Yah I meant if it ever becomes a law. This is just a series of troubling bills that have been put on the table, one that actually got passed recently about transfering parafanelia across state lines constitutes a felony, if you send your friend in Idaho a bong and a roach clip you can go to federal prision.
Sigh...if this country didn't have so many benefits to living here I'd be gone tomorrow.
I like how people assume what my opinion is. If I was partial-birth aborted... I WOULDN'T KNOW! Jeez, do YOU remember when you were born? No. If my mother chose to kill me at... say, 3 years, that would be wrong... but as a fetus? I wouldn't care because ... frankly I probably wouldn't even realize that I existed.
And yes, I guess if the dictionary definition of "sentient" is that, that's the wrong word. I meant intelligent. Like what separates an adult human from an adult seagull.
I'm pro-euthanasia as well as pro-choice. And while I don't support wanton killing of babies, vegetables, and old people who want to die (so many people think that pro-choicers want to kill things, which is incorrect), if you have to / people in charge choose to do it... let them do it!
Edit: more points. OKAY, so now comes the ad hominem argument of how it's so messy and disgusting. BIG WHOOP. KILLING FISH IS PRETTY DISGUSTING TOO. To me, unintelligent, unsentient, unsapient, whatever, fetuses are on an equal moral plane to fish and dogs and what have you. Call me what you will, that's how I feel, and dont tell me about the horrors of the operation because I can tell you horrors 10000x worse that happen every day.
<!--QuoteBegin--coil+Oct 23 2003, 02:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Oct 23 2003, 02:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 3) (This was explained to me by a woman who makes a career out of counselling mothers and pregnant women) Partial-birth abortions are generally only performed on fetuses that *cannot survive* outside of the womb due to developmental complications. Two examples she offered me were a fetus with its brain outside its skull and a fetus with no lungs. Now mothers must carry these doomed fetuses to term. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When you put it that way, I can understand these partial birth abortions and you're right, the distinction HAS to be made. If the baby is serverly deformed then I think partial birth abortion is a possibility that should be looked into.
I'm also a little confused here, does the third trimester law cover partial birth abortions too? If it doesn't, does that mean that women who would've had a perfectly normal baby could legaly get a partial birth abortion done on their child? And if they can, this is where the real problem of the newly passed law comes in. Who can and can't have a partial birth?
IMO, any women having a healthy baby shouldn't be allowed to have any abortion AT all except for a VERY early term abortion; maybe 2 months in, maximum. But if there is a problem with the child that is serious and either the baby will die, 100% positivly, at birth or the baby will have serious birth defects ruining it's life, like being a vegie from birth, I think abortion should be allowed.
And on a side note, have any of you people supporting pro-choice acctually seen the effects of a late abortion? If you haven't you should, the pics are pretty horrible. Had to see them every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday going middle school as some protesters held up the pictures. Always hated sitting on the left side of the bus because of that. They don't really make you that hungry for lunch either. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 23 2003, 02:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 23 2003, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I like how people assume what my opinion is. If I was partial-birth aborted... I WOULDN'T KNOW! Jeez, do YOU remember when you were born? No. If my mother chose to kill me at... say, 3 years, that would be wrong... but as a fetus? I wouldn't care because ... frankly I probably wouldn't even realize that I existed.
And yes, I guess if the dictionary definition of "sentient" is that, that's the wrong word. I meant intelligent. Like what separates an adult human from an adult seagull.
I'm pro-euthanasia as well as pro-choice. And while I don't support wanton killing of babies, vegetables, and old people who want to die (so many people think that pro-choicers want to kill things, which is incorrect), if you have to / people in charge choose to do it... let them do it!
Edit: more points. OKAY, so now comes the ad hominem argument of how it's so messy and disgusting. BIG WHOOP. KILLING FISH IS PRETTY DISGUSTING TOO. To me, unintelligent, unsentient, unsapient, whatever, fetuses are on an equal moral plane to fish and dogs and what have you. Call me what you will, that's how I feel, and dont tell me about the horrors of the operation because I can tell you horrors 10000x worse that happen every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "I like how people assume what my opinion is."
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Well you've pretty much stated it for us in your last post and in the middle of this one. Don't know what all your grief is about.
I'm also begining to dislike how people supporting abortion use "pro-choice" to describe their opinions. I mean, under you're thinking if I choose to kill someone it's legal because, hell, it was my choice and the constitution protects me. IT IS NOT A WOMANS'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER THEIR CHILD LIVES OR DIES. Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder. Not that I [/I]think[I] some types of abortion are murder, such as very early term abortion or abortion of a child that will kill it's mother and will die itself, but after about a month and a half I believe the child IS a living thing and that killing it is takes away all of it's rights. So what if the child can't even understand what rights are, he still has them and they should still be protected.
Oh, also, killing a dog is illegal and killing puppies is too, so I think partial abortion puts puppies on a higher plane than fetuses. What a great world we live in today.
Killing them for fun is illegal, of course. Killing them because they are sick, or for a host of other reasons, is not.
When I said "I like how people assume my opinions" I meant that you jumped to the conclusion that "People like things until it happens to them."
As for all this: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A whole lot of rights are not in the constitution, ... ... ... ... Well, anyway, I think it is the woman's freedom to decide what to do with HER OWN BODY. It is her own body, after all. The fetus is really a symbiote that was created at the mother's own will. If I got a pacemaker installed, I sure as hell should have the right to have it removed. And the unborn do not have rights. The born do (a child BORN in the united states has right as a citizen).
My uncles wifes had a baby that was born without a skull and a partially devoloped brain. Eventually the stress caused them to divorce. If they had found out a couple weeks before the birth it would have been much better. They expected a baby and they got one with half a head. With this law they couldn't have aborted it even if they had known. This law is a blatant disregard of human rights. The way they worded stops even special cases like this one being carried out.
At the 4-5 month period a fetus is neither a "child", "baby" or "infant" so all you anti-abortionists cant quit with all your baby killing rehetoric. For the first 6 months of conception a mother has a right to abort as it stands now, most abortions for the last friggin time happen 2-3 weeks after conception, "partial birth" abortions happen in rare cases where the mothers life is at risk or it is clear the fetus will not live through development. This bill is targeting 3% of all abortions, where either a mother or a child will die if they don't happen, women do not get late term abortions on a whim because they don't want a child, so please stop all your disgusting remarks about such.
This is just a blatent attempt to get a foothold to outlaw abortion and the way it's worded is just an insult to people's intelligence.
As far as the constitution goes I think "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" applies to women too no?
<!--QuoteBegin--Windelkron+Oct 23 2003, 05:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Windelkron @ Oct 23 2003, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Killing them for fun is illegal, of course. Killing them because they are sick, or for a host of other reasons, is not.
When I said "I like how people assume my opinions" I meant that you jumped to the conclusion that "People like things until it happens to them."
As for all this: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A whole lot of rights are not in the constitution, ... ... ... ... Well, anyway, I think it is the woman's freedom to decide what to do with HER OWN BODY. It is her own body, after all. The fetus is really a symbiote that was created at the mother's own will. If I got a pacemaker installed, I sure as hell should have the right to have it removed. And the unborn do not have rights. The born do (a child BORN in the united states has right as a citizen). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If the be all and end all of this discussion is "What the woman can do with her own body", then you lose. A baby/fetus/zygote is not part of the womans body, from the moment of conception it has completely separate DNA, and becomes a separate, yet dependant, entity.
If it was going to live if you left it alone, and if it would fight to live if you gave it enough time, then I say let it live. Hilarious how expecting mothers call it "My Baby", while in abortion clinics its all "the fetus".
That said, the real point of this discussion has already been made. Its legislation that doesnt really need to exist, and only exists to give the anti-abortionists a foot in the door. Not that I personally care. If they win, great. If they dont win - well I just refer back to Twex's post.
It's her body because she goes through labor to pop the little guy or girl out. By your rationale a women can say "Screw it I don't want to have a baby, find your own way out little guy", and proceed to drink, smoke, and carry on with her normal life.
Whether you find abortion right or not doesn't change the fact that this bill is nonesense.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 23 2003, 05:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 23 2003, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's her body because she goes through labor to pop the little guy or girl out. By your rationale a women can say "Screw it I don't want to have a baby, find your own way out little guy", and proceed to drink, smoke, and carry on with her normal life.
Whether you find abortion right or not doesn't change the fact that this bill is nonesense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> She can claim "Well its going to affect my body" if she likes, but a lot of people here seem to be under the impression that the mother can kill of the fetus like chopping off hair - its part of you so you have the right to do whatever you want with it.
I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, and she is going to terminate something that isnt a part of her, that she created and lives inside of her/is dependant on her. She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect. If she is selfish enough to carry on with an abortion, then thats on her own head.
The bill is nonsense, but I'd vote for it. If it passes, great, less abortions. Or at least a stepping stone to. If it fails (As I think it will), meh, its you doing the killing, not me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funny you call it her body when it has different DNA, different cell structue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same cellular structure (in fact all cells do, just different bits turned on and off), same MT DNA (inherited through her) and is at a minimum 50% her DNA. It is pretty much just an egg with double chromosomal material that is now begining to transcribe DNA and start dividing.
It also needs her blood supply, her nutrients, her immune system (IgG will cross into the baby), her oxygen, her tissues (placental tissues)...etc.etc Basically it IS part of her because she provides everything for it exactly like a normal cell. The difference being that it functions more like a parasite than a normal tissue.
It is pretty much her until later in development.
Oh it will also bear some of her MHC among other things too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is a parasite and it's host, the difference is a parasite isn't composed of 50% of your DNA AND has your MT DNA. Nor does a parasite usually encourage your immune system to investigate it either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think so.
If what you are saying is true then babies wouldn't occur, the mothers immune system would lock on and destroy. There is MORE similarity than you give credit.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Oct 24 2003, 03:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Oct 24 2003, 03:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Funny you call it her body when it has different DNA, different cell structue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same cellular structure (in fact all cells do, just different bits turned on and off), same MT DNA (inherited through her) and is at a minimum 50% her DNA. It is pretty much just an egg with double chromosomal material that is now begining to transcribe DNA and start dividing.
It also needs her blood supply, her nutrients, her immune system (IgG will cross into the baby), her oxygen, her tissues (placental tissues)...etc.etc Basically it IS part of her because she provides everything for it exactly like a normal cell. The difference being that it functions more like a parasite than a normal tissue.
It is pretty much her until later in development.
Oh it will also bear some of her MHC among other things too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is a parasite and it's host, the difference is a parasite isn't composed of 50% of your DNA AND has your MT DNA. Nor does a parasite usually encourage your immune system to investigate it either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think so.
If what you are saying is true then babies wouldn't occur, the mothers immune system would lock on and destroy. There is MORE similarity than you give credit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Similar yet separate Aegeri, and given that the body reacts the way it does because thats the way its designed to act, I dont think the parasite label fits to well. Maybe technically it is - but that still means its not actually HER.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 23 2003, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 23 2003, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As far as the constitution goes I think "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" applies to women too no? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And this involves killing others?
Sick and disgusting. Abortion is muder no matter how you look at it.
That fetus was going to be a human being, much like yourself or I. Simply because you can distance yourself from the actual killing of the baby doesn't make it right.
That said, abortion should only be allowed in exteme cases.
I'm so glad that the majority of Americans today are going with pro-life, and are shying away from pro-murder.
No that applies to not having to go through 9 months of pregnancy, losing a job that might not offer maternaty leave, going through risky labor, giving birth to a child you either will neglect or have to put up for adoption, and then having to deal with the physical and emotional after-effects of it all because you made one mistake. Don't pretend like you know what it is like to be a women pregnant with an unwanted child none of us here do (hopefully). All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence. But of course all the uproar is simply rooted in their moral beliefs and what they have been taught and believe about sex. We do not stone women for showing their faces and we do not force women through pregnancies just because we might think they are sluts.
I will take the well being of the mother and her security in life over the well being of a clump of cells any day.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
*devils advocate*
pregnancy is the ulitmate sexually transmitted disease (think about it)
you have a creature that grows inside of you consuming vital resources and putting your life in danger.
I don't know how that was relevant but it was on my mind so there '
abortion is okay as long as the fetus isn't going to survive and or adoption isn't a option.
it's the womans body, it's her baby, not yours, not the states, not mine, the only person you have control of is yourself, and if you want to not have that baby due to reasons that would make death better than life, so be it.
I'm going to keep one eye on this thread, see where it goes...
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 24 2003, 11:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 24 2003, 11:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No that applies to not having to go through 9 months of pregnancy, losing a job that might not offer maternaty leave, going through risky labor, giving birth to a child you either will neglect or have to put up for adoption, and then having to deal with the physical and emotional after-effects of it all because you made one mistake. Don't pretend like you know what it is like to be a women pregnant with an unwanted child none of us here do (hopefully).
All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence. But of course all the uproar is simply rooted in their moral beliefs and what they have been taught and believe about sex. We do not stone women for showing their faces and we do not force women through pregnancies just because we might think they are sluts.
I will take the well being of the mother and her security in life over the well being of a clump of cells any day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oooooo losing your job, being pregnant, going through labor, giving <i>birth</i> GOD FORBID! Because you made one mistake... ROFL!!! Unless she was raped, it was the women's fault that she got pregent... if she doesn't want to have a child, here's a hint: <b>Don't have sex! What a revalation!!!!! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> </b> I mean, what kinda retarded logic is that? If her life is so insecure and messed up that one child would completely destroy it, she shouldn't be having sex in the first place, it's not gonna do crap to help her. I have very little sympathy for people who mess up and have control of their lives, vs. ones who have their lives messed up due to circumstances beyond their control (i.e.: The little babies you advocate murdering).
To help with your abomination of a paragraph I made it into two, now onto your second point:
- Why should I feel bad for a criminal who's killed others that will be killed? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm glad he's killed. Amen. - People dying in Africa? Actually, since I really can't help them right now I don't care too much about them. If I could help them, I would care, but since I can't, I won't care untill I can. On the other hand (and much more logical), I do care about little babies who get killed by messed up logic from liberals over here in America, who think that it's a "Women's Right" to kill their children. - [sarcism]Crime in inner cities? Oh, yes, I love lots of crime in the inner city.[/sarcaism] What's your point here? - I honestly don't think that me going over to Africa would do a speck of good, nor would donating all 20 of my dollars to stop inner city crime would do any good either. The only thing that works to solve large scale problems (such as the free use of abortion, crime) are changes to laws and such, nothing which would be accomplished by my meager supply of money. - Sorry if my moral beliefs don't constitue in murder, esp. ones of little helpless children. Guess you and me are fundamentally different. - Hate to break it to you, you and I were once a clump of cells; and still are. If I had to choose between clumps of cells, I'd rather save both the mother and the child, or the child over a corrupt mother.
pregnancy is the ulitmate sexually transmitted disease (think about it)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it isn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you have a creature that grows inside of you consuming vital resources and putting your life in danger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, you have the mother carry a child (a creature... insteresting wordage, we are all 'creatures') which has been developed over millions of years of evolution (or the wonderous works of god) in order that our species can surrive. How is making more of ourselves (the basic function of any species on the PLANET!!!!!11) a bad thing, which you try to slant on here with your 'devils advocate' (a poorly done job of the devils advocate if I do say so.) ? Remember, the mother in most cases chooses to put the baby there in herself in the first place, which she realizes she will give vital resources to, and she's not really putting herself in danger... no, if she was, I'm afraid our species would have gone extinct a LONG time ago if childbirth was a dangerous procedure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->abortion is okay as long as the fetus isn't going to survive and or adoption isn't a option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or rape or a couple of other situations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it's the womans body, it's her baby, not yours, not the states, not mine, the only person you have control of is yourself, and if you want to not have that baby due to reasons that would make death better than life, so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A baby isn't a piece of property. Also, it's actually 50% of the mans and 50% of the womens. This should be changed in our legal system.
Since when is death better than life? (this is a retorical question, don't reply to it)
First off until something is aware it exists and would rather live than die there is no murder taking place, you and I were a clump of cells once, but I don't feel like I commit genocide every time I ejaculate because those are all potential children.
So you even admit your an uptight prude and think women shouldn't have sex and it's <i>their</i> fault when they get pregnant, well why did I ever doubt you were anything but compassionate.
People have sex for pleasure, it's not just for reproducing anymore despite what Catholicism might want you to believe, if you want to live in a culture where sex is suppressed and women are treated like baby factories there are plenty of third world countries pandering that crap that you can reside in.
And for your information you are your parents property for the first 18 years of your life.
PS: Next time you post something that blatently flamey I won't even bother responding.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->no, if she was, I'm afraid our species would have gone extinct a LONG time ago if childbirth was a dangerous procedure.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually childbirth IS a dangerous procedure and has many physiological and biochemical consequences. The other thing that occured is natural selection of women with certain sized birth canals (against head size) which in fact WOULD of killed many women giving birth. Today there are many women who WOULD of died from childbirth but simply have because of unnatural medical intervention.
You are merely demonstrating your ignorance here.
I will say this again, as it has obviously been missed
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A baby isn't a piece of property. Also, it's actually 50% of the mans and 50% of the womens. This should be changed in our legal system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AND has the womans MT DNA, making the baby ever so slightly more mom than dad.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 24 2003, 08:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 24 2003, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First off until something is aware it exists and would rather live than die there is no murder taking place, you and I were a clump of cells once, but I don't feel like I commit genocide every time I ejaculate because those are all potential children.
So you even admit your an uptight prude and think women shouldn't have sex and it's <i>their</i> when they get pregnant, well why did I ever doubt you were anything but compassionate.
People have sex for pleasure, it's not just for reproducing anymore despite what Catholicism might want you to believe, if you want to live in a culture where sex is suppressed and women are treated like baby factories there are plenty of third world countries pandering that crap that you can reside in. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Good reply, I was going to say the same thing. And actually, any cell in my entire body is POTENTIALLY capable of becoming an infant (by cloning, or perhaps some reeeeeeeally wierd mutation). So when I scratch my arm, I am killing thousands of potential lives!
Anyway, the idea that pregnancies can be avoided by abstinence and that anyone who gets pregnant for a reason other than baby-making should be made to live with it is naive, reactionary, unrealistic, and ... silly. There are too many things that happen. People get drunk. People get stoned. Condoms break. etc etc etc. How can you hold them accountable?
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Oct 24 2003, 03:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Oct 24 2003, 03:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but I don't feel like I commit genocide every time I ejaculate because those are all potential children.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OMG! So my towels are like massive graveyards filled with dead babies!! O god no! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, not really because sperm ejac'ed into a towel has no chance of life but a baby, fetus, whatever the hell you want to call it 4-5 months from conception might have a chance for life. Now if this baby/fetus is deformed or will die at birth then by all means, spare it and have an abortion.
What I don't like (and what I've cleary stated before as my problem) is when some slut or prostitute gets pregnant, finds out 5 months later, and then thinks she has the right to kill the child. IMO, the child has more of a right to live than the prostitute.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, yes, I do have qualms about the death penalty, I do feel bad for all those people dying in Africa, and I do agree that crime in the inner cities needs to be stopped, though that will never happen. Didn't Windelkron say something about jumping to conclusions earlier? Ahh, yes, now I remember, seems like you've jumped to conclusions about me and every "pro-lifer". I guess you pro-deathers (yes, I think that sounds better than pro-choice because death is really what it comes down to, right?) commit the same sins we pro-lifers do.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Oct 21 2003, 06:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Oct 21 2003, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even though this will eventually degrade into a religious topic...oh no...Marine is looking at it....All-Father save us.
This is a very bad thing (IMHO) because they are basically putting a ban on what and what not a person can do. Yes, technically the fetus might not be part of them but if they decide to abort because of something (say a genetic test finds that the child will be born with a zillion defects) they should have the right to make sure the child doesn't suffer in life and abortion does that
(Forgive if slightly rambled, i feel very strongly about this topic) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, its ok for the government to violate our constiutional rights, but its wrong wrong wrong to banish a form of murder. (By the way if your a zealot and don't consider the "fetus" a human baby, please tell me what else it can turn into that makes it NOT a human. Kthxbai)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PS: Next time you post something that blatently flamey I won't even bother responding. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...? You mean something like this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence. But of course all the uproar is simply rooted in their moral beliefs and what they have been taught and believe about sex. We do not stone women for showing their faces and we do not force women through pregnancies just because we might think they are sluts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So when I scratch my arm, I am killing thousands of potential lives!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Luckily, we don't have that kind of technology, and even if we did the baby isn't being created as the dead skin cells fall to the ground and then are crushed/have a blender jammed into it's head and turned on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People get drunk. People get stoned. Condoms break. etc etc etc. How can you hold them accountable? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple. They had sex, therefore, they are accountable. Now before you mention "But the condom broke." I say "They should have waited until the couple wanted to have babies before they got it on."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pro-deathers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Plus, pro-deathers just sounds so much cooler. (Seperate analogy, I am in no way called people who like abortions nazis) I mean would you rather be an S.S. trooper or an S.S. Death Squadron!?
In regards to the parasitic-baby theory, essentially from 0 - 18 years old you are a parasite to your parents. Think about that one for a while.
God so many stupid people so little time. All of you preaching abstinence WTH? It is a human instinct to have sex and almost everyone does it at some point in thier live. All forms of maturbation are an attempt to get that pleasure without doing it. Abstinence would work but as nobody is following it you have to roll with the times and teach people how to have safe sex. To make a comparison: NS is perfectly balanced with teamwork, but as we cannot expect pubs to have teamwork it still must be balanced. We cannot expect people to follow such an unnatural concept such as abstinence thus we have to find away to work around it. A sperm and egg joined is NOT a baby. If you knew anything about cytology you'd realise this. "It has the potential..." SHUT UP!!!! just because something has the potential doesn't mean it IS. I could become a super star athlete but IM NOT YET. If I am in a few years it doesn't mean I am now. And yes any cells with chromosomes in them (all) are potential babies with cloning technology WHICH WE DO HAVE (even if it is risky). And according to you logic if we have the potential for cloning WE ARE cloning so your all murderers and killing millions of people each day as your cells die. I challenge anyone to give me an argument on how early term (first few weeks) abortion is murder. And WHY THE **** DO YOU PEOPLE ALWAYS BLAME THE WOMAN FOR HAVING SEX!!! WHY ISNT IT THE MANS FAULT!!! I understand that men have stronger sexual urges, but woman have them too. Why can't the man be the one to say no?
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Sorry, but we've gotten quite thoroughly and unpleasantly off-topic.
Some of you believe in a woman's right to not carry a pregnancy to term.
Some of you believe that an embryo or fetus is a human being fully deserving of the right to life.
The best way to settle the debate is to take your opinion to the polls & vote for a candidate who agrees with you. Flamey discussions on an online forum aren't quite as effective.
Comments
Sigh...if this country didn't have so many benefits to living here I'd be gone tomorrow.
And yes, I guess if the dictionary definition of "sentient" is that, that's the wrong word. I meant intelligent. Like what separates an adult human from an adult seagull.
I'm pro-euthanasia as well as pro-choice. And while I don't support wanton killing of babies, vegetables, and old people who want to die (so many people think that pro-choicers want to kill things, which is incorrect), if you have to / people in charge choose to do it... let them do it!
Edit: more points. OKAY, so now comes the ad hominem argument of how it's so messy and disgusting. BIG WHOOP. KILLING FISH IS PRETTY DISGUSTING TOO. To me, unintelligent, unsentient, unsapient, whatever, fetuses are on an equal moral plane to fish and dogs and what have you. Call me what you will, that's how I feel, and dont tell me about the horrors of the operation because I can tell you horrors 10000x worse that happen every day.
When you put it that way, I can understand these partial birth abortions and you're right, the distinction HAS to be made. If the baby is serverly deformed then I think partial birth abortion is a possibility that should be looked into.
I'm also a little confused here, does the third trimester law cover partial birth abortions too? If it doesn't, does that mean that women who would've had a perfectly normal baby could legaly get a partial birth abortion done on their child? And if they can, this is where the real problem of the newly passed law comes in. Who can and can't have a partial birth?
IMO, any women having a healthy baby shouldn't be allowed to have any abortion AT all except for a VERY early term abortion; maybe 2 months in, maximum. But if there is a problem with the child that is serious and either the baby will die, 100% positivly, at birth or the baby will have serious birth defects ruining it's life, like being a vegie from birth, I think abortion should be allowed.
And on a side note, have any of you people supporting pro-choice acctually seen the effects of a late abortion? If you haven't you should, the pics are pretty horrible. Had to see them every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday going middle school as some protesters held up the pictures. Always hated sitting on the left side of the bus because of that. They don't really make you that hungry for lunch either. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
And yes, I guess if the dictionary definition of "sentient" is that, that's the wrong word. I meant intelligent. Like what separates an adult human from an adult seagull.
I'm pro-euthanasia as well as pro-choice. And while I don't support wanton killing of babies, vegetables, and old people who want to die (so many people think that pro-choicers want to kill things, which is incorrect), if you have to / people in charge choose to do it... let them do it!
Edit: more points. OKAY, so now comes the ad hominem argument of how it's so messy and disgusting. BIG WHOOP. KILLING FISH IS PRETTY DISGUSTING TOO. To me, unintelligent, unsentient, unsapient, whatever, fetuses are on an equal moral plane to fish and dogs and what have you. Call me what you will, that's how I feel, and dont tell me about the horrors of the operation because I can tell you horrors 10000x worse that happen every day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"I like how people assume what my opinion is."
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Well you've pretty much stated it for us in your last post and in the middle of this one. Don't know what all your grief is about.
I'm also begining to dislike how people supporting abortion use "pro-choice" to describe their opinions. I mean, under you're thinking if I choose to kill someone it's legal because, hell, it was my choice and the constitution protects me. IT IS NOT A WOMANS'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER THEIR CHILD LIVES OR DIES. Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder. Not that I [/I]think[I] some types of abortion are murder, such as very early term abortion or abortion of a child that will kill it's mother and will die itself, but after about a month and a half I believe the child IS a living thing and that killing it is takes away all of it's rights. So what if the child can't even understand what rights are, he still has them and they should still be protected.
Oh, also, killing a dog is illegal and killing puppies is too, so I think partial abortion puts puppies on a higher plane than fetuses. What a great world we live in today.
*Sorry for the double post.*
When I said "I like how people assume my opinions" I meant that you jumped to the conclusion that "People like things until it happens to them."
As for all this: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A whole lot of rights are not in the constitution, ... ...
...
...
Well, anyway, I think it is the woman's freedom to decide what to do with HER OWN BODY. It is her own body, after all. The fetus is really a symbiote that was created at the mother's own will. If I got a pacemaker installed, I sure as hell should have the right to have it removed.
And the unborn do not have rights. The born do (a child BORN in the united states has right as a citizen).
This is just a blatent attempt to get a foothold to outlaw abortion and the way it's worded is just an insult to people's intelligence.
As far as the constitution goes I think "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Hapiness" applies to women too no?
When I said "I like how people assume my opinions" I meant that you jumped to the conclusion that "People like things until it happens to them."
As for all this: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just want to get that point accross, that's NOT a right protected under the constitution, so therefore, abortion really IS murder.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A whole lot of rights are not in the constitution, ... ...
...
...
Well, anyway, I think it is the woman's freedom to decide what to do with HER OWN BODY. It is her own body, after all. The fetus is really a symbiote that was created at the mother's own will. If I got a pacemaker installed, I sure as hell should have the right to have it removed.
And the unborn do not have rights. The born do (a child BORN in the united states has right as a citizen). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the be all and end all of this discussion is "What the woman can do with her own body", then you lose. A baby/fetus/zygote is not part of the womans body, from the moment of conception it has completely separate DNA, and becomes a separate, yet dependant, entity.
If it was going to live if you left it alone, and if it would fight to live if you gave it enough time, then I say let it live. Hilarious how expecting mothers call it "My Baby", while in abortion clinics its all "the fetus".
That said, the real point of this discussion has already been made. Its legislation that doesnt really need to exist, and only exists to give the anti-abortionists a foot in the door. Not that I personally care. If they win, great. If they dont win - well I just refer back to Twex's post.
Whether you find abortion right or not doesn't change the fact that this bill is nonesense.
Whether you find abortion right or not doesn't change the fact that this bill is nonesense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
She can claim "Well its going to affect my body" if she likes, but a lot of people here seem to be under the impression that the mother can kill of the fetus like chopping off hair - its part of you so you have the right to do whatever you want with it.
I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, and she is going to terminate something that isnt a part of her, that she created and lives inside of her/is dependant on her. She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect. If she is selfish enough to carry on with an abortion, then thats on her own head.
The bill is nonsense, but I'd vote for it. If it passes, great, less abortions. Or at least a stepping stone to. If it fails (As I think it will), meh, its you doing the killing, not me.
Same cellular structure (in fact all cells do, just different bits turned on and off), same MT DNA (inherited through her) and is at a minimum 50% her DNA. It is pretty much just an egg with double chromosomal material that is now begining to transcribe DNA and start dividing.
It also needs her blood supply, her nutrients, her immune system (IgG will cross into the baby), her oxygen, her tissues (placental tissues)...etc.etc Basically it IS part of her because she provides everything for it exactly like a normal cell. The difference being that it functions more like a parasite than a normal tissue.
It is pretty much her until later in development.
Oh it will also bear some of her MHC among other things too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is a parasite and it's host, the difference is a parasite isn't composed of 50% of your DNA AND has your MT DNA. Nor does a parasite usually encourage your immune system to investigate it either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think so.
If what you are saying is true then babies wouldn't occur, the mothers immune system would lock on and destroy. There is MORE similarity than you give credit.
Same cellular structure (in fact all cells do, just different bits turned on and off), same MT DNA (inherited through her) and is at a minimum 50% her DNA. It is pretty much just an egg with double chromosomal material that is now begining to transcribe DNA and start dividing.
It also needs her blood supply, her nutrients, her immune system (IgG will cross into the baby), her oxygen, her tissues (placental tissues)...etc.etc Basically it IS part of her because she provides everything for it exactly like a normal cell. The difference being that it functions more like a parasite than a normal tissue.
It is pretty much her until later in development.
Oh it will also bear some of her MHC among other things too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm pointing out that the mother and fetus are separate entities, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is a parasite and it's host, the difference is a parasite isn't composed of 50% of your DNA AND has your MT DNA. Nor does a parasite usually encourage your immune system to investigate it either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She cant claim that its a part of her, biology stands against her in that respect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think so.
If what you are saying is true then babies wouldn't occur, the mothers immune system would lock on and destroy. There is MORE similarity than you give credit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Similar yet separate Aegeri, and given that the body reacts the way it does because thats the way its designed to act, I dont think the parasite label fits to well. Maybe technically it is - but that still means its not actually HER.
And this involves killing others?
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sick and disgusting. Abortion is muder no matter how you look at it.
That fetus was going to be a human being, much like yourself or I. Simply because you can distance yourself from the actual killing of the baby doesn't make it right.
That said, abortion should only be allowed in exteme cases.
I'm so glad that the majority of Americans today are going with pro-life, and are shying away from pro-murder.
I will take the well being of the mother and her security in life over the well being of a clump of cells any day.
pregnancy is the ulitmate sexually transmitted disease (think about it)
you have a creature that grows inside of you consuming vital resources and putting your life in danger.
I don't know how that was relevant but it was on my mind so there
'
abortion is okay as long as the fetus isn't going to survive and or adoption isn't a option.
it's the womans body, it's her baby, not yours, not the states, not mine, the only person you have control of is yourself, and if you want to not have that baby due to reasons that would make death better than life, so be it.
I'm going to keep one eye on this thread, see where it goes...
All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence. But of course all the uproar is simply rooted in their moral beliefs and what they have been taught and believe about sex. We do not stone women for showing their faces and we do not force women through pregnancies just because we might think they are sluts.
I will take the well being of the mother and her security in life over the well being of a clump of cells any day. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oooooo losing your job, being pregnant, going through labor, giving <i>birth</i> GOD FORBID! Because you made one mistake... ROFL!!! Unless she was raped, it was the women's fault that she got pregent... if she doesn't want to have a child, here's a hint: <b>Don't have sex! What a revalation!!!!! <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> </b> I mean, what kinda retarded logic is that? If her life is so insecure and messed up that one child would completely destroy it, she shouldn't be having sex in the first place, it's not gonna do crap to help her. I have very little sympathy for people who mess up and have control of their lives, vs. ones who have their lives messed up due to circumstances beyond their control (i.e.: The little babies you advocate murdering).
To help with your abomination of a paragraph I made it into two, now onto your second point:
- Why should I feel bad for a criminal who's killed others that will be killed? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> I'm glad he's killed. Amen.
- People dying in Africa? Actually, since I really can't help them right now I don't care too much about them. If I could help them, I would care, but since I can't, I won't care untill I can. On the other hand (and much more logical), I do care about little babies who get killed by messed up logic from liberals over here in America, who think that it's a "Women's Right" to kill their children.
- [sarcism]Crime in inner cities? Oh, yes, I love lots of crime in the inner city.[/sarcaism] What's your point here?
- I honestly don't think that me going over to Africa would do a speck of good, nor would donating all 20 of my dollars to stop inner city crime would do any good either. The only thing that works to solve large scale problems (such as the free use of abortion, crime) are changes to laws and such, nothing which would be accomplished by my meager supply of money.
- Sorry if my moral beliefs don't constitue in murder, esp. ones of little helpless children. Guess you and me are fundamentally different.
- Hate to break it to you, you and I were once a clump of cells; and still are. If I had to choose between clumps of cells, I'd rather save both the mother and the child, or the child over a corrupt mother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*devils advocate*
pregnancy is the ulitmate sexually transmitted disease (think about it)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it isn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
you have a creature that grows inside of you consuming vital resources and putting your life in danger.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong, you have the mother carry a child (a creature... insteresting wordage, we are all 'creatures') which has been developed over millions of years of evolution (or the wonderous works of god) in order that our species can surrive. How is making more of ourselves (the basic function of any species on the PLANET!!!!!11) a bad thing, which you try to slant on here with your 'devils advocate' (a poorly done job of the devils advocate if I do say so.) ? Remember, the mother in most cases chooses to put the baby there in herself in the first place, which she realizes she will give vital resources to, and she's not really putting herself in danger... no, if she was, I'm afraid our species would have gone extinct a LONG time ago if childbirth was a dangerous procedure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->abortion is okay as long as the fetus isn't going to survive and or adoption isn't a option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or rape or a couple of other situations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
it's the womans body, it's her baby, not yours, not the states, not mine, the only person you have control of is yourself, and if you want to not have that baby due to reasons that would make death better than life, so be it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A baby isn't a piece of property. Also, it's actually 50% of the mans and 50% of the womens. This should be changed in our legal system.
Since when is death better than life? (this is a retorical question, don't reply to it)
So you even admit your an uptight prude and think women shouldn't have sex and it's <i>their</i> fault when they get pregnant, well why did I ever doubt you were anything but compassionate.
People have sex for pleasure, it's not just for reproducing anymore despite what Catholicism might want you to believe, if you want to live in a culture where sex is suppressed and women are treated like baby factories there are plenty of third world countries pandering that crap that you can reside in.
And for your information you are your parents property for the first 18 years of your life.
PS: Next time you post something that blatently flamey I won't even bother responding.
Actually childbirth IS a dangerous procedure and has many physiological and biochemical consequences. The other thing that occured is natural selection of women with certain sized birth canals (against head size) which in fact WOULD of killed many women giving birth. Today there are many women who WOULD of died from childbirth but simply have because of unnatural medical intervention.
You are merely demonstrating your ignorance here.
I will say this again, as it has obviously been missed
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A baby isn't a piece of property. Also, it's actually 50% of the mans and 50% of the womens. This should be changed in our legal system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AND has the womans MT DNA, making the baby ever so slightly more mom than dad.
So you even admit your an uptight prude and think women shouldn't have sex and it's <i>their</i> when they get pregnant, well why did I ever doubt you were anything but compassionate.
People have sex for pleasure, it's not just for reproducing anymore despite what Catholicism might want you to believe, if you want to live in a culture where sex is suppressed and women are treated like baby factories there are plenty of third world countries pandering that crap that you can reside in. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good reply, I was going to say the same thing. And actually, any cell in my entire body is POTENTIALLY capable of becoming an infant (by cloning, or perhaps some reeeeeeeally wierd mutation). So when I scratch my arm, I am killing thousands of potential lives!
Anyway, the idea that pregnancies can be avoided by abstinence and that anyone who gets pregnant for a reason other than baby-making should be made to live with it is naive, reactionary, unrealistic, and ... silly. There are too many things that happen. People get drunk. People get stoned. Condoms break. etc etc etc. How can you hold them accountable?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! So my towels are like massive graveyards filled with dead babies!! O god no! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, not really because sperm ejac'ed into a towel has no chance of life but a baby, fetus, whatever the hell you want to call it 4-5 months from conception might have a chance for life. Now if this baby/fetus is deformed or will die at birth then by all means, spare it and have an abortion.
What I don't like (and what I've cleary stated before as my problem) is when some slut or prostitute gets pregnant, finds out 5 months later, and then thinks she has the right to kill the child. IMO, the child has more of a right to live than the prostitute.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, yes, I do have qualms about the death penalty, I do feel bad for all those people dying in Africa, and I do agree that crime in the inner cities needs to be stopped, though that will never happen. Didn't Windelkron say something about jumping to conclusions earlier? Ahh, yes, now I remember, seems like you've jumped to conclusions about me and every "pro-lifer". I guess you pro-deathers (yes, I think that sounds better than pro-choice because death is really what it comes down to, right?) commit the same sins we pro-lifers do.
This is a very bad thing (IMHO) because they are basically putting a ban on what and what not a person can do. Yes, technically the fetus might not be part of them but if they decide to abort because of something (say a genetic test finds that the child will be born with a zillion defects) they should have the right to make sure the child doesn't suffer in life and abortion does that
(Forgive if slightly rambled, i feel very strongly about this topic) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, its ok for the government to violate our constiutional rights, but its wrong wrong wrong to banish a form of murder. (By the way if your a zealot and don't consider the "fetus" a human baby, please tell me what else it can turn into that makes it NOT a human. Kthxbai)
...? You mean something like this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence. But of course all the uproar is simply rooted in their moral beliefs and what they have been taught and believe about sex. We do not stone women for showing their faces and we do not force women through pregnancies just because we might think they are sluts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So when I scratch my arm, I am killing thousands of potential lives!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Luckily, we don't have that kind of technology, and even if we did the baby isn't being created as the dead skin cells fall to the ground and then are crushed/have a blender jammed into it's head and turned on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People get drunk. People get stoned. Condoms break. etc etc etc. How can you hold them accountable? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Simple. They had sex, therefore, they are accountable.
Now before you mention "But the condom broke." I say "They should have waited until the couple wanted to have babies before they got it on."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->pro-deathers<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Plus, pro-deathers just sounds so much cooler. (Seperate analogy, I am in no way called people who like abortions nazis) I mean would you rather be an S.S. trooper or an S.S. Death Squadron!?
In regards to the parasitic-baby theory, essentially from 0 - 18 years old you are a parasite to your parents. Think about that one for a while.
A sperm and egg joined is NOT a baby. If you knew anything about cytology you'd realise this. "It has the potential..." SHUT UP!!!! just because something has the potential doesn't mean it IS. I could become a super star athlete but IM NOT YET. If I am in a few years it doesn't mean I am now. And yes any cells with chromosomes in them (all) are potential babies with cloning technology WHICH WE DO HAVE (even if it is risky). And according to you logic if we have the potential for cloning WE ARE cloning so your all murderers and killing millions of people each day as your cells die. I challenge anyone to give me an argument on how early term (first few weeks) abortion is murder. And WHY THE **** DO YOU PEOPLE ALWAYS BLAME THE WOMAN FOR HAVING SEX!!! WHY ISNT IT THE MANS FAULT!!! I understand that men have stronger sexual urges, but woman have them too. Why can't the man be the one to say no?
Some of you believe in a woman's right to not carry a pregnancy to term.
Some of you believe that an embryo or fetus is a human being fully deserving of the right to life.
The best way to settle the debate is to take your opinion to the polls & vote for a candidate who agrees with you. Flamey discussions on an online forum aren't quite as effective.