you tell how many a fetus has? Fourth, a fetus will grown into something that does hold all of them - it's just developing. Killing the fetus would be the same as murdering that future person.


If the mother's right to life is threatened.

You're right, the fetus is infringing on the mothers right to live how she wants. You have many options regarding your neighbors baby, you can move out, you can put up sound deadening panels etc. A mother has no options outside of abortion.

A fetus doesn't have the right to life nor does it have any others. No mother is forced to keep a baby for any amount of time. An unwanted baby is taken and brought to places that accept it.

The set of rules I laid out were those of Marry Anne Warren. You can accept those rules as the rules for personhood or provide others, I accept them and hold them to be correct and you have yet to provide any reasons why it doesn't. I agree the amount required is somewhat arbitrary but the fetus only even potentially has one, and that is contestable. Clearly if most animals have at least one as well then it is no more a person as those.

The only rule it may fulfill is consciousness and that is due to activity in the brain, but that activity may very well not indicate consciousness. If you think a fetus has more please tell me.

Whether or not a fetus is growing into something with those rights is a moot point. Potential for rights does not mean you currently have them. A fetus may gain full rights, but at the time of infringement on the mothers rights it does not have them. Plus, we are growing into something without those rights, a corpse. That doesn't mean we don't deserve them does it?


Another question for you. Why do you find it morally acceptable to kill a fetus if it threatens a mothers life? What if there is a 40% chance the mother will die when it is born, then is it still moral to kill the fetus? 20%? 50%? 75%? If the fetus has as many compelling moral rights as the mother then why does the mothers life take precedence?

Just some questions for you to ponder.

Wow. I picked 3 choices, and they all turned about to be the top 1, 2 , 3 choices.

You're right, the fetus is infringing on the mothers right to live how she wants. You have many options regarding your neighbors baby, you can move out, you can put up sound deadening panels etc. A mother has no options outside of abortion.
What if I don't want to move, or live with panels? I want to live exactly as I am, without the baby. It's infringing on my right to live exactly as I wish.

A fetus doesn't have the right to life nor does it have any others. No mother is forced to keep a baby for any amount of time. An unwanted baby is taken and brought to places that accept it.
It takes a while to adopt it out. What if she doesn't want to keep it for the few days/weeks it takes? She should just suck it up, I assume... just like the mother should be willing to wait 9 months to be rid of the burden of an unwanted fetus.

I agree the amount required is somewhat arbitrary but the fetus only even potentially has one, and that is contestable. Clearly if most animals have at least one as well then it is no more a person as those.
I don't think animals have any less right to life than humans do... we're all animals. Some of us just have bigger brains than others. "Personhood", to me, only has one requirement: consciousness. If something can want - specifically, to live - then it has just as much right to life as anything else.

The only rule it may fulfill is consciousness and that is due to activity in the brain, but that activity may very well not indicate consciousness. If you think a fetus has more please tell me.
It might not, though I think it's overwhelmingly likely. I don't think the risk could be taken, though; nine months is not too much to ask if it will possibly save a life.

Whether or not a fetus is growing into something with those rights is a moot point. Potential for rights does not mean you currently have them. A fetus may gain full rights, but at the time of infringement on the mothers rights it does not have them. Plus, we are growing into something without those rights, a corpse. That doesn't mean we don't deserve them does it?
Potential for rights does not mean you currently have them; it means that you have to right to live unmolested to acquire them, that's all. Similarly, potential for lack of rights does not mean you currently don't have them, either - that's only when you live to die, so to speak.

Assume you have a baby. At the moment, he is only interested in the contents of his diaper. Assume he will grow up into a prominent biologist who cures cancer or some such thing. If someone kills the child, wouldn't it be the same as killing the biologist? If someone kills the fetus that grew into the baby, it's the same as killing the baby, which is the same as killing the biologist...

Another question for you. Why do you find it morally acceptable to kill a fetus if it threatens a mothers life? What if there is a 40% chance the mother will die when it is born, then is it still moral to kill the fetus? 20%? 50%? 75%? If the fetus has as many compelling moral rights as the mother then why does the mothers life take precedence?

Just some questions for you to ponder.
A mother's life is worth the same as the life of a fetus. However, if one of them is going to die anyway, there is no reason it should be the mother; a life will be extinguished either way. As she already has a life (in the sense of a position she has acquired and friendships she has built and so forth), if she wishes to keep it is not morally unacceptable.

%-wise, I would say when it's 50/50 then the mother can choose. Maybe when the chance to die is lower, even, since it might not be doing the child a favor to let it live motherless. Certainly the chance has to be substantial, though.

What if I don't want to move, or live with panels? I want to live exactly as I am, without the baby. It's infringing on my right to live exactly as I wish.

You have options, maybe not options you want to take, but you have them. Outside of abortion, a mother doesn't.


It takes a while to adopt it out. What if she doesn't want to keep it for the few days/weeks it takes? She should just suck it up, I assume... just like the mother should be willing to wait 9 months to be rid of the burden of an unwanted fetus.

A MOTHER DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP A BABY FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER IT IS BORN IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO. fin.


I don't think animals have any less right to life than humans do... we're all animals. Some of us just have bigger brains than others. "Personhood", to me, only has one requirement: consciousness. If something can want - specifically, to live - then it has just as much right to life as anything else.

That is just a ridiculous point of view. By your view we should punish all predators because they are murderers. If animals are people then they have all the rights and responsibilities as human. Claiming a mouse is as responsible for its actions as a person would be is just plain stupid and I don't feel I really need to expand upon this much more.

It might not, though I think it's overwhelmingly likely. I don't think the risk could be taken, though; nine months is not too much to ask if it will possibly save a life.

Nine months is a long time and being pregnant can potentially cost them their job etc. Would you be morally obligated to carry around babies for 9 month shifts because it would save their life? No.


Potential for rights does not mean you currently have them; it means that you have to right to live unmolested to acquire them, that's all. Similarly, potential for lack of rights does not mean you currently don't have them, either - that's only when you live to die, so to speak.

All this states is that a fetus has the right to life. Which, as you know, I disagree with. Consult my previous arguments as to why.

Assume you have a baby. At the moment, he is only interested in the contents of his diaper. Assume he will grow up into a prominent biologist who cures cancer or some such thing. If someone kills the child, wouldn't it be the same as killing the biologist? If someone kills the fetus that grew into the baby, it's the same as killing the baby, which is the same as killing the biologist...

As a utilitarian of sorts I can agree that killing children that will undoubtedly grow up to save a significant number of lives is immoral. However, there is no way to prove such a thing.

A mother's life is worth the same as the life of a fetus. However, if one of them is going to die anyway, there is no reason it should be the mother; a life will be extinguished either way. As she already has a life (in the sense of a position she has acquired and friendships she has built and so forth), if she wishes to keep it is not morally unacceptable.

So you're saying that the social position and friends a person has determines their worth as a human? This just seems wrong to me.

%-wise, I would say when it's 50/50 then the mother can choose. Maybe when the chance to die is lower, even, since it might not be doing the child a favor to let it live motherless. Certainly the chance has to be substantial, though.

I kinda forgot where I was going with that haha.

Do you support abortion in the cases of rape?

You have options, maybe not options you want to take, but you have them. Outside of abortion, a mother doesn't.
"Maybe not options I want to take." That's my point! The right a mother forfeits is the right to live exactly as she wishes. That's the right my neighbor's baby is making me forfeit, too.

As I stated before, I think some rights are more important than others - such as the right to life.

A MOTHER DOES NOT NEED TO KEEP A BABY FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER IT IS BORN IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO. fin.
Well, I've never researched adoption etc., so you may be right. But assume a mother has a baby, goes home, then suddenly decides she doesn't want it. It disappears? Even assuming some sort of Fast Response Emergency Adoption Team, she'll have to care for it at least a little bit.

That is just a ridiculous point of view. By your view we should punish all predators because they are murderers.
Not at all. A predator can't decide whether or not to kill prey animals; it's not murder if it's not a decision.

If animals are people then they have all the rights and responsibilities as human. Claiming a mouse is as responsible for its actions as a person would be is just plain stupid and I don't feel I really need to expand upon this much more.
Well, I misstated a little. They aren't people, but they do have rights. They do not have the same responsibilities, because they are incapable of comprehending them (for the most part), but intelligence is not the decider of rights.

Nine months is a long time and being pregnant can potentially cost them their job etc. Would you be morally obligated to carry around babies for 9 month shifts because it would save their life? No.
Yes. Denying someone their life through being too lazy to give up 9 months (and it's not like 9 months in solitary confinement, either) is immoral.

All this states is that a fetus has the right to life. Which, as you know, I disagree with. Consult my previous arguments as to why.
Consult my argument below!

As a utilitarian of sorts I can agree that killing children that will undoubtedly grow up to save a significant number of lives is immoral. However, there is no way to prove such a thing.
That's true. But no matter what, you will be killing at least one person: the one it will be growing up into.

So you're saying that the social position and friends a person has determines their worth as a human? This just seems wrong to me.
I was thinking that the mother would have more to live for... but you might have a point. In any case, the mother is capable of making a choice and the baby isn't, so if it's 50/50 it'd be up to her, as the only involved party that it can be up to.

I kinda forgot where I was going with that haha.
:D It was interesting. Made me think!

Do you support abortion in the cases of rape?
This is a hard one. I don't think so, because it isn't the baby's fault that it was born of a rapist.

Plenty of potential life in my balls, someone wanna incubate them? Come on, where's your blabber about right to live now? Potential for life by definition, their very existence is to facilitate potential people

There's enough people, abortions help keep our habitat going a little longer. Nothing has a 'right' to live just because you say so. The cow you ate died for your convenience of getting to eat meat. Oh right, it doesn't have higher brain function so it doesn't count. Nor does the unborn kid you bitch about

Exactly!


You didn't say "out of the mother", you said "unassisted breath". Which is it, buddy?

Either way, please explain to me what magical change in the baby occurs once it's out of the womb. Does the Soul Fairy swoop down and give it personhood once it's born, or what?



I'm gonna give you a practical example you can follow along at home.

I'm going to assume that you've acquired the bodily function of 'unassisted breathing' to play along here.

Now, take a few good, deep breaths, you person you!

Now, to simulate my argument about being out of the mother, stick your head in a bucket of water and then take a couple of breaths...doesn't work so well, does it?

Plenty of potential life in my balls, someone wanna incubate them? Come on, where's your blabber about right to live now? Potential for life by definition, their very existence is to facilitate potential people
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't conception require sperm and an egg? Left alone, the sperm in your testicles will just be pissed out. There's no more potential life in your balls than there is in a table.

There's enough people, abortions help keep our habitat going a little longer. Nothing has a 'right' to live just because you say so. The cow you ate died for your convenience of getting to eat meat. Oh right, it doesn't have higher brain function so it doesn't count. Nor does the unborn kid you bitch about
Have you been reading my posts? I don't eat meat. "Higher brain function" doesn't determine right to live.

I'm gonna give you a practical example you can follow along at home.

I'm going to assume that you've acquired the bodily function of 'unassisted breathing' to play along here.

Now, take a few good, deep breaths, you person you!

Now, to simulate my argument about being out of the mother, stick your head in a bucket of water and then take a couple of breaths...doesn't work so well, does it?
You've successfully proven that I can't breathe underwater. If we want to cut you a lot of slack, you might even have proven that fetuses don't breathe unassisted. Well done! Now please show me where I contested either of these facts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't conception require sperm and an egg? Left alone, the sperm in your testicles will just be pissed out. There's no more potential life in your balls than there is in a table.

So you'd say that seeds don't have potential if you don't happen to have dirt available right now? Or that simple pollen has no potential

Look up the word. capable of being or becoming. Now, I'm no doctor but I'm fairly sure my sperm isn't damaged to a point of being useless and devoid of any of this 'potential' for creating life, the life of which you seem to want not to exist

So you'd say that seeds don't have potential if you don't happen to have dirt available right now? Or that simple pollen has no potential

Look up the word. capable of being or becoming. Now, I'm no doctor but I'm fairly sure my sperm isn't damaged to a point of being useless and devoid of any of this 'potential' for creating life, the life of which you seem to want not to exist
It's more like half a seed has no potential, like a single spermatozoon is half a life. If you jizzed on a Kleenex, what future person are you preventing? That sperm would never have been a person anyway, whereas a fetus would have been. Spermatozoa are not capable of being or becoming a person until they unite with an egg.

"Maybe not options I want to take." That's my point! The right a mother forfeits is the right to live exactly as she wishes. That's the right my neighbor's baby is making me forfeit, too.

I would have to say that a mother doesn't forfeit any rights unless she wants to since fetuses are people and don't have rights. Though this point you make combined with the fact you don't allow for abortion after rape is interesting, I'll go in depth later.

As I stated before, I think some rights are more important than others - such as the right to life.

Agreed, I just don't think the fetus has that right.


Well, I've never researched adoption etc., so you may be right. But assume a mother has a baby, goes home, then suddenly decides she doesn't want it. It disappears? Even assuming some sort of Fast Response Emergency Adoption Team, she'll have to care for it at least a little bit.

That's different. She decides to take it home. The baby will be taken by someone else so it'd be immoral to kill it.


Not at all. A predator can't decide whether or not to kill prey animals; it's not murder if it's not a decision.

Well, I misstated a little. They aren't people, but they do have rights. They do not have the same responsibilities, because they are incapable of comprehending them (for the most part), but intelligence is not the decider of rights.

I agree that animals have rights. I've read Singer and find his claims very compelling. However, I don't believe that animals have a right to life in any of the same capacity humans do. I do, however, believe they have a right to not suffer.

Yes. Denying someone their life through being too lazy to give up 9 months (and it's not like 9 months in solitary confinement, either) is immoral.

Okay lets think about the following hypothetical situation. You wake up one morning in a hospital bed. There are tubes running from you to a smelly homeless man lying next to you. Apperantly during the night you were kidnapped and hooked up to this homeless man so that your kidneys could filter his blood. In 9 months he'll be fine but if the tubes are removed at any time before then he will die. By your logic it is immoral to disconnect yourself.

That's true. But no matter what, you will be killing at least one person: the one it will be growing up into.

Same thing, rights of the here and now trump potential rights.



This is a hard one. I don't think so, because it isn't the baby's fault that it was born of a rapist.

Interesting, you said earlier that when a mother gets pregnant she forfeits her rights. When a woman is raped and impregnated she doesn't really make the choice to forfeit anything now does she? You're saying that it is moral to force a woman who has gone through a horrific event to then have to live with a reminder of it for 9 months? Not only that but this little reminder can cause an unbelievable amount of hardship outside of that normally caused by a pregnancy. I can't see any way you'll be able to justify that being considered moral.

You've successfully proven that I can't breathe underwater. If we want to cut you a lot of slack, you might even have proven that fetuses don't breathe unassisted. Well done! Now please show me where I contested either of these facts.

Then why'd you mention it in the first place.

So, it looks like you can have an abortion for any reason, a Social issue like money is a valid reason to get an abortion, and underaged girls should have full anonmity. I wish totse was making the laws on abortion

Okay lets think about the following hypothetical situation. You wake up one morning in a hospital bed. There are tubes running from you to a smelly homeless man lying next to you. Apperantly during the night you were kidnapped and hooked up to this homeless man so that your kidneys could filter his blood. In 9 months he'll be fine but if the tubes are removed at any time before then he will die. By your logic it is immoral to disconnect yourself.

Except you willingly risked getting that hobo tied to your back making you a dialysis machine. You were juggling bowling balls next to the only machine around and smashed it and now he needed a replacement and got attached to you. Brought it upon yourself while having fun

You have sex, you take the risk of getting pregnant. Don't try to deny that, it'll get you nowhere

It's more like half a seed has no potential, like a single spermatozoon is half a life

Egg is the soil. You have no soil around and you claim the seed hence has no potential whatsoever for growing?

Only reason all this potential life isn't reaching it's counterpart to create kids is the potential mothers' simple desire for comfort. What happened to giving all life a chance? Oh yes, you're full of shit, you just don't realize it. Should have caught onto that around the time you thought something has the inalienable right to something which happens to be entirely human-made concept and can be defined by individuals

I would have to say that a mother doesn't forfeit any rights unless she wants to since fetuses are people and don't have rights. Though this point you make combined with the fact you don't allow for abortion after rape is interesting, I'll go in depth later.
I think you misunderstood my point. You have said that unwanted pregnancy forces a woman to forfeit the right to live as she pleases; thus, it's okay to get an abortion as it "takes back" her rights. I'm saying that this is immoral, because my neighbor's baby (which you say isn't a person) also makes me forfeit the right to live exactly as I want... but it would be immoral to kill it.

Agreed, I just don't think the fetus has that right.
This is our basic disagreement... the rest is just fluff. Do you support very late-term abortions (partial-birth and the like)? In those cases, the fetus is obviously not different from a baby, so I can't see how you could support them but not killing babies. Earlier, though, it's hard to tell how human the fetus is. I agree that right after conception the fetus is not human or alive, but it certainly will be, and just a little later it's recognizably human and has brain activity and so forth.

That's different. She decides to take it home. The baby will be taken by someone else so it'd be immoral to kill it.
You could say that regarding a pregnant woman too: the fetus will be taken by someone else... eventually. It's just the length of time involved that differs.

However, I don't believe that animals have a right to life in any of the same capacity humans do.
Just curious - why not?

Okay lets think about the following hypothetical situation. You wake up one morning in a hospital bed. There are tubes running from you to a smelly homeless man lying next to you. Apperantly during the night you were kidnapped and hooked up to this homeless man so that your kidneys could filter his blood. In 9 months he'll be fine but if the tubes are removed at any time before then he will die. By your logic it is immoral to disconnect yourself.
It depends. Am I the only person in the entire world who can save this man? Am I able to get up, move around, and live - at least to the extent that a pregnant woman can? Then yes, it'd be immoral to disconnect myself.

Same thing, rights of the here and now trump potential rights.
I agree in most cases, but like I said before, some rights trump others.

In the case of my connection to the homeless man, let's suppose he was unconscious and was actually re-growing a good deal of his brain. He had been involved in a horrible accident and at the moment wouldn't have the intelligence of a lemming even if he was able to wake up. But in 9 months, he'd have completed his healing and wake up normal again. If someone came in, ripped all the wires off of him, and stabbed him until he died, wouldn't they be guilty of murder?

Interesting, you said earlier that when a mother gets pregnant she forfeits her rights. When a woman is raped and impregnated she doesn't really make the choice to forfeit anything now does she?
I didn't mean that she made a choice to forfeit her rights; see the first paragraph in this post.

You're saying that it is moral to force a woman who has gone through a horrific event to then have to live with a reminder of it for 9 months? Not only that but this little reminder can cause an unbelievable amount of hardship outside of that normally caused by a pregnancy. I can't see any way you'll be able to justify that being considered moral.
Quite simply because a life is more important than comfort. It's a tragedy, to be sure, but I can't see a way to justify killing something just to escape 9 months of trouble.

Except you willingly risked getting that hobo tied to your back making you a dialysis machine. You were juggling bowling balls next to the only machine around and smashed it and now he needed a replacement and got attached to you. Brought it upon yourself while having fun

You have sex, you take the risk of getting pregnant. Don't try to deny that, it'll get you nowhere
Good point. :D (Except in the case of rape... but that's a minority of cases anyway.)

Egg is the soil. You have no soil around and you claim the seed hence has no potential whatsoever for growing?
A seed is complete in itself; all it requires is nourishment. I would contend that sperm is fundamentally different, since it is only half a life (whereas seeds are whole).

Then why'd you mention it in the first place.
Just being a pedant, probably. :p

I was just curious but does anyone know the minimum age for abortion in the uk? Are the girls parents told if they are under 18?

No the parents aren't informed, even if the girl is as young as 13. (famous case quite recently).

Although if your 13 year old needs its tonsils removed the parents still have to sign a consent form. Go figure...

And before anyone says that isn't the case, I have to regularly sign consent forms for my 16 or 17 year old sons.

No the parents aren't informed, even if the girl is as young as 13. (famous case quite recently).

Although if your 13 year old needs its tonsils removed the parents still have to sign a consent form. Go figure...

And before anyone says that isn't the case, I have to regularly sign consent forms for my 16 or 17 year old sons.

Psychotic religious parents won't try to pressure you out of that tonsil removal. It's for the kid's own good

A seed is complete in itself; all it requires is nourishment. I would contend that sperm is fundamentally different, since it is only half a life (whereas seeds are whole).

It's a metaphor you moron, the seed isn't gonna do shit without the soil so it works just fine

It's a metaphor you moron, the seed isn't gonna do shit without the soil so it works just fine
Soil is nourishment, akin to food. Plenty of plants grow fine in just water, if we want to be pedantic. If sperm would grow into people if they were just fed, of course it'd be a valid metaphor. As it is, it makes no sense.

Sperm's no different from, and contains the same potential as, any other cell... until it fertilizes an egg.

I think you misunderstood my point. You have said that unwanted pregnancy forces a woman to forfeit the right to live as she pleases; thus, it's okay to get an abortion as it "takes back" her rights. I'm saying that this is immoral, because my neighbor's baby (which you say isn't a person) also makes me forfeit the right to live exactly as I want... but it would be immoral to kill it.

I've addressed this before. You have many options outside of killing the baby. A pregnant woman does not. It is morally wrong to kill the baby because it is a resource and the mother cares for it. Even if the mother didn't like the baby it would still be wrong because the baby can be taken by another.

This is our basic disagreement... the rest is just fluff. Do you support very late-term abortions (partial-birth and the like)? In those cases, the fetus is obviously not different from a baby, so I can't see how you could support them but not killing babies. Earlier, though, it's hard to tell how human the fetus is. I agree that right after conception the fetus is not human or alive, but it certainly will be, and just a little later it's recognizably human and has brain activity and so forth.

Personally, I don't find partial-birth etc. very tasteful but my moral understanding commits me to its morality. It doesn't matter how long the fetus will infringe on the mothers rights, any amount of time is sufficient for an abortion to be morally acceptable. The reason I don't support killing babies is the simple fact that babies are a resource and it's morally wrong to waste resources.

You could say that regarding a pregnant woman too: the fetus will be taken by someone else... eventually. It's just the length of time involved that differs.

See there is that eventually. That is what matters. The point is that the fetus infringes on the mothers rights for a period of time. The period of time is of no consequence.

Just curious - why not?

I think animals deserve a moral regard but considering their personhood is vastly less than that of humans I can't justify giving them full moral rights. If I did that then I'd have to say that animal testing for medical purposes was wrong which I feel is far from the truth.


It depends. Am I the only person in the entire world who can save this man? Am I able to get up, move around, and live - at least to the extent that a pregnant woman can? Then yes, it'd be immoral to disconnect myself.

Yes. You're in the same position as the pregnant woman. I can really see no way for you to justify the immorality of disconnecting yourself. You were put into a compromising position at no fault of your own and yet you say it is immoral to reclaim your life as it was before? What about if you are continually kidnapped and hooked up to one hobo after another? Your whole life is compromised without your consent. I can see no compelling way of justifying the view that disconnecting yourself is immoral.

I agree in most cases, but like I said before, some rights trump others.

Clearly, I disagree. I don't think that life on its own is somehow more important than every other right. A life without any of our other basic rights would hardly be worth living, at least in my opinion. Besides, mankind as a whole acknowledges that the willing sacrifice of life to uphold our rights is moral. It seems true that life alone is not enough and it is our other moral rights that truly make our lives what they are.

In the case of my connection to the homeless man, let's suppose he was unconscious and was actually re-growing a good deal of his brain. He had been involved in a horrible accident and at the moment wouldn't have the intelligence of a lemming even if he was able to wake up. But in 9 months, he'd have completed his healing and wake up normal again. If someone came in, ripped all the wires off of him, and stabbed him until he died, wouldn't they be guilty of murder?

That's different because he was a person before the accident and merely a victim of an accident.



Quite simply because a life is more important than comfort. It's a tragedy, to be sure, but I can't see a way to justify killing something just to escape 9 months of trouble.

It's not comfort, its freedom. A pregnant woman is forfeiting her freedoms to carry the child. No woman should be forced to do that. ESPECIALLY if it was through no fault of their own that they got pregnant.

I agree with twisted_ferret on the sperm=seed analogy. A seed contains all the genetic code it requires to grow into a being. A sperm does not. No matter how much nourishment you give a sperm it will never grow into anything.

I've addressed this before. You have many options outside of killing the baby. A pregnant woman does not. It is morally wrong to kill the baby because it is a resource and the mother cares for it. Even if the mother didn't like the baby it would still be wrong because the baby can be taken by another.
But my point is that the right forfeited by the pregnant woman is the same right I forfeit. Like I said, those other options aren't what I want!

Some freedoms must obviously be sacrificed for the rights of others.

Personally, I don't find partial-birth etc. very tasteful but my moral understanding commits me to its morality. It doesn't matter how long the fetus will infringe on the mothers rights, any amount of time is sufficient for an abortion to be morally acceptable.
See there is that eventually. That is what matters. The point is that the fetus infringes on the mothers rights for a period of time. The period of time is of no consequence.
Exactly! So in my scenario about the mother going home and being forced to care for the baby for a little bit, isn't it okay for her to kill the baby? The period of time is of no consequence, after all.

The reason I don't support killing babies is the simple fact that babies are a resource and it's morally wrong to waste resources.
Mostly, they use resources! But fetuses are resources, too, in that they'll soon be babies.

I think animals deserve a moral regard but considering their personhood is vastly less than that of humans I can't justify giving them full moral rights. If I did that then I'd have to say that animal testing for medical purposes was wrong which I feel is far from the truth.
I don't think that animal testing for medical reasons is wrong either. After all, if we didn't test on them, more deaths would result. They're not worth more than us, either.

Yes. You're in the same position as the pregnant woman. I can really see no way for you to justify the immorality of disconnecting yourself. You were put into a compromising position at no fault of your own and yet you say it is immoral to reclaim your life as it was before?
Yes, because to reclaim my life is to permanently condemn to death another person; whereas if I just waited 9 months, 9 months in which I am able to still live a life (albeit a curtailed one), he'd be able to have life too - most likely much more than the 9 months I sacrificed!

What about if you are continually kidnapped and hooked up to one hobo after another? Your whole life is compromised without your consent. I can see no compelling way of justifying the view that disconnecting yourself is immoral.
I thought of that. It's a difficult question. Two possible answers:

1.) It would be immoral to disconnect myself, because I am still able to live during the months I'm hooked up, and since I am the only person who could save these people...

2.) It would not be immortal to disconnect myself, because while giving up 9 months would be okay, giving up my entire life is essentially trading mine for theirs - and I cannot be expected to do that.

Either way, however, I don't think the "constant succession of hobos" argument applies to pregnancy, since there are (hopefully) no 720-month pregnancies!

Clearly, I disagree. I don't think that life on its own is somehow more important than every other right.
Life is required for any rights to exist.

A life without any of our other basic rights would hardly be worth living, at least in my opinion.
Exactly! Though I agree, it remains that our most basic right, the one without which all the rest are meaningless, is the right to live.

Besides, mankind as a whole acknowledges that the willing sacrifice of life to uphold our rights is moral. It seems true that life alone is not enough and it is our other moral rights that truly make our lives what they are.
The sacrifice of some lives to uphold others, not the sacrifice of others' lives to make your life more convenient... and notice that you said willing. A fetus can hardly be willing to die!

That's different because he was a person before the accident and merely a victim of an accident.
Why does that matter, though? If it's only the here and now that matters...

It's not comfort, its freedom. A pregnant woman is forfeiting her freedoms to carry the child. No woman should be forced to do that. ESPECIALLY if it was through no fault of their own that they got pregnant.
What freedoms? Sure, you have to be more careful with yourself and maybe take some maternity leave, but it's not like you're being locked up in solitary for the rest of your life.

Put it better than I could. :)

If you don't mind I'd like to begin anew and start by showing that abortion is morally acceptable in the cases of rape. From there it will be easier to move on to all other cases.

Your response to the hobo hook-up example is that of a Good Samaritan, not a minimally decent one. I can see why you'd feel its worth sacrificing 9 months of your life to save his, but I don't think you really give compelling reason for it to be a moral standard. Also, though pregnancies typically don't last for over 9 months. Your moral standard forces you to be hooked up to that homeless man or multiple homeless men for your entire life. People could kidnap you constantly to save one hobo after another and you'd be morally wrong in finally freeing yourself from their dependence.

Consider another instance in which a 13 year old girl is raped by her uncle. According to you it would be immoral for that girl to undergo an abortion, even though having the child would scar her mentally, emotionally and quite likely physically. Your moral standard forces her to essentially sacrifice her life as it had been up to that point. It doesn't seem that the right to life trumps absolutely every other right compiled together. Even if that fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to essentially destroy her life and cause her endless suffering and further mental damage.

Most underage girls getting pregnant are stupid chav girls, resulting in them raising their children all wrong/wont take care of them/ will fuck up in some way. But on the other hand having children might make them take a little responsibility.

Either way i really have a fairly neutral overall opinion on abortion. I think it 100% depends on the circumstances.

You don't even want to understand the fucking metaphor so go fuck yourselves, it's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist. If I could have constructed a sensible metaphor out of Legos, you'd say LOLZ SPERMS IS NOT SQUARE SO IT MAKE NO SENS. Newsflash, not every fucking detail needs to be exactly the same to get your mind around it, unless you really just try to find excuses so you can ignore it

Women don't want to give life to the potential in my balls since it's inconvenient. You wouldn't either if you had a womb. Rights of potential life is bullshit and you know it

Your response to the hobo hook-up example is that of a Good Samaritan, not a minimally decent one. I can see why you'd feel its worth sacrificing 9 months of your life to save his, but I don't think you really give compelling reason for it to be a moral standard.
That's a good point, but I think I do. It seems incredible selfish to me to condemn him to death even though you are able to live while saving him.

Also, though pregnancies typically don't last for over 9 months. Your moral standard forces you to be hooked up to that homeless man or multiple homeless men for your entire life. People could kidnap you constantly to save one hobo after another and you'd be morally wrong in finally freeing yourself from their dependence.
Well, consider another example: You see a drowning man. You're easily able to save him by extending your arm. Morally correct to save him, right? But what happens if when you finish that, you see another? And another? Where do you draw the line?

It's a tough question, but I don't think it invalidates the moral reasoning behind the homeless man scenario. I think it depends largely on who you are; that is, some people would gladly devote their entire lives to saving drowning people/homeless men, whereas to others even a few minutes is too much. The minimally decent route? I don't know if it's fair to expect someone to devote more than a year at a time, but either way, to save the one drowning or homeless man does seem the only moral path to me.

Consider another instance in which a 13 year old girl is raped by her uncle. According to you it would be immoral for that girl to undergo an abortion, even though having the child would scar her mentally, emotionally and quite likely physically. Your moral standard forces her to essentially sacrifice her life as it had been up to that point. It doesn't seem that the right to life trumps absolutely every other right compiled together.
It's a tragedy, but she is able to live and heal after. An aborted baby can't. If having the baby would make her likely to die, or become unable to conceive again* (i.e. medical reasons), then I would support abortion in that case; otherwise, no. Everything else is healable.

*This really would destroy her life, in all likelihood, so it's a case of the baby's life being traded for hers.

Even if that fetus is a person it doesn't have the right to essentially destroy her life and cause her endless suffering and further mental damage.
It wouldn't have the right to if it had a choice. It's not malicious, though. It didn't ask to be conceived. It didn't rape her.

You don't even want to understand the fucking metaphor so go fuck yourselves, it's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist. If I could have constructed a sensible metaphor out of Legos, you'd say LOLZ SPERMS IS NOT SQUARE SO IT MAKE NO SENS. Newsflash, not every fucking detail needs to be exactly the same to get your mind around it, unless you really just try to find excuses so you can ignore it
Not every metaphor is valid. I understand the metaphor; I just don't think it's correct. It's like if I said "SEEDS ARE LIKE SPERM, THEY ARE BOTH ROUND THEREFORE THEY HAVE THE SAME POTENTIAL."
Pilsu: "That doesn't make sense."
Me: "YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE METAPHOR"

Not every metaphor is valid. I understand the metaphor; I just don't think it's correct. It's like if I said "SEEDS ARE LIKE SPERM, THEY ARE BOTH ROUND THEREFORE THEY HAVE THE SAME POTENTIAL."
Pilsu: "That doesn't make sense."
Me: "YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE METAPHOR"

That's not even close, grossly exaggerating to make yourself seem right won't help you

Unless you see the connection between being able to form life with added component and.. being round

You're still claiming my sperm can't make babies by denying it's potential life. Pro-lifers don't really want to give in their halves and time to realize this life but prefer to bitch about other people's children and remain comfy in their own lives, ignoring all the potential for life they're ignoring. It's easy to criticize others

You especially like the idea of giving the kids out to adoption and barely ever do you actually give these unloved mistakes a home. The system isn't something you dump kids in, you need to be prepared to carry some of the responsibility yourself or just shut up and spare us the hypocrisy. I can only respect the ones that have at least one adopted kid

You don't even want to understand the fucking metaphor so go fuck yourselves, it's like trying to argue with a fundamentalist. If I could have constructed a sensible metaphor out of Legos, you'd say LOLZ SPERMS IS NOT SQUARE SO IT MAKE NO SENS. Newsflash, not every fucking detail needs to be exactly the same to get your mind around it, unless you really just try to find excuses so you can ignore it

Women don't want to give life to the potential in my balls since it's inconvenient. You wouldn't either if you had a womb. Rights of potential life is bullshit and you know it

You are really really stupid. First of all you CLEARLY have no idea what I have been debating for the last week. I SUPPORT ABORTION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Despite the fact I support abortion, I don't agree with every stupid analogy or point brought up by pro abortionists. Your analogy is inaccurate, plain and simple. A seed is a fertilized ovum, not a sperm. The soil would be the mothers uterus, not the ovum. No, analogies don't have to be exactly the same as the topic, because then they aren't analogies at all. I understand what you are getting at but it is an inaccurate analogy and a fucking dumb way of going about trying to prove abortion is moral.

You especially like the idea of giving the kids out to adoption and barely ever do you actually give these unloved mistakes a home. The system isn't something you dump kids in, you need to be prepared to carry some of the responsibility yourself or just shut up and spare us the hypocrisy. I can only respect the ones that have at least one adopted kid

Knowing what is moral and doing what is moral are two distinctly different things. Just because I do immoral things doesn't mean I can't tell you what is moral.

That's a good point, but I think I do. It seems incredible selfish to me to condemn him to death even though you are able to live while saving him.


Well, consider another example: You see a drowning man. You're easily able to save him by extending your arm. Morally correct to save him, right? But what happens if when you finish that, you see another? And another? Where do you draw the line?

It's a tough question, but I don't think it invalidates the moral reasoning behind the homeless man scenario. I think it depends largely on who you are; that is, some people would gladly devote their entire lives to saving drowning people/homeless men, whereas to others even a few minutes is too much. The minimally decent route? I don't know if it's fair to expect someone to devote more than a year at a time, but either way, to save the one drowning or homeless man does seem the only moral path to me.


It's a tragedy, but she is able to live and heal after. An aborted baby can't. If having the baby would make her likely to die, or become unable to conceive again* (i.e. medical reasons), then I would support abortion in that case; otherwise, no. Everything else is healable.

*This really would destroy her life, in all likelihood, so it's a case of the baby's life being traded for hers.


It wouldn't have the right to if it had a choice. It's not malicious, though. It didn't ask to be conceived. It didn't rape her.

Well it seems that you put the value of potential life above all other rights. I suppose this is the crux of the issue and it's pretty much impossible for justify abortion with your stance. I can accept that though haha.

I do find your disallowing that poor 14 year old girl an abortion to be fairly monstrous, though. I don't quite understand why her becoming infertile is grounds for the allowance of an abortion. It seems to me that having my social life ruined as well as being emotionally scarred for life is a bit more serious and detrimental than mere inability to conceive.

I liked your drowning analogy in response to the constant barrage of homeless men question. I suppose it really comes down to the amount of time you're inconvenienced for. Though, in your case, right to life supersedes all other rights combined so I guess it doesn't matter. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, is there any way people can forfeit their right to life?

You are really really stupid. First of all you CLEARLY have no idea what I have been debating for the last week. I SUPPORT ABORTION IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

I don't keep track who thinks what. I didn't even read your name. Who cares if it didn't happen to apply to you, the ones it applies to read it regardless and can argue it if they wish

I understand what you are getting at

I define good analogies as having served their purpose of conveying the message. Or should I say good enough. You seem to perceive good as in spot on perfect and I really don't expect to gain anything out of this so why bother. It's like trying to be better at flicking a lint around, what's the point. The lint entertains me just the same

but it is an inaccurate analogy and a fucking dumb way of going about trying to prove abortion is moral.

I'm not trying to prove anything, just telling the guys saying all life deserves a chance that they're letting plenty of lives not happen and how they're hypocrites for doing so. It's as if the potential isn't there until conception

Apparently only already fertilized kids can grow up to be people. If life's so precious and you want everyone possible to experience it, why aren't you breeding until you can't afford to do it anymore? According to them any fate is better than not existing so there's no excuse

If you didn't notice, I stopped talking to you halfway Sync. Use your imagination a bit, I can't see your face so I can't exactly turn away to look at the audience so you have to fill in the blanks. It's not hard

I define good analogies as having served their purpose of conveying the message. Or should I say good enough. You seem to perceive good as in spot on perfect and I really don't expect to gain anything out of this so why bother. It's like trying to be better at flicking a lint around, what's the point. The lint entertains me just the same

Haha its funny how the end of this paragraph highlights your ridiculous analogies. When you're discussing a serious philosophical topic you cant just apply any analogy that may relate in a cursory sense and claim that it proves what you are saying. If you are providing the analogy as proof then it MUST be perfect otherwise it is invalid.



I'm not trying to prove anything, just telling the guys saying all life deserves a chance that they're letting plenty of lives not happen and how they're hypocrites for doing so. It's as if the potential isn't there until conception

Apparently only already fertilized kids can grow up to be people. If life's so precious and you want everyone possible to experience it, why aren't you breeding until you can't afford to do it anymore? According to them any fate is better than not existing so there's no excuse

Uh, it's a fact that only a fertilized ovum can grow into anything. It's funny how you say the potential isn't there until conception like it is false. Your analogy has been shown to be inaccurate and you seem to have accepted that. There is no backing behind your claims at all. I agree with your general point of view but the justification behind it is lacking.

If you didn't notice, I stopped talking to you halfway Sync. Use your imagination a bit, I can't see your face so I can't exactly turn away to look at the audience so you have to fill in the blanks. It's not hard

When your post begins by quoting me I can't help but assume you're talking to me. Besides, even if you aren't talking to me I can still respond.

(this is kind of response to something said in the other abortion thread over on B&M)

People, can we please knock one supposed 'fact' , one 'given' of the Pro Choice camp on the head?

All too often I get told, here and elsewhere, that a having a baby = no or the end of higher education.

That piece fo Fem Nazi rhetoric annoys me particularly because I managed to get the equivalent of a degree and pass the university entrance exams for the highest university in the land whilst being both full time mother and father to 3 babies/very small children (one remember severely crippled) and caring for a clinically insane wife. I also had cope with living in poverty and my own acute alcoholism.

I've known a lot of single mom's who have done the same or far more.

Trying to get educated while looking after a baby is hard, looking after 3 even harder but in the end it comes down to person.

Its called being a parent, ask yours sometime. You simply get on with it and do what it takes...whatever it takes.

Even back in the 60's, when having a 'bastard' was a real stigma, my (single)mom managed to finish her education (qualified as a teacher) whilst suffering from PostPartum Depression and held down a part time job too so she could feed me (was almost no state support back then).

I think women should be able to have abortions and have the facilites available. I don't see a clump of cells as a life, and I don't see the point in having a baby if you don't want it or can't care properly for it.

By the way, "pro-life" is Unspeak.

Campaigners against abortion had from the early 1970s described their position as defending a ‘right to life’. The opposing camp, previously known as ‘pro-abortionists’, then renamed their position ‘pro-choice’, rhetorically softening what they favoured. Defending a woman’s ‘right to choose’ whether to have a baby or not, the slogan ‘pro-choice’ appealed to an apparently inviolable concept of individual responsibility. It sought to cast adversaries as ‘anti-choice’: as interfering, patriarchal dictators. However, the phrase also carried unfortunate associations with the consumerist ideal of ‘choice’, as though choosing cereals in a supermarket was an appropriate model for ethics. Indeed, anti-abortionists quickly trumped that linguistic strategy by beginning to call themselves ‘pro-life’, a term first recorded in 1976. The phrase ‘pro-life’ appeals to a sacred concept of ‘life’, and casts one’s opponents – those who think abortion should be legally available – necessarily as anti-life, in fact pro-death. In a conceptual battle of two moral ideals, ‘life’ easily wins out over ‘choice’.

Well it seems that you put the value of potential life above all other rights. I suppose this is the crux of the issue and it's pretty much impossible for justify abortion with your stance. I can accept that though haha.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but I guess I do. I think other rights are important too... but I guess I do think that the right to have rights (i.e. to live!) is most important.

I do find your disallowing that poor 14 year old girl an abortion to be fairly monstrous, though. I don't quite understand why her becoming infertile is grounds for the allowance of an abortion. It seems to me that having my social life ruined as well as being emotionally scarred for life is a bit more serious and detrimental than mere inability to conceive.
Well, I was operating under the assumption that she would wish to have kids later. Not sure about that, though.

It is a terrible thing she has to go through. If it would absolutely ruin her life, it might be okay to abort; but I think most rape victims are able to get over it eventually.

I liked your drowning analogy in response to the constant barrage of homeless men question. I suppose it really comes down to the amount of time you're inconvenienced for. Though, in your case, right to life supersedes all other rights combined so I guess it doesn't matter. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Where do you draw the line on amount of time? I've been thinking and I can't decide. Any choice seems arbitrary!

I don't think it's fair to ask someone to give up their life for others'. They matter, too! I just don't know when is enough...

Also, is there any way people can forfeit their right to life?
If someone doesn't respect the right to life that others have, I think it would be morally correct to destroy them. I.e., a murderer or the like.

It's as if the potential isn't there until conception

Apparently only already fertilized kids can grow up to be people.
Imagine that. :p Both of those statements are correct. Your sperm can sit in your balls for a thousand years and it won't become a person. An egg can sit in a womb for eternity and it will never be a kid until it's fertilized.

If life's so precious and you want everyone possible to experience it, why aren't you breeding until you can't afford to do it anymore? According to them any fate is better than not existing so there's no excuse
If something has never existed in the first place, nonexistence can hardly be a horrible fate for it. There is, in fact, no it to have a fate at all!

Where do you draw the line on amount of time? I've been thinking and I can't decide. Any choice seems arbitrary!

I don't think it's fair to ask someone to give up their life for others'. They matter, too! I just don't know when is enough...

Yeah I agree. It's really tough to attempt to draw a fine line where saving someone isnt morally required. I guess the amount of time spent would have to dramatically impact their life in a negative way. But, then we have to decide how dramatically your life has to be negatively impacted to justify not saving them. Tricky questions that define the debate.


If someone doesn't respect the right to life that others have, I think it would be morally correct to destroy them. I.e., a murderer or the like.

Personally I wouldn't say its moral to destroy them, just to imprison them. To me death seems like a release from their crimes not a punishment.

*eagerly awaits Pilsu's next analogy session*

Haha its funny how the end of this paragraph highlights your ridiculous analogies. When you're discussing a serious philosophical topic you cant just apply any analogy that may relate in a cursory sense and claim that it proves what you are saying. If you are providing the analogy as proof then it MUST be perfect otherwise it is invalid.

Analogies aren't proof, they're just a different way saying the same thing. You then can cross reference them with the original scenario and maybe gain insights on the previously seemingly nonsensical statements. You must be willing to try and decipher them however, it is useless to convey a message if the recipient does not want to make the effort to listen

Yes, only fertilized ovum can create life. But to create that ovum you need the two things that come before it, sperm and an egg. There is no fertilization without both. You consider life so precious that you'd want every one to have a chance, yet you refuse to see that all it takes to create another is to make the decision to breed and get to it. If life is so precious, why aren't you trying to create more of it? Or you are but only in a limited way, by trying to stop others from terminating the ones already underway. Why is the life of the fertilized egg only one worth realizing? Why aren't you making an effort to fertilize more eggs in the first place if you consider life so wonderful? What's stopping you? Potential is a what if without anything to stop it but your will, not only something you already sent underway. There's plenty of what ifs in my crotch, I just need another to realize the potential. Yet, you deny them life out of inconvenience, going against all you preach, defending the right to live, to exist. All I need is a willing mother, one willing to give them existence, the existence they so claim to care about when discussing abortions

Analogies aren't proof, they're just a different way saying the same thing.
If the analogies differ from the original scenario, they're not valid. A seed cannot be equated with a spermatozoon.

Or you are but only in a limited way, by trying to stop others from terminating the ones already underway. Why is the life of the fertilized egg only one worth realizing?
It's the only one that has a life.

Why aren't you making an effort to fertilize more eggs in the first place if you consider life so wonderful? What's stopping you? Potential is a what if without anything to stop it but your will, not only something you already sent underway. There's plenty of what ifs in my crotch, I just need another to realize the potential. Yet, you deny them life out of inconvenience, going against all you preach, defending the right to live, to exist. All I need is a willing mother, one willing to give them existence, the existence they so claim to care about when discussing abortions
It's not that I think every life possible should be realized; just that those things that already have lives should be able to decide for themselves whether to continue living. A fetus already has a life; it has all the material needed for an adult person, it just has to grow.

It's not that there tons of babies floating on clouds, just waiting for you to "give them existence." They don't exist; you can't "give" them anything. You don't deny anything the opportunity to live, because there's nothing to deny! It is just a possibility, a fantasy, until an egg is actually fertilized.

*eagerly awaits Pilsu's next analogy session*
I laughed out loud. :D

What's the real difference between a fetus and a couple cells that might grow if you united them? Neither is a person, both could become one. Yet you only concern yourself with the rights of one. Why does the fetus have a right to live if it's not the person you deem worthy of rights yet? None of it's real potential has been realized, not even close. Largeish lump of cells does not a person make, no more than the sperm and ovum waiting to meet

It's all irrelevant anyway, all life is meaningless and all values are arbitrary. Arguing over them makes no difference as nothing changes, even if something did it would not matter the least

The difference is that action that unites them. After that action no choices need to be made for that fetus to grow, it just does it on its own. The idea is that large lump of cells has a full genetic code and barring any interference will grow into a person. Take the soil. Bury some pollen, some flowers and some seeds. Tell me which one grows.

btw your last point is really stupid. I suppose your life and values may be meaningless and arbitrary but mine aren't/isn't. I feel sorry for you if you really believe that.

It really bugs me that the main people on here saying that abortion is wrong and that pregnancy is a "minor inconvenience" are MEN. A man can't possibly know what it's like to be a pregnant woman. I WANTED to be pregnant, but it was still a difficult time for me. My family had essentially disowned me when I got married...And I really thought that when I told my parents that they would have a grandchild...I thought they would come around. I was very wrong in that belief. When I told my mother I was pregnant she told me that she didn't care and that I should have an abortion, because I was already damned for being a whore. (my husband and I weren't married in the church, so my parents don't consider us "really" married.) I was 19 years old and I confess I was pretty dumb to be surprised by her respose, because when I had called her to tell her about having a miscarraige, her response was, "Good you'd be a terrible mother anyway." Hope springs eternal, I guess.:/

My point in all of that is you can't possibly know what someone's circumstances are. Maybe it's a teenage girl with parents like mine. Maybe it's someone who just can't emotionally deal with the stress of pregnancy. You might argue that these women shouldn't be having sex in the first place, but come ON. Like you've never made a mistake? An abortion gives these women a second chance to get their lives straightened out and in my opinion, the already born are more important than the unborn.

When I told my mother I was pregnant she told me that she didn't care and that I should have an abortion, because I was already damned for being a whore. (my husband and I weren't married in the church, so my parents don't consider us "really" married.) I was 19 years old and I confess I was pretty dumb to be surprised by her respose, because when I had called her to tell her about having a miscarraige, her response was, "Good you'd be a terrible mother anyway." Hope springs eternal, I guess.:/

That's really awful of her. Horrible.

It really bugs me that the main people on here saying that abortion is wrong and that pregnancy is a "minor inconvenience" are MEN. .

I doubt anyone, male or female, would ever claim that pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Infact that sounds like the sort of propganda the Pro Choice lobby tend to come out with (ie 'pro lifers think having a baby is just a minor inconvenience').

Sure I've made mistakes and yes some of them could be corrected by killing various people....wouldn't make it right though, no matter how i might try and pretend the people concerned had no right to life (and some of them really don't ).

I doubt anyone, male or female, would ever claim that pregnancy is just a minor inconvenience. Infact that sounds like the sort of propganda the Pro Choice lobby tend to come out with (ie 'pro lifers think having a baby is just a minor inconvenience').

Sure I've made mistakes and yes some of them could be corrected by killing various people....wouldn't make it right though, no matter how i might try and pretend the people concerned had no right to life (and some of them really don't ).
QFT. ‎

Agreed. Though, maybe here most people who are pro life are men but most women are pro-life as well. So, it only follows that the majority would be reflected here. The argument that is posed against your point that a mistake doesnt justify ending a humans life. Of course I disagree but oh well haha

Killing babies is wrong.

for me abortion = murder. Murder is sometimes justified, for instance, for saving someone else... Perhaps I would justify to kill a baby product of a rape, perhaps not. What I am sure is that (IMO) is the same as waiting the baby to be born and killing him after (this is the "abortion" method used in the past)

A baby aint a baby til it can squeeze your finger. If its a flipper baby it counts as half a life.

Any got any good dead baby jokes? I've heard most of em.

Pro Choice for me.

Mom told me a while ago that her family thought she would abort me. She didn't. And look how I turned out now!

Not saying anything's bad. I mean, if the kids not born yet they can't tell its attitude or intellect. That's what I hate, when people say "But the kid could cure cancer!" Yeah, In the womb?

Takes a while for most to learn.

That's what I hate, when people say "But the kid could cure cancer!" Yeah, In the womb?
Yeah, it's not like it will grow up or anything.

someone called my house and asked me what i thought about it.
i said exactly this:
"i think i wanna have sex with a animal, wouldn't it be fun?"
and they hung up
thats that

Has anybody else noticed that most of the women who are against abortion, are people who you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?

if the mother dosent want it in the first place, put it up for adoption. let it have life with someone who will love it like it should be loved. you pro choice people sicken me to the point of insanity.

if the mother dosent want it in the first place, put it up for adoption. let it have life with someone who will love it like it should be loved. you pro choice people sicken me to the point of insanity.

I am starting to change my views just so children like yourself can be aborted before they have the chance to take their first breathe and stain the rest of society.

wow...this place is heavily free (pol results).

TOTSE FTW

I beleive she should have to get an abortion if the father of the fetus wants her to.

Abortion should be legal up until the kid moves out.