Partial Birth Abortions, revisited

[infallible]

Instead of adding to the prior thread, I will just start a new one to say:
Partial Birth Abortions were NOT legal prior to Bush's little law. The only abortions one could have past the first trimester were based on health issues, i.e. downs syndrome, spina bifida, hydroencephalus[sp?], etc. If the parent CHOSE to end that life, and not deal with the torment and hardship that care of someone with those birth defects would bring with them, then the option was available. I know that if my amniocentesis had shown that my child would have had a condition such as spina bifida, I would have had her aborted.

Now, with a total ban in place, our social services are going to be overrun with defective humans. The social and monetary cost of this will be tremendous; surely, those who want abortion illegal will be the LAST ONES to extend charity of any nature and will be the ones fighting tooth&nail AGAINST any welfare costs to care for them.

If those opposed to abortion were actually willing to step up and take these humans in, care for them, provide for them, then MAYBE I would reconsider my stance which is currently pro-choice. But we all know they're just lazy, passive judgmental tools. They are the root of the decline of the western civilization.

[General Septem]

surely, those who want abortion illegal will be the LAST ONES to extend charity of any nature and will be the ones fighting tooth&nail AGAINST any welfare costs to care for them.

And that's where you're wrong. Someone who is truely pro-life is not only against abortion but against all things that demean the sanctity of human life. This includes poverty, war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and abortion, among other things. If someone's against abortion but is not willing to do anything about poverty, or believes in the death penalty, then he is not pro-life.

If someone is against abortion but isn't willing to offer any alternatives to actually help people, then he is an asshole who is against abortion for the wrong reasons. Extremely few people are like this, because they'd have nothing to benefit from it. George W. Bush may be one example.

Do you have a problem with deformed people? They have enough problems of their own without you assholes saying they're fit to die.

[beelzebub]

And that's where you're wrong. Someone who is truely pro-life is not only against abortion but against all things that demean the sanctity of human life. This includes poverty, war, the death penalty, euthanasia, and abortion, among other things....
If someone is against abortion but isn't willing to offer any alternatives to actually help people, ...

Yes,... I guess they would. You would think that you would see more of their work in these efforts. Instead of mass rallies against abortion you would expect to see some rallies against war, death penalties, and poverty. You would expect to hear of these "pro-life" people creating working programs for adoption and running functional orphanages for all the children they fight so hard to save. However; that’s just not reality. I guess actions do speak louder than words.

Euthanasia? You even oppose the right of someone to take their own life? It’s their body and their life if they want to end it............ it’s their choice. Talk about insensitive!

[General Septem]

Yes,... I guess they would. You would think that you would see more of their work in these efforts. Instead of mass rallies against abortion you would expect to see some rallies against war,

http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/iraq-us.htm
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/exco03-iraq.html
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Religious_opposition


death penalties,

http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM
http://www.pfadp.org/


and poverty.

http://www.crs.org/


You would expect to hear of these "pro-life" people creating working programs for adoption and running functional orphanages for all the children they fight so hard to save. However; that’s just not reality.

It's not reality, you're right... if you live under a rock. And even at that, you'd have to be deaf and blind too.

We do what we can, but believe it or not we're not a major superpower, economically or otherwise. There are a lot of crisis pregancy centers and other places dedicated to helping women who would otherwise get abortions.


Euthanasia? You even oppose the right of someone to take their own life? It’s their body and their life if they want to end it............ it’s their choice. Talk about insensitive!

Euthanaisa only serves to demean the sanctity of human life by telling people "your life is important, but not that important", and to take one's own life is selfish. You're not just affecting yourself, you're affecting all of society.

By killing oneself, you add to the collective number of people who have likewise done so, and send a message to people that "you can do this too, it's the answer to your problems". In addition, you make those who are suicidal feel even worse about themselves by saying "your life isn't important". People who are brought up in a society where many people cut themselves are more likely to do the same, and the same holds true for suicide.

In addition, killing oneself affects your family as well. Perhaps one's spouse may "understand", but what about one's children? Nieces? Nephews? Children who look up to him?

Euthanasia is also the cowardly way out. A true warrior, a true man, will fight death to the bitter end. If the doctors say I have thirty days to live, I'm going to live thirty-one, damnit, because I don't give up.

You call me insensitive? Do you really think people who choose to kill themselves stop to think about anyone but their pathetic selves?

[beelzebub]

http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/iraq-us.htm
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/index-e.html
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/exco03-iraq.html
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2605367.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Religious_opposition
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM
http://www.pfadp.org/
http://www.crs.org/

I really don't see much here. Most of the organizations I HAVE SEEN in operation (overseas & mainland) spend far too much money on things that really don't make an impact -or- the money that they do spend on doesn't work. So, GS, I am not deaf & blind... I believe that I see & hear far better than you.


Euthanaisa only serves to demean the sanctity of human life by telling people "your life is important, but not that important", and to take one's own life is selfish. You're not just affecting yourself, you're affecting all of society.

How ignorant and myopic you can be? Please stop making judgements on others and their actions.


In addition, killing oneself affects your family as well. Perhaps one's spouse may "understand", but what about one's children? Nieces? Nephews? Children who look up to him? Euthanasia is also the cowardly way out. A true warrior, a true man, will fight death to the bitter end.

My sister died of lymphatic sarcoma. She was one of those "true" warriors according to your definition. She vomited so hard she burst every blood vessel in her eye. It got so bad, she upchucked parts of her cancerous stomach. She defecated a black gooey ooze all over herself. My mother cleaned it up. She couldn't eat for 2 months. Her quality of life went from 10 to ZERO in a matter of weeks. She lay in a bed for 3 months in absolute misery and put my mother and the rest of us through hell. There was nothing brave, glamorous or noble about it. She just slowly rotted from the inside out until death.

When my sister was told of this disorder she should have gotten the necessary materials and waited till she could not wait any further and then ended her own life with style. I know that if the same condition happens to me I will DEFINITELY take that path.

Don’t call people who take their own life cowards. That’s absolutely not the case. It takes a lot of guts to take your own life. Think about it. I see euthanasia as a very noble and graceful way to go.

[General Septem]

I really don't see much here. Most of the organizations I HAVE SEEN in operation (overseas & mainland) spend far too much money on things that really don't make an impact -or- the money that they do spend on doesn't work. So, GS, I am not deaf & blind... I believe that I see & hear far better than you.

You asked what we're doing about war, poverty, and the death penalty. I showed you several of the many things we are doing. I would have shown more but I didn't feel like putting the time into it.

You on the other hand just don't give up. But I've talked to people in Pakitan who've said that the Catholic Relief Service has changed their life and given them hope. I'm not saying we're the only ones out there, I'm saying that we are doing something.

Just to clear up about euthanasia, by the way. Removing life support is not euthanasia, that's just allowing the body to die naturally.

Removing feeding tubes, on the other hand, is a cruel death by starvation, and is not the same as simply letting the body die naturally.

[who897]

Ummm, starvation is a natral cause of death. If you don't eat you natural _____....come on now, fill in the blank, you can do it. If you are unable to, or the chances of you ever being able to live off of machines are miniscule then it doesn't matter what you take away, take it all away and let them go. Move on. Next Picture.

[normlman]

seppuku, also known as hari-kari is of one of the most honorable means of suicide, one of which I would be quite honored to uphold if ever I were to find myself in a situation applicable or accordingly.

G.S., out of curiosity....what are 'you' doing about your "pro-life" views other than posting websites that display ideals supporting your opinions?

-Do you feel that Saddam Hussein deserves sympathy, or pardon?
-Was Hitler wrong for killing himself?
-Should Jesus Christ have 'not' died for our sins?
-Do Catholics argue about the 'value' of life until their faces turn blue, just to maintain debate among mankind?
-Will the world miss them when they're gone?

regards,
NORMLman

[General Septem]

-Do you feel that Saddam Hussein deserves sympathy, or pardon?/quote]

It's not about what he deserves. I forgive Saddam for the things he's done, and I hope he realizes his wrong and is sorry for what he has done, but by the same token his previous actions have been so numerous and so horrid that he is simply too dangerous to just be let off. He has chosen by his actions to give up the right to be a part of society, but I do not believe killing him as punishment or out of revenge is acceptable. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[quote]-Was Hitler wrong for killing himself?

Killing oneself is wrong. Whether Hitler himself was wrong for doing so is not mine to judge.


-Should Jesus Christ have 'not' died for our sins?

It's not a should or shouldn't. Jesus had to die for our sins. The Jews were still wrong for killing Him.


-Do Catholics argue about the 'value' of life until their faces turn blue, just to maintain debate among mankind?

Of course not. Do you argue about the value of life because you don't think humans are worth anything?


-Will the world miss them when they're gone?

That's one question that will never be answered. "The gates of Hell shall not prevail over it"... :D

[normlman]

[QUOTE=normlman]-Do you feel that Saddam Hussein deserves sympathy, or pardon?/quote]

It's not about what he deserves. I forgive Saddam for the things he's done, and I hope he realizes his wrong and is sorry for what he has done, but by the same token his previous actions have been so numerous and so horrid that he is simply too dangerous to just be let off. He has chosen by his actions to give up the right to be a part of society, but I do not believe killing him as punishment or out of revenge is acceptable. Two wrongs do not make a right.



Killing oneself is wrong. Whether Hitler himself was wrong for doing so is not mine to judge.



It's not a should or shouldn't. Jesus had to die for our sins. The Jews were still wrong for killing Him.



Of course not. Do you argue about the value of life because you don't think humans are worth anything?



That's one question that will never be answered. "The gates of Hell shall not prevail over it"... :D

================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ================================================== ===================================
LOL, thank you G.S. I enjoyed your responses.
-But the gates of hell no longer exist. They melted away just like the metal structure of the Twin Towers when those crazy extremists crashed the planes into them!

kind regards,
NORMLman

[General Septem]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-They melted away just like the metal structure of the Twin Towers when our crazy president crashed the planes into them and subsequently detonated explosives in them!

Fixed. :D

[normlman]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Fixed. :D
I guess that's a hot topic for debate.
One of which I am not at liberty to discuss.
But by all means, debate the conspiracy theories. That's a recipe for a long heated discussion. But try and picture yourself telling your opinions to a family that lost loved ones in this tragedy.

regards,
NORMLman

[General Septem]

But try and picture yourself telling your opinions to a family that lost loved ones in this tragedy.

If I had lost people, or if I had died in the towers, I'd want everyone to know the truth. I don't think anyone knows the truth.

[normlman]

If I had lost people, or if I had died in the towers, I'd want everyone to know the truth. I don't think anyone knows the truth.

....maybe that's why the Twin Towers had to come down.
To remove the truth.







NORMLman

[normlman]

---------------------------
Break - End Conversation
---------------------------

[beelzebub]

You asked what we're doing about war, poverty, and the death penalty. I showed you several of the many things we are doing. I would have shown more but I didn't feel like putting the time into it.

Right GS; I didn't say they are doing NOTHING. i am saying the work they are doing is sparse or it is a hoax. My main point is I believe that the anti-choice movement has more money than all the other combined.

Just to clear up about euthanasia, by the way. Removing life support is not euthanasia, that's just allowing the body to die naturally.Removing feeding tubes, on the other hand, is a cruel death by starvation, and is not the same as simply letting the body die naturally.

I believe that a person HAS THE RIGHT to end their life when they want if faced with a terminal illness. If my sister had asked me I would have given her what she needed to die.

[General Septem]

Right GS; I didn't say they are doing NOTHING. i am saying the work they are doing is sparse or it is a hoax. My main point is I believe that the anti-choice movement has more money than all the other combined.

Then you are very naiive.

[normlman]

I just backtracked & read over this thread:


Dude! Beelzebub.
I'm sorry about your sister Man. That's horrible.
Holy-living-fuck.... . . .. I'm sorry you, your family, & most of all your sister suffered that.


sincere regards,
NORMLman

[beelzebub]

I just backtracked & read over this thread:
Dude! Beelzebub.
I'm sorry about your sister Man. That's horrible.
Holy-living-fuck.... . . .. I'm sorry you, your family, & most of all your sister suffered that.
sincere regards,
NORMLman


Thanks Norm, I appreciate that.
She died over 11 years ago. Its not a fresh wound.

I don't see death as a bad thing at all.

[beelzebub]

Then you are very naiive.

NAIVE:
1 : marked by unaffected simplicity : ARTLESS, INGENUOUS
2 a : deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; especially : CREDULOUS b : not previously subjected to experimentation or a particular experimental situation <made the test with naive rats>; also : not having previously used a particular drug (as marijuana) c : not having been exposed previously to an antigen <naive T cells>
3 a : SELF-TAUGHT, PRIMITIVE b : produced by or as if by a self-taught artist <naive murals>

If you think that definition 1 & 2 applies to me then; GS, you are very stupid (incapable of learning). I have proven myself over and over.

3 - I am quite self taught on a variety of subjects. Of course I have my formal training as well (Bachelors & Masters & PGCE).

Do you have any degrees?

[General Septem]

If you think that definition 1 & 2 applies to me then; GS, you are very stupid (incapable of learning). I have proven myself over and over.

3 - I am quite self taught on a variety of subjects. Of course I have my formal training as well (Bachelors & Masters & PGCE).

Do you have any degrees?

Noun

naivety

1. Lack of sophistication, experience, judgement or worldliness; artlessness; gullibility; credulity.


You are gullible if you believe "the anti-choice movement has more money than all the other combined".

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're immune to the "rectal oration" syndrome.

[beelzebub]

Noun: naivety
1. Lack of sophistication, experience, judgement or worldliness; artlessness; gullibility; credulity.
You are gullible if you believe "the anti-choice movement has more money than all the other combined".
Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're immune to the "rectal oration" syndrome.

NAIVETY is an ADVERB not a noun. NAIVENESS is a noun.

I have FAR more experience than you do with poverty stricken nations and the religious organizations that operate their so called "development". It does not stand in comparison to the money that is spent every year by the anti-choice movement.

Because you don't have a degrees does not mean YOU have more knowledge and experience than I do. In fact it is quite the opposite. I do have more knowledge than you do concerning Science and I definitely have more experience then you do working with NGOs and religious organizations in 3rd world countries. Furthermore I know a great deal more about their impact in 3rd world countries than you do.

Anyone can talk out their ass. I think that you do a great deal more than I do given your limited experience and education. It would behoove you to learn from what I say instead of attack.

[General Septem]

Anyone can talk out their ass. I think that you do a great deal more than I do given your limited experience and education. It would behoove you to learn from what I say instead of attack.

I have learned from you, when you say something that isn't obvious bullshit. I can't think of an example but there have been times I've learned things from you.

If you know as much as you claim to about Catholic Relief Services then you'd know they're non-profit. That means however much they do is directly porportional to how much people donate. If they're not doing a lot it's because they're not getting enough money. But if I remember correctly, your missionary work was a few years ago, so things may have changed since then.

If you want to argue the motivations of each political party, go right ahead, but it's never going to change the fact that abortion is the direct and deliberate termination of a human life.

[beelzebub]

I have learned from you, when you say something that isn't obvious bullshit. I can't think of an example but there have been times I've learned things from you.

Then don't call me naive. I don't appreciate it. You see my postings. I don't start doing personal critiques until you or others do it first to me.

I have learned from you as well; however, I didn't insult you in the process. We can be cordial and debate as the same time.


If you know as much as you claim to about Catholic Relief Services then you'd know they're non-profit.

I know that. HELL almost all religious organizations are "not for profit". Televangelists are the "not for profit" examples who are really "for profit". All public institutions are supposed to be "not for profit" (like schools). I have worked most my life in "not for profit" institutions. PS- I even applied to CRS some time ago.


That means however much they do is directly porportional to how much people donate. If they're not doing a lot it's because they're not getting enough money.

THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT: I am saying that people prefer to lobby congressmen to enact laws congruent to their ideology instead for working to build orphanages and infrastructure for people who need it.


But if I remember correctly, your missionary work was a few years ago, so things may have changed since then.

Perhaps so but the last time I was in Africa doing HIV-AIDS education & training was in 2004 (Malawi). Thats not so long ago. I will be going again this summer and it is NOT missionary work! It is real developmental work. They don't need a bible sermon they need medicine and education.


If you want to argue the motivations of each political party, go right ahead, but it's never going to change the fact that abortion is the direct and deliberate termination of a human life.

I never said otherwise.

[normlman]

(Bachelors & Masters & PGCE).

Do you have any degrees?


Kudos to you Beelzebub, I'm currently pursuing my Bachelors in Business Administration (BSBA) my concentration is 'Project Management'.
Again, I hate to be off topic of this DB, but -wtf is PGCE???


regards,
NORMLman

[beelzebub]

Kudos to you Beelzebub, I'm currently pursuing my Bachelors in Business Administration (BSBA) my concentration is 'Project Management'.
Again, I hate to be off topic of this DB, but -wtf is PGCE??? regards,
NORMLman

Thats great! Kudos to you as well! You could do A LOT of good with project management.

Post Graduate Certificate in Education - Its a tiny associates I added on to the end. My BS & MS are in Biology.

Best wishes!
Buzz

[General Septem]

Then don't call me naive. I don't appreciate it. You see my postings. I don't start doing personal critiques until you or others do it first to me.

I have learned from you as well; however, I didn't insult you in the process. We can be cordial and debate as the same time.

You have insulted me before, but that's really not the point. It wasn't my intention to insult you when I called you naive, I was simply pointing out that if you think the pro-life movement has a lot of money you'd have to be, because that's what everyone thinks.


THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT: I am saying that people prefer to lobby congressmen to enact laws congruent to their ideology instead for working to build orphanages and infrastructure for people who need it.

People do what they can. It doesn't take much to get a million people to sign a petition. In fact it doesn't really take anything except a pad of paper, a pen, and a couple bottles of water to carry around.

[beelzebub]

People do what they can. It doesn't take much to get a million people to sign a petition. In fact it doesn't really take anything except a pad of paper, a pen, and a couple bottles of water to carry around.

Hey,... I am not begrudging the efforts of the FEW who are making a real difference in others.

Again, I am saying that people spend more money on anti-choice (protests, publications, bribes and lobbyists) than they do on building shelters, sending medicine to poor African's and helping others. These people are the ones who cry how christian and righteous they are. B U L L S H I T

[ajk]

There's nothing wrong with trying to save the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves (the unborn), which is what these people are trying to do. They aren't anti-choice, they're anti-murder. There's a difference.

[General Septem]

Again, I am saying that people spend more money on anti-choice (protests, publications, bribes and lobbyists) than they do on building shelters, sending medicine to poor African's and helping others. These people are the ones who cry how christian and righteous they are. B U L L S H I T

First off it seems you're referring to some kind of group of people and comparing what they spend on certain things and what they aren't. I'm not really sure what you're comparing to what and who is being campared to themselves. If that makes sense.

Second, the people that help people choose to spend their efforts on helping people in all different ways. You choose to spend your efforts helping people by feeding Africans. Others choose to help people by building shelters for the homeless. And then there are people who do what they can to try and stop the wonton homocide of millions upon millions of innocent human beings whose only crimes are that they were unwanted. That doesn't make it "B U L L S H I T", any more than if I were to accuse you of the same simply because you spend all your time feeding poor Africans instead of serving in the armed forces or something.

[beelzebub]

There's nothing wrong with trying to save the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves (the unborn), which is what these people are trying to do. They aren't anti-choice, they're anti-murder. There's a difference.

I guess this is you "subtle" way of changing topics?

[ajk]

No it's not subtle, you mentioned anti-choice people so I chimed in with my thoughts on the issue.

[beelzebub]

No it's not subtle, you mentioned anti-choice people so I chimed in with my thoughts on the issue.

There's nothing wrong with trying to preserve personal freedom and choice (from a mass of cells no bigger than a marble), which is what pro-choice people are trying to do. They aren't anti-choice, they're anti-control freaks. There's a difference.

[ajk]

Hey I'm all for personal freedom in regards to your own person. But when you include another life in that personal freedom, that's a whole different matter altogether.

[beelzebub]

Hey I'm all for personal freedom in regards to your own person. But when you include another life in that personal freedom, that's a whole different matter altogether.

Oh well that too bad! It's inside another separate human with its own rights. I say cut it free and see if it can survive. If not... too fucking bad!

[ajk]

It may have it's own rights, but why should those rights be applied to someone else? Sure it's their body yes, but it's not their body in the case of the baby.

[beelzebub]

It may have it's own rights, but why should those rights be applied to someone else? Sure it's their body yes, but it's not their body in the case of the baby.

Teenagers don't have as many rights as adults.

A Fetus shouldn't have any at all.

[ajk]

Why? It's just as much a life as anyone else is. It's growing, it can hear and feel as it grows in that womb. Why should it be robbed of it's chance at life because of our selfishness, and all about me culture?

[beelzebub]

Why? It's just as much a life as anyone else is.

Thats foolish. It is nothing like anyone else's life! I don't get the air & nutrition I use from another organism that I live inside of.


It's growing, it can hear and feel as it grows in that womb.

Your point?


Why should it be robbed of it's chance at life because of our selfishness, and all about me culture?

You can't take away something that it does not have. Its not an individual its like a parasite with a host.

[ajk]

It is an individual, separate from the mother, even if it is inside her, it's still a separate being.

[beelzebub]

It is an individual, separate from the mother, even if it is inside her, it's still a separate being.

If you truly believe that you are totally brainwashed or ignorant. BY DEFINITION it cannot be separate: it's major life functions are dependent on another and it is it physically connected to another. This connection provides its ability to exist!

If this were not so you could separate that fetus and it would survive all by itself, without assistance.

You can refuse to believe to placate your position but just know that you ignore the truth!

[ajk]

Actually I do believe it's the opposite here. I know the truth, and you don't want to accept it.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

If you truly believe that you are totally brainwashed or ignorant. BY DEFINITION it cannot be separate: it's major life functions are dependent on another and it is it physically connected to another. This connection provides its ability to exist!

If this were not so you could separate that fetus and it would survive all by itself, without assistance.




Just on the point of this argument, think of the relation it has to the possibility of if I were renting a room in your house. We have already signed the contract for the year and I have just moved in. I am abiding by all the stipulations in the contract but you decide that you don't want me in your house anymore. I must argue here that you have no more right to kick me out before the end of the contract than any woman has the right to kick a child out before the end of the contract that she signed with it through the willful act of sex. The contract was already signed, and the woman knew what she was getting into before grabbing the pen. ;)





*Please refrain from coming back to extremes such as rape and such, I know that these fall outside of the scope and I think that they need to be treated differently anyways.

[who897]

Your rent metaphor is flawed. There is a military clause that says for the "needs" of the service we can terminate any form of rent from anyone civilian or military with 30 days notice. Also, if you make a mess or start adding to the property w/o the landlords approval that is grounds for termination of rent..sorta like how it makes the chick fat.

I've said it before but I'm gonna make an abridged version. Pregnancy is another form of an STD, and as such it is our obligation to either irraticate it or live with it. Just like any other form of STD it's main transmition is through sex.
Cancer is just a mutation of our own cells, just like how sperm and an egg come together and mutate their respective DNA to form an embryo, a cancer changes some of the DNA and it grows. In that sense a cancer is no different from an embryo yet you wanna kill the cancer and not the embryo.
Same deal with any virus also.

Pro-Choice, Anti-Life, Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion, Anti-Choice all symantics try and use your head and logic, because what you know in your heart isn't always the right decision. You let your emotions cloud your judgment so that you are blind to the world. Do what you wanna do and let others do as they feel is neccisary because in the end, nobody gives a rats ass about your opinion, because like assholes we all got one.

[General Septem]

I've said it before but I'm gonna make an abridged version. Pregnancy is another form of an STD, and as such it is our obligation to either irraticate it or live with it. Just like any other form of STD it's main transmition is through sex.
Cancer is just a mutation of our own cells, just like how sperm and an egg come together and mutate their respective DNA to form an embryo, a cancer changes some of the DNA and it grows. In that sense a cancer is no different from an embryo yet you wanna kill the cancer and not the embryo.
Same deal with any virus also.

So if that is the case do you see all human beings - all mammalian life for that matter - as parasites?

[beelzebub]

So if that is the case do you see all human beings - all mammalian life for that matter - as parasites?

I said it is LIKE a parasite.

[General Septem]

I said it is LIKE a parasite.

You didn't say shit, who897 did. Keep your identities straight. :D

[beelzebub]

Ohhh, I thought you were responding to my posting #39

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Your rent metaphor is flawed. There is a military clause that says for the "needs" of the service we can terminate any form of rent from anyone civilian or military with 30 days notice. Also, if you make a mess or start adding to the property w/o the landlords approval that is grounds for termination of rent..sorta like how it makes the chick fat.


There is no flaw.

On the basis of your military argument, if you really want to push that idea....then fine, let the military come in and terminate the pregnancy so that they can build a road through the placenta. If they really think they need it they can take it, that has nothing to do with what I was trying to relate to.


As far as your argument about "making the chick fat," maybe you should look back at your contract. It clearly states that the baby can and WILL do just this, it is something that HAS to happen to follow through on the contract. If that was something that the "chick" did not understand, too bad, she already signed.

Stop trying to dodge common sense simply so you can continue to do what's wrong.

[who897]

Nope, human beings are parasitic. Other mammals don't take more then what they need and all serve their purpose in an eco system. Hardly what I was talking about though.

Funny thing is, has anyone had sex and been given a piece of paper to sign? Ahh but there are always different legal options for such matters that was the flaw.

No, common sense says if you have no desire to have something, don't. Also, I haven't had an abortion, yet, so how is that dodging something to keep doing something that is wrong in your eyes? (Other then the fact I can't get pregnant physically) I am a mere conduit for womens rights.

[rengic]

A large number of previous posters have gone VERY off topic. The purpose of this thread is to address "Partial Birth Abortion". This topic should not be construed as a means of discussing generalities with respect to abortion. As this is a "revisited" thread, I feel it appropriate to include my original post on this matter:

The idea that a woman can have a "partial birth" abortion on a whim is not founded in reality. So called "pro-choice" groups would take no issue with a ban on "partial birth" abortions if it had exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Currently "partial birth" abortions are not performed unless this is the case (a health/life crisis). There are NO accounts of this type of abortion being conducted legally unless this threat exists. "Partial Birth" is not a medically recognized term and the actual procedure is only to be used in life threatening situations. The problem with the Bush law is that there is NO exception to protect the mother's life.

[rengic]

I would also like to ask a question based on a good size of actual accounts. Consider a fetus (a child prior to birth) that has succumb to a life threatening condition and will die. The condition is also threatening the mother's hope of survival. Do you tell the husband his wife needs to die because a portion of people have concluded their principles dictate so? Even if they differ from their own? Do you think you have the right to make that decision for them? If so, then could you please designate yourself as the one to explain this to the dying woman? Because I can't.

[General Septem]

So get a fucking C-section if you can't give birth. The mother may be crippled by it but that's unfortunately the way it is. You can't just kill the baby.

[beelzebub]

So get a fucking C-section if you can't give birth. The mother may be crippled by it but that's unfortunately the way it is. You can't just kill the baby.

What if the c-section kills the mother?

It amazes me how you put more value in a fetus or baby than any other human.

[General Septem]

What if the c-section kills the mother?

It amazes me how you put more value in a fetus or baby than any other human.

I value the fetus AS MUCH as everyone else, because as human beings they deserve that.

What if the c-section kills the mother? You mean what if they know it'll kill the mother or just what if it does?

[beelzebub]

I value the fetus AS MUCH as everyone else, because as human beings they deserve that.

I don't see what you have said in prior postings matching what you have said here. You have stated that the mother cannot have an abortion if her life is in danger when giving birth because it will kill the fetus. This means that you value the life of the fetus more than her life.


What if the c-section kills the mother? You mean what if they know it'll kill the mother or just what if it does?

With todays modern medical practice and information they can accurately predict these outcomes. You have more faith in myth than you do in man. That's fine for your life and the way you want to run it but it is not that way for everyone else. Mind your own business.

[General Septem]

I don't see what you have said in prior postings matching what you have said here. You have stated that the mother cannot have an abortion if her life is in danger when giving birth because it will kill the fetus. This means that you value the life of the fetus more than her life.

No, it does not. It means that directly and deliberately killing an innocent human being is never acceptable. Even if it means letting another human being die naturally. The difference is that in one case you're doing all you can to save both lives whereas in the other case you're attempting to solve the problem by murdering one human to save the other.

If there was ever a case in which a baby would die in childbirth and the only way to prevent it would be to shoot the mother in the head, that would not be acceptable either. It's not a matter of whose life is more important but which act is acceptable.


With todays modern medical practice and information they can accurately predict these outcomes. You have more faith in myth than you do in man. That's fine for your life and the way you want to run it but it is not that way for everyone else. Mind your own business.

And what the hell is your point?

[beelzebub]

It means that directly and deliberately killing an innocent human being is never acceptable. Even if it means letting another human being die naturally.

I actually like that point of view and course of action. However; I am not going to make someone else follow it just because I think it is right.


And what the hell is your point?

Medical - I though that you were doubting the abilities of the medical profession to predict the negative effects of women giving birth when there are problems (moot point)

Mind your own business - means mind your own business

[General Septem]

I actually like that point of view and course of action. However; I am not going to make someone else follow it just because I think it is right.

So why prevent anyone from murdering anyone? Are you too weak to stand up for what is right?


Medical - I though that you were doubting the abilities of the medical profession to predict the negative effects of women giving birth when there are problems (moot point)

Someone said that abortions should be allowed if the mother's life is at stake. I said she can get a c-section. You asked, what if the c-section kills the mother? They can never know that it will because nobody is precognitive.

But to answer your question, they're free to do whatever the hell they can to save both lives, but murdering the fetus to save the mother is unacceptable.

Besides, this argument applies to less than 1% of all abortions. I would be happy if abortions were reduced by 99%. I wouldn't be happy they were still going on, and I would still consider it to be wrong, but stop the abortions that people get so they don't have stretch marks before you come to me with the "what about to save the mother's life" line.

[beelzebub]

So why prevent anyone from murdering anyone? Are you too weak to stand up for what is right?

I, as I have said countless times before, feel that in this situation the choice is up the the individual that bears the burden of the choice.


Someone said that abortions should be allowed if the mother's life is at stake. I said she can get a c-section. You asked, what if the c-section kills the mother? They can never know that it will because nobody is precognitive.

They do know in many cases whether you choose to believe that or not.


But to answer your question, they're free to do whatever the hell they can to save both lives, but murdering the fetus to save the mother is unacceptable.

I don't feel the same way.


Besides, this argument applies to less than 1% of all abortions. I would be happy if abortions were reduced by 99%. I wouldn't be happy they were still going on, and I would still consider it to be wrong, but stop the abortions that people get so they don't have stretch marks before you come to me with the "what about to save the mother's life" line.

I will come to you with whatever line of argument I wish. I don't have to cease my line of argument just because some abortions are done for cosmetic reasons just like you don't have to stop arguing against abortion just because some fanatics blow up abortion clinics.

[General Septem]

I, as I have said countless times before, feel that in this situation the choice is up the the individual that bears the burden of the choice.

Not when people are being murdered. Argue what you will about individuality but someone could say the same about any crime, that it should be personal choice.


I will come to you with whatever line of argument I wish. I don't have to cease my line of argument just because some abortions are done for cosmetic reasons just like you don't have to stop arguing against abortion just because some fanatics blow up abortion clinics.

I didn't tell you to stop arguing. I'm just saying that we're placing undue weight on the hard case scenario. The fact of the matter is, 99% of all abortions are not done to save the life of the mother.

[beelzebub]

Not when people are being murdered. Argue what you will about individuality but someone could say the same about any crime, that it should be personal choice.

I don't see it as people being murdered. You try to make it sound as if there are hooligans going around killing. Its not the same. These are women killing a fetus in their body. You don't have to carry the fetus for nine months inside your body so its not really your choice.

I didn't tell you to stop arguing. I'm just saying that we're placing undue weight on the hard case scenario. The fact of the matter is, 99% of all abortions are not done to save the life of the mother.

I dont know about that percentage. I think you are trying to say "most" but in any event it's their body it's their choice not your's.

[General Septem]

I don't see it as people being murdered. You try to make it sound as if there are hooligans going around killing. Its not the same. These are women killing a fetus in their body. You don't have to carry the fetus for nine months inside your body so its not really your choice.

People, human beings, are being killed. Argue what you will about individuality. Do you remember the last time we tried to rationalize why certain human beings weren't as deserving of the right to live as other human beings?


I dont know about that percentage. I think you are trying to say "most" but in any event it's their body it's their choice not your's.

I'm not 100% positive since it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 1%. It is NOT their body. They are killing another human being.

[beelzebub]

People, human beings, are being killed. Argue what you will about individuality. Do you remember the last time we tried to rationalize why certain human beings weren't as deserving of the right to live as other human beings?

I still feel the mother has the choice you do not. You keep saying that because the fetus is killed it is wrong. I say that does not matter because it is not an individual with its own rights. It lives inside another human. Therefore it is not with separate rights; its rights are subject to the mother.

[General Septem]

I still feel the mother has the choice you do not. You keep saying that because the fetus is killed it is wrong. I say that does not matter because it is not an individual with its own rights. It lives inside another human. Therefore it is not with separate rights; its rights are subject to the mother.

It is a human being. Period.

[beelzebub]

It is a human being. Period.

Its inside another human being, Period.

[General Septem]

Its inside another human being, Period.

That is no more an argument than "it's black, period," or "it's gay, period" (if you're offended by that you're always free to get bent as that was not the intention).

The difference is, you're describing what separates the fetus from other human beings, whereas I'm merely saying, it's a human being. Attributes don't matter.

[beelzebub]

That is no more an argument than "it's black, period," or "it's gay, period" (if you're offended by that you're always free to get bent as that was not the intention).

Its a perfectly fine argument. Its inside another human. You cannot tell that human how they are going to live or conduct the functions of their own body. FINISHED AND END OF TOPIC


The difference is, you're describing what separates the fetus from other human beings, whereas I'm merely saying, it's a human being. Attributes don't matter.

That is because you are choosing to ignore the facts in lieu of your feelings and beliefs. Too bad,... that's an ignorant way to conduct an argument.

[General Septem]

Its a perfectly fine argument. Its inside another human. You cannot tell that human how they are going to live or conduct the functions of their own body. FINISHED AND END OF TOPIC

I'm not telling anyone what to do with their bodies. I'm saying they cannot destroy other people's bodies.


That is because you are choosing to ignore the facts in lieu of your feelings and beliefs. Too bad,... that's an ignorant way to conduct an argument.

What about the fact that the fetus is a human being? And the fact that every time someone tries to say some human beings are not worthy of the right to live, everything gets fucked up? The only difference is that you can't see their faces as they're being ripped apart. This is not any different than any other genocide.

[beelzebub]

I'm not telling anyone what to do with their bodies. I'm saying they cannot destroy other people's bodies.

True as long as they don't live inside the other human. Conjoined twins are sometimes born with one inside the other. The one living inside reduced to a mass of developing human material not capable of living on its own. If the dominant twin wanted to be rid of his/her sibling would you say no possible?


What about the fact that the fetus is a human being? And the fact that every time someone tries to say some human beings are not worthy of the right to live, everything gets fucked up?

The difference is that a fetus is not a race it is a stage of development so it is not genocide. You wanting to control a womans right to choose is chauvinistic.

[General Septem]

True as long as they don't live inside the other human. Conjoined twins are sometimes born with one inside the other. The one living inside reduced to a mass of developing human material not capable of living on its own. If the dominant twin wanted to be rid of his/her sibling would you say no possible?

The difference is that the surgery to separate two conjoined twins is for the purpose of separating them (and often saving the other twin as well), not to directly kill one of them or deliberately interfere with his or her natural course of development (i.e., by removing him or her from a womb at three months without sustaining his or her life in any way).


The difference is that a fetus is not a race it is a stage of development so it is not genocide. You wanting to control a womans right to choose is chauvinistic.

It is a mass killing of people who are all human except for one attribute, they haven't been born yet.

I don't give a damn if it's a woman or what. If men could get pregnant it wouldn't change a damn thing.

[beelzebub]

The difference is that the surgery to separate two conjoined twins is for the purpose of separating them (and often saving the other twin as well), not to directly kill one of them or deliberately interfere with his or her natural course of development (i.e., by removing him or her from a womb at three months without sustaining his or her life in any way).

So if it were to give the other twin a better quality of life you would say no?


It is a mass killing of people who are all human except for one attribute, they haven't been born yet.

Thats is not genocide.


I don't give a damn if it's a woman or what. If men could get pregnant it wouldn't change a damn thing.

The fact reamins that men cannot. So therefore your chauvinist.

[General Septem]

So if it were to give the other twin a better quality of life you would say no?

The operation would still only be to separate the two, so no, that's justified as long as every measure possible is taken to preserve the lives of both, even though that may be nothing. It's not the same as an abortion because no measure is taken to save the fetus, the death of the fetus is direct and deliberate, and the fetus's death is completely unnecessary.


Thats is not genocide.

Noun

Genocide

1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity.
2. Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Killing people based on the fact that they are not born yet falls under the "or other particularity" category.


The fact reamins that men cannot. So therefore your chauvinist.

That's total bullshit. The point isn't the woman, it's the fetus.

[beelzebub]

[QUOTE=General Septem]The operation would still only be to separate the two, so no, that's justified as long as every measure possible is taken to preserve the lives of both, even though that may be nothing. It's not the same as an abortion because no measure is taken to save the fetus, the death of the fetus is direct and deliberate, and the fetus's death is completely unnecessary.

What if the life of the mass of tissue (its sibling) could not survive outside of his brother/sister? What then GS?


I still say it's not genocide.... its abortion plain and simple. Dont try to make it akin to something else.

[General Septem]

What if the life of the mass of tissue (its sibling) could not survive outside of his brother/sister? What then GS?

I already told you, that's a different situation. The aim of the operation is only to separate the two, the death of one is an unfortunate side effect.

Abortion is not merely the separation of two people, it is the direct and deliberate termination of the fetus's life. The death of the fetus is not an unfortunate side effect, it is the intended result of the action. It's not the same ballpark, it's not the same league, it's not even the same fucking sport.


I still say it's not genocide.... its abortion plain and simple. Dont try to make it akin to something else.

The Holocaust was the Holocaust plain and simple, but it was still genocide. There is no "akin" to anything. It is genocide, not akin to it, not "kind of like" genocide. It is genocide.

[beelzebub]

I already told you, that's a different situation. The aim of the operation is only to separate the two, the death of one is an unfortunate side effect.

I feel the same way about abortion.


The Holocaust was the Holocaust plain and simple, but it was still genocide. There is no "akin" to anything. It is genocide, not akin to it, not "kind of like" genocide. It is genocide.

It is not genocide it is abortion plain and simple.
"1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity."

fetuses are not people they are human tissue in a womb.

[General Septem]

I feel the same way about abortion.

Hitler felt the same way about the Holocaust.


It is not genocide it is abortion plain and simple.
"1. The systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status, or other particularity."

fetuses are not people they are human tissue in a womb.

Hitler didn't think Jews were people either.

[beelzebub]

Hitler felt the same way about the Holocaust.

Hitler controlled other people's choices too.

Hitler didn't think Jews were people either.

Hitler didn't like catholics either.


- Who gives 2 fucks about Hitler.

[General Septem]

Who gives 2 fucks about Hitler.

Well since he killed people he didn't consider human, I'd have to say I certainly don't.

[death2chikins]

fetuses are not people they are human tissue in a womb.

Fetuses are genetically different from the mother and are therfore not part of the mother. Parasitic perhaps but really not the point. My point being they may depend on their mothers for life but so does a new born. Only real difference is the way in which the mother helps to sustain the childs life.


Other mammals don't take more then what they need and all serve their purpose in an eco system.

Not really true. Mammals reguarly take more from their enivorment then their enviroment can sustain. Thats why many mammals migrate such large distances in search of food.

[beelzebub]

[QUOTE=death2chikins]Fetuses are genetically different from the mother and are therfore not part of the mother. Parasitic perhaps but really not the point. My point being they may depend on their mothers for life but so does a new born. Only real difference is the way in which the mother helps to sustain the childs life.

Is an apple apart of the apple tree? Is a fetus physically connected to the mother?
I don't think that the only definition of being apart of something is that you must have its exact same DNA. Remember the child has more of the mothers DNA than that of the father.

[General Septem]

Is an apple a part of the apple tree?

That's debatable, but a fetus is entirely different from an apple because trees reproduce entirely differently than placental mammals. The fetal stage is more homologous to the germinated apple seed stage than the apple itself. The apple is more homologous to an ova or the ovary.


Is a fetus physically connected to the mother?

Are conjoined twins physically connected to each other? They are because that's the definition of conjoined, but it doesn't give one the right to kill the other.

[beelzebub]

That's debatable, but a fetus is entirely different from an apple because trees reproduce entirely differently than placental mammals. The fetal stage is more homologous to the germinated apple seed stage than the apple itself. The apple is more homologous to an ova or the ovary.

Is that separate? Of course it is not.


Are conjoined twins physically connected to each other? They are because that's the definition of conjoined, but it doesn't give one the right to kill the other.

Thats a different relationship than fetus inside a mother.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Thats a different relationship than fetus inside a mother.

So would you say that if we could make the fetus grow on the mother's skin (or somewhere else connected to but not inside), you would be against killing it? If not, change your argument.

[General Septem]

Is that separate? Of course it is not.

The germinated seed? No, it's entirely separate. Not even connected to the tree anymore.


Thats a different relationship than fetus inside a mother.

But they're connected, so how is it any different?

Obviously physical connection is not conducive to not having any rights.

[death2chikins]

Is an apple apart of the apple tree? Is a fetus physically connected to the mother? .

What does an apple have to do with a child? Yes a fetus is physically connected to the mother but what does a physical connection have to do with it?



I don't think that the only definition of being apart of something is that you must have its exact same DNA. Remember the child has more of the mothers DNA than that of the father.

Doesn't matter who contributes the most DNA fact still remains that it is not identical to either mother or father. The child is unqiue genetically different from both mother and father. Fetus are not it is still unqiue human life whether it is one cell or a millions. Earlier i believe it was you who said that teenagers have fewer rights than adults, perhaps that is a debate for another time, but the one right shared by all humans is the right to live or atleast to the chance to live no matter the age. This right should be extended to the fetus as well since the child is a unqiue human life.

[beelzebub]

So would you say that if we could make the fetus grow on the mother's skin (or somewhere else connected to but not inside), you would be against killing it? If not, change your argument.

The FACT remains that the fetus does not grow on the skin it grows inside the woman in her womb. Your argument is moot.

[beelzebub]

What does an apple have to do with a child? Yes a fetus is physically connected to the mother but what does a physical connection have to do with it?

The physical connection shows that it is a part of the body. It is dependent on the body to which it is connected and it is not independent.



This right should be extended to the fetus as well since the child is a unqiue human life.

So rights depend on whether you are unique or not? That makes no sense. Rights are bestowed on people by people but I think that definition is too contrived.

[who897]

I don't know about you guys but I'm doing my part, ever chick I see that's pregnant I'm punching in the gut. Bunch o' wossies, trying to enforce your choices onto other people when it isn't your choice to make. That is all you are really doing, you would sacrifice other peoples liberties just to make yourself feel stronger by imposing your will on others. What big strong people you are.

Why not focus your attention on something like, lets say the starving children in angola or something. Let's face it, you lost.

[General Septem]

The physical connection shows that it is a part of the body. It is dependent on the body to which it is connected and it is not independent.

Physical connection doesn't mean jack shit. Conjoined twins are physically connected.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

The physical connection shows that it is a part of the body. It is dependent on the body to which it is connected and it is not independent.

The point is that Dependence should not make a difference as to whether a person has the right to live. We have pointed out other situations where a person is completely dependant on another who you have agreed still has the right to live.

[death2chikins]

The physical connection shows that it is a part of the body. It is dependent on the body to which it is connected and it is not independent..

Because there is a connection does not mean it is a part of the body. The unborn child does depend on the mother but it is a seprarate life from the mother.


So rights depend on whether you are unique or not? That makes no sense. Rights are bestowed on people by people but I think that definition is too contrived.

Every person is unique so there can be noone who is not unique and any right givein to a single person must be extended to all other people otherwise "all men are created equal" means nothing.

[who897]

Ever notice that most of the conjoined twins once seperated one dies?

[beelzebub]

Physical connection doesn't mean jack shit. Conjoined twins are physically connected.

What? Of course it is a difference don't be idiotic! A mother is a separate individual with her own rights AND THEN a fetus grows inside her. That fetus is dependent on her she is not dependent on it.

Conjoined twins grow together. They are not separate individuals that live apart and become joined they were always joined and always will be joined unless they are separated. Some conjoined twins are so intertwined that they cannot be separated because they are DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER. Some conjoined twins have a dominant form that is not dependent and can be separated and often are separated and the other sibling dies. Great!

[beelzebub]

Because there is a connection does not mean it is a part of the body. The unborn child does depend on the mother but it is a seprarate life from the mother.

I disagree... matter of opinion I guess?


Every person is unique so there can be noone who is not unique and any right givein to a single person must be extended to all other people otherwise "all men are created equal" means nothing.

I am sure the founding fathers didn't have this conundrum in mind when they wrote that declaration. BTW - abortions have been going on for quite some time (1973) and it would seem that the civil rights movement hasn't fallen apart.

[General Septem]

What? Of course it is a difference don't be idiotic! A mother is a separate individual with her own rights AND THEN a fetus grows inside her. That fetus is dependent on her she is not dependent on it.

Conjoined twins grow together. They are not separate individuals that live apart and become joined they were always joined and always will be joined unless they are separated. Some conjoined twins are so intertwined that they cannot be separated because they are DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER. Some conjoined twins have a dominant form that is not dependent and can be separated and often are separated and the other sibling dies. Great!

My point is that there are cases in which physical connection is not conducive to one having superior rights over the other, therefore it must never be used as an argument for that case.

Either physical connection is conducive to one having rights over the other or it isn't. There can't be cases in which it is and cases in which it isn't. Dependent, independent, dominant, whatever, none of that has to do with physical connection, they are other factors that co-exist with the physical connection. You may argue other points which I may attempt to refute, but the physical connection argument is dead.

[beelzebub]

My point is that there are cases in which physical connection is not conducive to one having superior rights over the other, therefore it must never be used as an argument for that case.

I believe that you are saying: There are some cases where a physical connection is does not define one having superior rights over the other; therefore, it must never be used as an argument for granting superior rights for one of the individuals.

I disagree with that broad and sweeping generalization because it ignores the factors of each case and lumps them all into one. Furthermore; thats not my argument alone. I use the physical connection of the fetus as one of the proofs that the fetus is dependent and connected (therefore apart of) the mother.

I say that the mother, due to her relationship with the fetus:
The fact that the fetus resides inside the mother.
The fact that the fetus's growth & development depends on the mother.
The fact that the fetus is physically connected to the mother
The fact that the fetus is protected by the mother.

..... grants the rights that the fetus may have and no other person.


.....the physical connection argument is dead.

You may placate yourself with this declaration but it is simply asinine to believe that I have to accept it or believe it.

[General Septem]

I disagree with that broad and sweeping generalization because it ignores the factors of each case and lumps them all into one. Furthermore; thats not my argument alone. I use the physical connection of the fetus as one of the proofs that the fetus is dependent and connected (therefore apart of) the mother.

But to say that's not your argument alone implies that other circumstances make the physical connection relevent. For instance, you listed the following reasons:


The fact that the fetus resides inside the mother.
The fact that the fetus's growth & development depends on the mother.
The fact that the fetus is physically connected to the mother
The fact that the fetus is protected by the mother.


None of these are conducive to the human right to life by themselves. The fact that they all occur together does not make them any more conducive.

There are no cases, however, in which someone can be a human being yet not heir to the inalienable right to life. The state of being a human being is conducive to the right to life.

What you have is a theory, not proof, and a situation in which millions of lives could be murdered in the likely event this theory wrong. Even if you cannot prove either way, which is not the case, there is still much more at stake when you have a situation in which millions of lives are being killed.

In fact there's nothing at stake if everyone agreed abortion was murder. Not the choice of a woman, not anything, because if people knew the truth, nobody would want to get an abortion anyway.

[death2chikins]

I am sure the founding fathers didn't have this conundrum in mind when they wrote that declaration. BTW - abortions have been going on for quite some time (1973) and it would seem that the civil rights movement hasn't fallen apart.

I am sure the founding fathers didn't think of this problem when they founded this country. However the words of the founding fathers have been used to cover alot of things they didn't think about so really doesn't matter what they were thinking at the time. Abortions have been around alot longer than 1973 the practice has been around for as for back as we can see. Several ancient cultures practiced it in one form or another. But just because a practice is old doesn't mean it is right. The taking of human life is a serious undertaking wiether that life is in the womb or not. And no matter how you argue you can not deny that the fetus is human. So why should it not have the right to life that is granted to all other humans in this country?

[beelzebub]

I am having trouble understanding what you wrote:

Conducive is defined as "tending to produce; conducing; contributive; helpful; favorable (usually fol. by to): Good eating habits are conducive to good health."

You said
None of these are conducive to the human right to life by themselves. The fact that they all occur together does not make them any more conducive.

In regards to a list that I made arguing the reasons why the fetus's rights are due to the mother. I don't think you are using the right word and it is throwing me for a loop.

Furthermore; your response doesn't make sense (from what I can make of it) as a retort of my argument. Please rephrase? Or explain?


What you have is a theory, not proof,

This is wrong. I have lots of proof. Your proof circulates around one aspect of abortion and no other.


In fact there's nothing at stake if everyone agreed abortion was murder. Not the choice of a woman, ....

You would loose the individual rights of a woman to choose. I consider this a HUGE setback for individual rights. If society has the right can make a woman

[who897]

Yeah, you wanna stop womens sufforage don't ya Setem.

You prolifers are very neandertalic with your everyone has a right to live. No, not everyone. If everyone had a right to live then no one would die, we'd be immortal, as we all know we are not. We would also never suffer from diseases and the such because they would have no right to do us harm.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Yeah, you wanna stop womens sufforage don't ya Setem.

You prolifers are very neandertalic with your everyone has a right to live. No, not everyone. If everyone had a right to live then no one would die, we'd be immortal, as we all know we are not. We would also never suffer from diseases and the such because they would have no right to do us harm.


The power of your logic is laughable to a toddler.

For one thing, any idiot understands that saying we have the right to life is saying that everybody has the duty to refrain from killing anybody. Nowhere does it say that a person is immortal.

Just because we are able to die does not mean that anyone has the right make it happen.


Simply put, my right to live is more important than any other right that you have. This is the same for any person, regardless of what physical qualities that person has.

[General Septem]

Yeah, you wanna stop womens sufforage don't ya Setem.

Yes, the women have been suffraging long enough. It's a sad thing really. :(

[who897]

Actually Brain Man, you do have a right to take someones life. Everyone really does have the right to do what ever the hell they want. They will just have to deal with the consiquences of those actions set forth by law.

My logic is laughable to a toddler, is that so. Well, just trying to dumb it down for ya folks cuz you don't seem to understand basic concepts.

Free hangers for the pregnant women.

[beelzebub]

Actually Brain Man, you do have a right to take someones life. Everyone really does have the right to do what ever the hell they want. They will just have to deal with the consiquences of those actions set forth by law.
My logic is laughable to a toddler, is that so. Well, just trying to dumb it down for ya folks cuz you don't seem to understand basic concepts.
Free hangers for the pregnant women.

I would advise you to ignore BBQ. He is very uncivil and stubbornly ignorant. He loves to start up arguments by insulting others on this forum.