My thoughts on abbortion, and why its right...

[MrBirdy]

Well, im here to tell you why abortion is right, to a certain degree:

1. Even jeebus gave people a second chance, why dont we give people a second chance too!!
2. Even god makes mistakes, and if you dont agree with me, look at Hillary!!
3. So, what exactly counhts as "life?" is all the sperm wasted, a waste of "life," is a clump of ten cells, a "uman baeing?" well, no matter what we consider, consider this: Two half-lifes are equal to one happy full life.

[ajk]

2. Even god makes mistakes, and if you dont agree with me, look at Hillary!!


Not true. God doesn't make the mistakes, we do when we abuse our free will for evil.

[Ausinus]

Not true. God doesn't make the mistakes, we do when we abuse our free will for evil.

God made a HUGE mistake with that guy who tried to assasinate Hitler.

[ajk]

Again, free will abuse.

[Ausinus]

Again, free will abuse.

Nope. Millions of lives could have been saved if God had just gotten that guy to move the bomb a foot to the left. It wouldnt have been interfering with free will, it was already the guy's intent to blow him up.

[ajk]

Yes it would have.

[Ausinus]

Yes it would have.

How? It was already the intent of the guy to kill Hitler. It would have in no way interfered with free will.

[ajk]

How do you know it was God's intent that Hitler die then? He may have intended it another way and another time, but Hitler's free will brought it on himself.

[Ausinus]

How do you know it was God's intent that Hitler die then? He may have intended it another way and another time, but Hitler's free will brought it on himself.

Oh really? What about the fact it could have saved MILLIONS of lives? Did we really need to go through the Holocaust?

[ajk]

Again that is result of Hitler's free will abuse, not God's will.

[Ausinus]

Again that is result of Hitler's free will abuse, not God's will.

But god could have intervened in such a way as to NOT have this happen.

[ajk]

How do you know he didn't try to stop Hitler, but Hitler wouldn't listen to him?

[Ausinus]

How do you know he didn't try to stop Hitler, but Hitler wouldn't listen to him?

Nope. I was referring to how he could have made the assassination successful. Just ONE FOOT to the left and it would have worked.

[MrBirdy]

Actually, if i were god, i would have let that gold-medalist get a second chance to kick his nuts!!
or, gone zeus on his ass, and brewed up a thunder storm
Back to Abortion!!

[General Septem]

How? It was already the intent of the guy to kill Hitler. It would have in no way interfered with free will.

It was his intention to kill Hitler. It was his free will to be a dumbass and not shoot the bomb in the right direction.

[Ausinus]

It was his intention to kill Hitler. It was his free will to be a dumbass and not shoot the bomb in the right direction.

No, its just that Hitler happened to be in a place where the bomb didnt affect him. Im sure the great and powerful oz..........er, I mean God could have set things up differently.

[theicidal maniac]

Not true. God doesn't make the mistakes, we do when we abuse our free will for evil.

So when God gave us only one whole through which to breathe, eat, AND talk, leading to millions of human deaths...that wasn't a mistake?
When he created the eyeball and the lense is inverted, that wasn't a mistake?
When he gives whales, snakes and dolphins legs that they will never use (all those animals develop legs in the womb, but in adulthood there is nothing left but the bones) that wasn't a mistake?

[General Septem]

No, its just that Hitler happened to be in a place where the bomb didnt affect him. Im sure the great and powerful oz..........er, I mean God could have set things up differently.

God doesn't work that way. He doesn't like to get involved in such a direct way. God's primary way of being in this world is through us. If you think you can do better, you're welcome to step in and try... just make sure there's some kind of clause that when your trial period is over, the real God steps back in and turns back time to before you royally fucked over the entire universe.

[MrJim]

So when God gave us only one whole through which to breathe, eat, AND talk, leading to millions of human deaths...that wasn't a mistake?
When he created the eyeball and the lense is inverted, that wasn't a mistake?
When he gives whales, snakes and dolphins legs that they will never use (all those animals develop legs in the womb, but in adulthood there is nothing left but the bones) that wasn't a mistake?

Speaking of which, is there any useful purpose for having hair grow through your ears??

[who897]

Speaking of which, is there any useful purpose for having hair grow through your ears??

Or your taint for that matter.

[Ausinus]

Or your taint for that matter.

Warmth. Its essentially a vestigial leftover in hotter climates.

Also, ever wondered what your eyebrows do? They collect sweat from your forehead to make sure it doesnt get in your eyes.

[theicidal maniac]

Warmth. Its essentially a vestigial leftover in hotter climates.

Also, ever wondered what your eyebrows do? They collect sweat from your forehead to make sure it doesnt get in your eyes.

The ear hair was developed in asia and the middle east in areas of sand, to keep it out of your ears, although I can't really see the evolutionary significance of that one...

[General Septem]

So when God gave us only one whole through which to breathe, eat, AND talk, leading to millions of human deaths...that wasn't a mistake?

God incorporated a natural way to rid the world of stupidity. Doesn't look like a mistake to me. :D


When he created the eyeball and the lense is inverted, that wasn't a mistake?

Why should it be? We see right side up, so it's not like it matters. Maybe the kind of lens that provides the best visual acuity also inverts it.


When he gives whales, snakes and dolphins legs that they will never use (all those animals develop legs in the womb, but in adulthood there is nothing left but the bones) that wasn't a mistake?

God gives humans brains they'll never use. We survive.

[theicidal maniac]

God incorporated a natural way to rid the world of stupidity. Doesn't look like a mistake to me. :D



Why should it be? We see right side up, so it's not like it matters. Maybe the kind of lens that provides the best visual acuity also inverts it.



God gives humans brains they'll never use. We survive.

We do survive. That's the point. We survive despite the obvious shortcomings. We are forced to evolve through our poorly structured apparatus. Our frames aren't built terribly well for bipedal transportation. Our nerves and heart ventricles are wrapped around eachother in a way that only evolution can explain. We have vestigial organs and limbs. We have tails. In the womb we have gills. In the egg snakes have legs. The list NEVER ENDS. We have an inverted lens. We see right side up because our brains decipher, but the lens inversion actually causes a blind spot.

Ask a photographer that is familiar with camera anatomy what would happen if the lens was set up the way a mammalian eye lens is set up. You wouldn't get the full picture. Fortunately our brains have evolved along with our eye, so we don't even notice the problem. What we do notice are elements of our physical bodies that rule out the possibility of thoughtful, intentional design. We also notice logical inconsistencies in our primitive superstitions. "God" gave us a brain that, when used to it's potential, logically rules out the possibility of god.

Next time someone's baby chokes to death in your vicinity (it happens constantly), I would like you to go up to family and tell them "God incorporated a natural way to rid the world of stupidity. Doesn't look like a mistake to me." I'm sure they'll see the compassion in such divine wisdom.

[something]

We can have god as a human living in the higher dimensions and looking att his small plastic action figures that he built by him self, wich are, us. He can't controll what we do, he just created us :D. Not because i belive in god, but that would make much more sense.

[Ape-Shit]

What GOD are we talking about?

[something]

What GOD are we talking about?

I think that's the point. We're trying to find out what god is, and what he's doing to us.

[General Septem]

We do survive. That's the point. We survive despite the obvious shortcomings. We are forced to evolve through our poorly structured apparatus. Our frames aren't built terribly well for bipedal transportation. Our nerves and heart ventricles are wrapped around eachother in a way that only evolution can explain. We have vestigial organs and limbs. We have tails. In the womb we have gills. In the egg snakes have legs. The list NEVER ENDS. We have an inverted lens. We see right side up because our brains decipher, but the lens inversion actually causes a blind spot.

Ask a photographer that is familiar with camera anatomy what would happen if the lens was set up the way a mammalian eye lens is set up. You wouldn't get the full picture. Fortunately our brains have evolved along with our eye, so we don't even notice the problem. What we do notice are elements of our physical bodies that rule out the possibility of thoughtful, intentional design. We also notice logical inconsistencies in our primitive superstitions. "God" gave us a brain that, when used to it's potential, logically rules out the possibility of god.

So let me ask you this, why can't our weaknesses be a result of intelligent decision? Other animals see better than we do, why weren't they intelligently designed? Why do intelligent decisions have to make sense? Have you ever seen a Quentin Tarantino movie?


Next time someone's baby chokes to death in your vicinity (it happens constantly), I would like you to go up to family and tell them "God incorporated a natural way to rid the world of stupidity. Doesn't look like a mistake to me." I'm sure they'll see the compassion in such divine wisdom.

Well you're the one who's always saying that the last thing we need is more babies, we're already overpopulated aren't we? Or were you just using that as an excuse to justify it in the case of a woman's "choice"?

[ohreally]

Not true. God doesn't make the mistakes, we do when we abuse our free will for evil.

Why do you keep flip flopping? Before you have told us that God does not interfere with our free will. Yet I assume you believe in miracles? Is that not interfering with free will or what? If there truly are miracles, why is it so selective and not necessarily better for mankind. (e.g. Why didn't he somehow kill Hitler internally?)

[General Septem]

Why do you keep flip flopping? Before you have told us that God does not interfere with our free will. Yet I assume you believe in miracles? Is that not interfering with free will or what?

How do miracles interfere with free will?


If there truly are miracles, why is it so selective and not necessarily better for mankind. (e.g. Why didn't he somehow kill Hitler internally?)

See, that would be interfering with free will too. Now if the love and justice of God were to compel someone to assassinate Hitler, that would be different because it would still be their choice, but even if God were disgusted by what Hitler was doing (which He was, you can bet on it), to just have him have a heart attack and die would interfere with his free will.

See, free will is not just an ability but a responsibility. It means we have the ability to fuck up, but it also means that God will let us fuck up. Otherwise it's meaningless.

[theicidal maniac]

Now if the love and justice of God were to compel someone to assassinate Hitler, that would be different because it would still be their choice, but even if God were disgusted by what Hitler was doing (which He was, you can bet on it), to just have him have a heart attack and die would interfere with his free will. See, free will is not just an ability but a responsibility. It means we have the ability to fuck up, but it also means that God will let us fuck up. Otherwise it's meaningless.

Being born with a bad heart has nothing to do with free will.
So you finally admit, the "love of God" can compell someone to assassinate another person...This has been my point all along. You can use a religion to justify killing, but the justification is based on imaginary precepts. Judgements like that should be made based on the greater good of humanity. As far as fucking up, why do you assume that he isn't "compelling" you to fuck up and "letting" you do right things. There is no support for either claim, but you seem so positive that one is more true than the other, when in fact, neither is TRUE.


Well you're the one who's always saying that the last thing we need is more babies, we're already overpopulated aren't we? Or were you just using that as an excuse to justify it in the case of a woman's "choice"?

Yes, I AM always saying that, and I stand by it. Do not ever accuse me of changing sides of an issue to meet an argument, that's a theist's job. Those inborn defects, if they kill us, will keep the defect from occurring in future generations. The hand of god need not guide the process, as nature acheives it naturally. However, that does not take away the pain of the family. If you believe god caused it then you must also admit that the same god CAUSED the family's pain as a result, by causing both the event AND by creating the physiology that makes us feel pain. These defects are explained naturally as I said, but if you assume that they were not you A) ignore all that humans have learned about themselves and B) believe in a god who is neither compassionate OR intelligent, and who does not take future events into consideration. You believe in a god who does not allow US to abort an embryo, but that same god may himself KILL THE INFANT when it's a month old. What a fantastically intellectual line of thought.

[yea_thats_right1]

ok heres a question im not sure we covered... what about an eptopic pregnancy? (When a woman gets pregnant in her fallopian tubes) Thats a form of abortion.. since the only way to fix it is to remove it.... just curious

[something]

ok heres a question im not sure we covered... what about an eptopic pregnancy? (When a woman gets pregnant in her fallopian tubes) Thats a form of abortion.. since the only way to fix it is to remove it.... just curious

If anyone disagrees on that'll be right removing it, do they really need to get some information about it.

[General Septem]

ok heres a question im not sure we covered... what about an eptopic pregnancy? (When a woman gets pregnant in her fallopian tubes) Thats a form of abortion.. since the only way to fix it is to remove it.... just curious

It has, but it was long before you joined us.

That is not considered abortion. The purpose of abortion is to kill the baby. The purpose of ectopic pregnancy corrective surgery is only to remove the problematic section of fallopian tube; everything possible (which is usually nothing) is done to save the life of the fetus, but his death is an unfortunate side effect of the surgery. It is not at all the same as killing one patient to save the other. The same is true if a pregnant woman contracts uterine cancer and requires a hysterectomy.


The difference can be thought of in this way. Allow me to present to you two different situations:

1. Several soldiers are in a foxhole. An enemy grenade falls into this hole. A soldier jumps on the grenade in an attempt to protect his friends from the shrapnel. He dies to save everyone else's life.

or

2. Several soldiers are traveling in the desert. They decide to kill one of their fellow soldiers to keep their profile down.

In one situation, a soldier's death was a sad and unfortunate result of his actions to protect his comrades in arms. In the other, his death was the direct and intended result of his comrade's actions. See how it's different?

[theicidal maniac]

1. Several soldiers are in a foxhole. An enemy grenade falls into this hole. A soldier jumps on the grenade in an attempt to protect his friends from the shrapnel. He dies to save everyone else's life.

or

2. Several soldiers are traveling in the desert. They decide to kill one of their fellow soldiers to keep their profile down.

In one situation, a soldier's death was a sad and unfortunate result of his actions to protect his comrades in arms. In the other, his death was the direct and intended result of his comrade's actions. See how it's different?


That dead soldier...he is a comrade, he is the same, same training, same thought processes, same biology, mentally quite similar. This could not be said of an embryo. If you are going to use examples, use examples that fit the scenario.

[something]

It has, but it was long before you joined us.

That is not considered abortion. The purpose of abortion is to kill the baby.



The purpose of abortionj is not killing the baby . It's preventing the women from giving bith to that baby, and not kill it. You can't kill something that is allive.

[ajk]

But it is, which is why it's murder.

[Ausinus]

But it is, which is why it's murder.

Then why isnt killing animals murder?

[General Septem]

Then why isnt killing animals murder?

Murder is the unjust killing of another human, not animals.

[something]

Murder is the unjust killing of another human, not animals.

And, since a fetus is a less more evolved version of a human, couldn't you say same thing about animals?

[General Septem]

And, since a fetus is a less more evolved version of a human, couldn't you say same thing about animals?

A species can't be a less evolved version of itself. It's less developed, which is entirely different.

[something]

A species can't be a less evolved version of itself. It's less developed, which is entirely different.

Here I can acctually say that your wrong. Scientists have found a conection between the way a fetus evolves, and the way that humans evolved through the years. And the same things seems to be with animals. The fetuses of us, evolves from a tiny little cell, to something that look like a mouse, to something like a monkey, an ape, and finally, a human.

[theicidal maniac]

A couple things about this, the development of a human in the womb actually highlights our evolutionary history, we start as single celled organisms, cells divide similar to the way a bacteria does, later we develop photosensitive skin patches like many lower life forms have (these will become eyes later), We develop gills as our seaborne ancestors had, we sprout appendages, we grow a tail, and at this point we look pretty much the way all invertabrates look (dolphins, whales, bats, rhinoceros, chicken, rabbit), then we begin to speciate, and more human-like characteristics begin to form...so yes, the early stages of embryonic and fetal development actually do reflect and mimic early stages of evolutionary development, building upon previous archetypes.

Secondly, Genny is partially right, but not in the way he intended. It is true you can't be less evolved, because it would require an evolutionary process to get that way. So although you can change in ways that are atavistic, primitive, or that reverse evolution, there is always a cause for it and you are therefore MORE evolved. If we start to evolve toward primates again, it will be because there is something environmentally that favors primate traits to human ones, but that doesn't mean that we would be less evolved. We would be MORE SO because we would be more fit to our environment. That said, a fetus and especially an embryo are FAR LESS DEVELOPED than an adult human. During the development we pass through stages of being a single-celled prokaryote, a multi-celled unspecialized cluster stage, a fish-like stage, a mammalian stage, a primate stage, and finally, a human stage (roughly, and I skipped many stages). I think this is what Something meant to say, and if so, he would be correct, biologically speaking.

[General Septem]

Here I can acctually say that your wrong. Scientists have found a conection between the way a fetus evolves, and the way that humans evolved through the years. And the same things seems to be with animals. The fetuses of us, evolves from a tiny little cell, to something that look like a mouse, to something like a monkey, an ape, and finally, a human.

Finally, a human? How about from a fetus to an infant, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult, to an old motherfucker? If people were born three years old, you wouldn't think infants looked human either.

[Ausinus]

Lol, abortion in the title is spelt with two b's. :D

[General Septem]

Lol, abortion in the title is spelt with two b's. :D

See, the pro-lifers are the intelligent ones who know how to spell. :D

[theicidal maniac]

Finally, a human? How about from a fetus to an infant, to a child, to an adolescent, to an adult, to an old motherfucker? If people were born three years old, you wouldn't think infants looked human either.

Funny, I could have sworn that I SAID I LEFT MANY STEPS OUT.....hmmm. Anyway, yeah those are all steps that pretty much all vertabrates go through also, but the developmental differences are mainly manifest in an enlargening of the already established body type, and the development of the sex organs...and of course the mental development, so biologically speaking, an adult life is worth more than an infants because an adult has the mental AND physical capacity to breed, and the infant MAY AT SOME POINT have those capacities. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Also, you are completely misled if you think that the development from infant to adolescent is AT ALL similar to the development from embryo to fetus...in the former example it is merely growth, in the latter example it is a step from one TYPE of organism to ANOTHER TYPE of organism, as I illustrated earlier.

[something]

Funny, I could have sworn that I SAID I LEFT MANY STEPS OUT.....hmmm. Anyway, yeah those are all steps that pretty much all vertabrates go through also, but the developmental differences are mainly manifest in an enlargening of the already established body type, and the development of the sex organs...and of course the mental development, so biologically speaking, an adult life is worth more than an infants because an adult has the mental AND physical capacity to breed, and the infant MAY AT SOME POINT have those capacities. A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Also, you are completely misled if you think that the development from infant to adolescent is AT ALL similar to the development from embryo to fetus...in the former example it is merely growth, in the latter example it is a step from one TYPE of organism to ANOTHER TYPE of organism, as I illustrated earlier.

And that was what I was trying to say earlier. Thanks for clearing things up :)

[vulcan]

God doesn't make mistakes, we have the choice to make it evil of not.
Hitler was an instrument of HIMSELF! and possible Was needed at that time for us to create of Israel. To fullfill Gods prophecy. Maybe was the right time. I do believe if somebody at that time killed Adolf, we possible had another alternative child to do the same thing. History is an accumulation of events. Like now if we leave Irak is going to bite us in the ass.

[vulcan]

Whit apples. Animals are animals and children are children. The Union of a man and a woman is a child. Nothing else. but a child from moment one.

[something]

Whit apples. Animals are animals and children are children. The Union of a man and a woman is a child. Nothing else. but a child from moment one.

A child is, to me, a not fully evolved, BORNED, human, and not a piece of slime in a womens womb.

[Ausinus]

Whit apples. Animals are animals and children are children. The Union of a man and a woman is a child. Nothing else. but a child from moment one.

Humans are also animals, and an unborn human is an embryo then a foetus, not a child.

[theicidal maniac]

God doesn't make mistakes, we have the choice to make it evil of not.
Hitler was an instrument of HIMSELF! and possible Was needed at that time for us to create of Israel. To fullfill Gods prophecy. Maybe was the right time. I do believe if somebody at that time killed Adolf, we possible had another alternative child to do the same thing. History is an accumulation of events. Like now if we leave Irak is going to bite us in the ass.

You don't think often, do you?

The "union" of man and woman is many things other than child-making. To deny it is to deny the reality that surrounds you. My wife and I had sex for years without having achild and I can tell you it was QUITE rewarding, mentally, spiritually, and physically.

P.S. God is pretend.

[MrJim]

Humans are also animals, and an unborn human is an embryo then a foetus, not a child.

There sure is a lot of this "humans are animals" crap to go around lately. Funny, the most intelligent animal in existence would not come close to measuring up to a retarded human.

[theicidal maniac]

There sure is a lot of this "humans are animals" crap to go around lately. Funny, the most intelligent animal in existence would not come close to measuring up to a retarded human.

Funny...I'm pretty sure that humans are in the Kingdom "Animalia." Humans ARE animals. I didn't realize that you were a cognitive biologist, though, so I guess you are qualified to make the claim that "the most intelligent animal in existence would not come close to measuring up to a retarded human." Presumably the "most intelligent animal on the planet" IS the human being, so it would compare quite well. And what do you mean by "retarded?" Are you talking Terry Schiavo? Down's Syndrome? Cerebral Paulsey? Autism? An otherwise healthy, wheel-chair bound person? I mean I would certainly say that a dolphin EXHIBITS more cognitive power than Terry Schiavo did in her last decade on the planet. But she still LOOKS human so nobody dares pull the plug on the human celery stalk.

Sperm aren't people. Embryos aren't people. Fetuses aren't people.

[ajk]

Yes they are, they have unique human DNA. DNA that no other type of animal could have except for us. Therefore regardless of the stage of development they are people.

[Ausinus]

Yes they are, they have unique human DNA. DNA that no other type of animal could have except for us. Therefore regardless of the stage of development they are people.

Except for the fact that the human DNA has less than a percent difference from other primates - and is less than 10% for all mammals.

Also we can inject human DNA into a cat foetus and make it more human - or even make it human. ^_^

[ajk]

That does not matter, it is still unique to us and us alone. You can inject Human DNA into another animal, but it would not change the fact that the animal is still indeed just that.

[General Septem]

Except for the fact that the human DNA has less than a percent difference from other primates - and is less than 10% for all mammals.

Also we can inject human DNA into a cat foetus and make it more human - or even make it human. ^_^

Our DNA is what defines us as a species. DNA is recognizable as human. It's also what makes us what we are. So saying it's "pretty close" to anything doesn't change it. Nor does the fact that human DNA can be used for other purposes. Whether or not a human/cat is human is a valid question but not the point of this debate.

[something]

Our DNA is what defines us as a species. DNA is recognizable as human. It's also what makes us what we are. So saying it's "pretty close" to anything doesn't change it. Nor does the fact that human DNA can be used for other purposes. Whether or not a human/cat is human is a valid question but not the point of this debate.

I just thought I could say that DNA isn't the only form of life. Viruses uses has RNA wich is like DNA, but to be honest, I don't know what R stands for. Just thought I could say that.

BTW do you consider viruses existance as life? I have to say I do. Like much as I concider plants to be alive. As the matter infact, if you look at what scientists clascifies as life, do I not think a fetus is one.

[hitekredneck]

I just thought I could say that DNA isn't the only form of life. Viruses uses has RNA wich is like DNA, but to be honest, I don't know what R stands for. Just thought I could say that.

BTW do you consider viruses existance as life? I have to say I do. Like much as I concider plants to be alive. As the matter infact, if you look at what scientists clascifies as life, do I not think a fetus is one.

Ribonucleic acid as opposed to deoxyribonucleic acid

[General Septem]

As the matter infact, if you look at what scientists clascifies as life, do I not think a fetus is one.

And what exactly is that?

[something]

And what exactly is that?

I don't know the english but I'll try.

Able to live by your self, feed your self, survival capacity, own DNA or RNA, wel´l, independent is a good word.

[General Septem]

I don't know the english but I'll try.

Able to live by your self, feed your self, survival capacity, so on.

That's not the definition of life. By that definition, the bedridden are not alive either.

[something]

That's not the definition of life. By that definition, the bedridden are not alive either.

The what? :confused:

[hitekredneck]

The what? :confused:

bedridden...somebody that can't get out of bed for various reasons...like after a long weekend ;)

[something]

bedridden...somebody that can't get out of bed for various reasons...like after a long weekend ;)

Somehow, this person can get food if he just want to, and obviusly he could before.

[hitekredneck]

Somehow, this person can get food if he just want to, and obviusly he could before.

not if there's a medical condition...then that person is entirely dependant on others for survival, i.e. nurses, etc

[General Septem]

Somehow, this person can get food if he just want to, and obviusly he could before.

Only at the mercy of his caregivers.

[something]

not if there's a medical condition...then that person is entirely dependant on others for survival, i.e. nurses, etc

He gets the medical, right? That means that he can decide if he wants medicine or things that might keep him alive. But fetuses don't, they get it even if they don't want. BTW, it's impossible for them to "want" anything.

[General Septem]

He gets the medical, right? That means that he can decide if he wants medicine or things that might keep him alive. But fetuses don't, they get it even if they don't want. BTW, it's impossible for them to "want" anything.

That's still a far cry from being independent though.

[Ausinus]

And there is euthanasia for people in a PVS.

[something]

That's still a far cry from being independent though.

He is an independet person, if he don't want have theese things that keep him alive, he doesn't have to, but he do. They are just a way to keep him alive, as he is supposed to. My point is that a fetus just grows and nothing else.

[General Septem]

He is an independet person, if he don't want have theese things that keep him alive, he doesn't have to, but he do. They are just a way to keep him alive, as he is supposed to. My point is that a fetus just grows and nothing else.

And nothing else? That growing is what has led to everything in the world that's happened. Is there a single news event that doesn't involve human beings? Do you think these human beings just appeared out of thin air?

[something]

And nothing else? That growing is what has led to everything in the world that's happened. Is there a single news event that doesn't involve human beings? Do you think these human beings just appeared out of thin air?

But we do other things than grow. We fix our own food, we walk around, we think, we talk, we DO stuff. A fetus don't, it JUST grows.

[theicidal maniac]

Yes they are, they have unique human DNA. DNA that no other type of animal could have except for us. Therefore regardless of the stage of development they are people.

Human DNA isn't that unique. There is almost as much variation in DNA between two humans as there is between a human and an orangutan.

The problem presented to you here is, "is DNA a human?" Cause VERY soon, they will be able to take a human cell, extract the DNA, and grow another human from that. This fits your earlier definition of "it is human because it is a "potential" human life."

[theicidal maniac]

But we do other things than grow. We fix our own food, we walk around, we think, we talk, we DO stuff. A fetus don't, it JUST grows.

Basically it is a parasite in the womans body.

[something]

Basically it is a parasite in the womans body.

I guess you can say that.

[starry123nights]

Basically it is a parasite in the womans body.

damn that sounds pretty shitty. We all start off as parasites. "Hey lady, your carrying a parasite in your body." I like the way you think maniac

[General Septem]

Human DNA isn't that unique. There is almost as much variation in DNA between two humans as there is between a human and an orangutan.

The problem presented to you here is, "is DNA a human?" Cause VERY soon, they will be able to take a human cell, extract the DNA, and grow another human from that. This fits your earlier definition of "it is human because it is a "potential" human life."

"Almost as much" doesn't mean "as much", and obviously that small difference is significant, because we look significantly different from orangutans. So obviously it's unique enough to produce in us an intelligence great enough to construct empires. We're the motherfuckers who built the world. The orangutans, left to themselves, would do little but build small shelters out of sticks and sniff their own asses. So enough with this "almost the same" shit.

DNA is not human, but an organism whose DNA is human, (barring any unnatural interference as that is another topic for another debate) is.

Fetuses are not potential human lives, they're already human. This is an irrefutable biological fact.

[General Septem]

Basically it is a parasite in the womans body.

Your mother thought you were a parasite? No wonder you're so screwed up :D

[something]

Fetuses are not potential human lives, they're already human. This is an irrefutable biological fact.

And who said that it's an "Irrefutable biological fact"?

[General Septem]

And who said that it's an "Irrefutable biological fact"?

The study of biology.

[theicidal maniac]

The study of biology.

really...which theory covers that?

[something]

The study of biology.

Wich study? There's several of them, and all "studies" doesn't show the right fact. You know the one ajk presented about abortions who lead to breastcancer was nothing but bullshit.

[ajk]

It's not BS at all and I can explain why. Abortion is an unnatural process, pro choice or pro life you cannot deny that fact. When a woman gets pregnant, you ever notice her breasts get larger as the baby grows in the womb? Well there's a reason for that. That is that the body is creating more milk in the breasts to prepare for the birth of the baby and the nursing that may follow said birth.

Now if a miscarriage happens, which is a natural process, the body recognizes that there no longer is a baby inside the woman. Knowing this it releases the excess milk out of the breasts since it would obviously not be needed. However when an abortion takes place the body is not equipped to handle such a situation, and the extra milk that has been created is not released out of the breasts as it would for a miscarriage.

As a result of this, the milk hardens over time and can possibly become cancerous to the woman. For this reason a woman who has an abortion is indeed more likely possible to get breast cancer.

[something]

It's not BS at all and I can explain why. Abortion is an unnatural process, pro choice or pro life you cannot deny that fact. When a woman gets pregnant, you ever notice her breasts get larger as the baby grows in the womb? Well there's a reason for that. That is that the body is creating more milk in the breasts to prepare for the birth of the baby and the nursing that may follow said birth.

Now if a miscarriage happens, which is a natural process, the body recognizes that there no longer is a baby inside the woman. Knowing this it releases the excess milk out of the breasts since it would obviously not be needed. However when an abortion takes place the body is not equipped to handle such a situation, and the extra milk that has been created is not released out of the breasts as it would for a miscarriage.

As a result of this, the milk hardens over time and can possibly become cancerous to the woman. For this reason a woman who has an abortion is indeed more likely possible to get breast cancer.

So just because the women carries a bit extra milk in ´her breasts so will it cause breast cancer? BULLSHIT!! Milk does not cause cancer, and a short time after the abortion will the body stop producing milk because ut doesn't need to.

And why are you even saying that? It's a rumor to keep people from doing aborts, and whatever you want them to or not so is there no reason to lie about it. It's not fair play!

[ajk]

So just because the women carries a bit extra milk in ´her breasts so will it cause breast cancer? BULLSHIT!! Milk does not cause cancer, and a short time after the abortion will the body stop producing milk because it doesn't need to.

First off the milk itself isn't what increases the risk, it's that the milk stays in the breasts and isn't dispensed out naturally. As for the body not producing milk, it might not but as I said the milk already produced does not go anywhere.


And why are you even saying that? It's a rumor to keep people from doing aborts, and whatever you want them to or not so is there no reason to lie about it. It's not fair play!

I'm not lying, this is just the facts. I can tell you don't like them, but they are what they are.

[something]

First off the milk itself isn't what increases the risk, it's that the milk stays in the breasts and isn't dispensed out naturally. As for the body not producing milk, it might not but as I said the milk already produced does not go anywhere.





Of curse it does. You may not have noticed, but things that not ae supposed to be in body is getting out from there. And maybe you're not lieng, you may have get fooled by this lie, but you bet it's a lie.

[ajk]

If you want proof of this, just read this:

The reason is actually quite simple: early in pregnancy, during the first trimester, hormones stimulate breast development in preparation for milk production. That development occurs in two phases, both of which have to complete or the woman runs a risk of breast cancer. In the first phase, the hormone estrogen makes breast cells multiply rapidly. This rapid increase in multiplying breast cells continues until about the 32nd week. At that point, in a normal pregnancy, fresh chemical messengers instruct the breast cells to convert from multiplying cells to milk production cells. Once a ‘multiplying’ cell has been converted to a ‘milk production’ cell, it doesn’t ever switch back. Its ability to multiply is forever turned off.

In computer terms, it is the breast equivalent of the infamous Microsoft Windows "blue screen of death", where the programme fails to shut down properly and sends the entire machine into a tailspin because it never got to finish its tasks.

This ‘switch-off’ is critical: only breast cells still capable of multiplying can turn into cancerous cells later in life. Milk producing cells cannot. And the problem for the 17,000 New Zealand women getting abortions every year is that termination of pregnancy interferes in this crucial process. When a baby is aborted, the woman’s breasts never get sent the chemical message to switch off the multiplication. They’re left with breasts that can literally become cancer timebombs.

Granted that isn't exactly what I said but it's pretty much the same idea.

this coming from: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm

[something]

If you want proof of this, just read this:

The reason is actually quite simple: early in pregnancy, during the first trimester, hormones stimulate breast development in preparation for milk production. That development occurs in two phases, both of which have to complete or the woman runs a risk of breast cancer. In the first phase, the hormone estrogen makes breast cells multiply rapidly. This rapid increase in multiplying breast cells continues until about the 32nd week. At that point, in a normal pregnancy, fresh chemical messengers instruct the breast cells to convert from multiplying cells to milk production cells. Once a ‘multiplying’ cell has been converted to a ‘milk production’ cell, it doesn’t ever switch back. Its ability to multiply is forever turned off.

In computer terms, it is the breast equivalent of the infamous Microsoft Windows "blue screen of death", where the programme fails to shut down properly and sends the entire machine into a tailspin because it never got to finish its tasks.

This ‘switch-off’ is critical: only breast cells still capable of multiplying can turn into cancerous cells later in life. Milk producing cells cannot. And the problem for the 17,000 New Zealand women getting abortions every year is that termination of pregnancy interferes in this crucial process. When a baby is aborted, the woman’s breasts never get sent the chemical message to switch off the multiplication. They’re left with breasts that can literally become cancer timebombs.

Granted that isn't exactly what I said but it's pretty much the same idea.

this coming from: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/mar3abrt.htm

You say 32nd week, and in many countries is the limit the 10th to 12th week. You have 21t week, wich I consider way to far, but it's stll not even near of the 32nd week. And the body can feel difference between aborted babies and borned babies.

[ajk]

You missed the point, if you read what I posted above it explains what happens if the woman has an abortion before both processes are completed.

[something]

You missed the point, if you read what I posted above it explains what happens if the woman has an abortion before both processes are completed.

As the matter infact, the the cells in the breasts get ready for producing milk already by the puberty, but the production itself wont start untill about when the baby is about to get borned. And a chemical signal that not reaches it's goal does not cause cancer. It's wrong chemicals tat get somewhere that causes cancer.

[Ausinus]

You missed the point, if you read what I posted above it explains what happens if the woman has an abortion before both processes are completed.

Did you perhaps know that young women - the majority of people who get abortions - are statistically more likely to get breast cancer from pregnancy anyway?

[General Septem]

That reminds me, abortion should definitely be illegal under the age of consent. There's no reason for it not to be. Granted, making it illegal is not the answer for those over that age, but if you can't harm your own body (i.e., by drinking and smoking), then there's no reason to allow abortion at that age either.

[Ausinus]

Oh yeah, girls under sixteen who have been raped dont deserve abortion.

[General Septem]

Oh yeah, girls under sixteen who have been raped dont deserve abortion.

Drop the rape already. It's been beaten to death. I don't praddle on about partial-birth for the same reason - it's so extremely rare it's almost immaterial. Allow me the same courtesy.

[theicidal maniac]

Drop the rape already. It's been beaten to death. I don't praddle on about partial-birth for the same reason - it's so extremely rare it's almost immaterial. Allow me the same courtesy.

rape is not rare

[theicidal maniac]

Dude, the medical community and cancer organizations alike have dismissed the abortion/breast cancer claim as entirely false. THERE IS NO LINK!

[ajk]

I have already explained why there is indeed a link. Forget about any studies, there is evidence which I have given that proves there is.

[General Septem]

rape is not rare

No, but pregnancies from rape are rare, and abortions from rape are even rarer. Rape also constitutes less than one percent of all abortions performed.

[something]

I have already explained why there is indeed a link. Forget about any studies, there is evidence which I have given that proves there is.

Your proves have been tried again and again to check if they still are actual. And they're not. Scientiffic theorys get tested to check if they are true. Your one has, and it wasn't.

[ajk]

Oh they're not? Well ok explain this then:

13 of 15 studies in the USA, revealed the risk and 28 of 37 studies worldwide. Laboratory test on rats also revealed the risk.

[something]

Oh they're not? Well ok explain this then:

13 of 15 studies in the USA, revealed the risk and 28 of 37 studies worldwide. Laboratory test on rats also revealed the risk.

Show me the links to them then.

[ajk]

In regards to the rats:

An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer.

[something]

In regards to the rats:

An experiment done in Michigan in 1980 destroys this theory. According to a report in the American Journal of Pathology, August 1980, pp 497-511, cancer researchers injected a number of pregnant rats with DMBA, a cancer-causing substance. They then aborted half the rats; the other half were allowed to carry their pregnancies to term.

Among the aborted rats, 77% developed breast cancer. Among the term rats, only 5.5% developed breast cancer.

1980? Rats? No recent studys?

[ajk]

That should not matter, something such as this is not going to change. Whether it be 1980, or 2007 I can assure you that the results would still be the same. We can do all the research we want, but it won't change the reaction from the person (or in this case rats) involved in this procedure.

[something]

That should not matter, something such as this is not going to change. Whether it be 1980, or 2007 I can assure you that the results would still be the same. We can do all the research we want, but it won't change the reaction from the person (or in this case rats) involved in this procedure.

And now you're wrong again. Time changes, and our tools get more sophisticated, we understand more anout the body, and we test older studys wuth theese tools again. So if you don't have any recent studys I'm not sure I can trust you.

[ajk]

Of the 13 out of 15 here in the States (28 of 37 worldwide):

1989: Study on New York State women shows 90 percent increase with abortions

1993: Study of African American women from Washington D.C. area shows average risk increase at 210 percent

1994: Study on women in Seattle, Washington finds 50 percent increase

1995: Study of women in Athens, Greece finds 50 percent risk increase

[ajk]

And now you're wrong again. Time changes, and our tools get more sophisticated, we understand more anout the body, and we test older studys wuth theese tools again. So if you don't have any recent studys I'm not sure I can trust you.

We can say we understand more about the body now and in ways we do. However the reactions of our bodies do not and will not change over time. None of the research in the world can change that.

[something]

We can say we understand more about the body now and in ways we do. However the reactions of our bodies do not and will not change over time. None of the research in the world can change that.

No, but we can understand more about what is what and so on. And there's no reason to belive that abortion leads to breastcancer. I don't see how it possible can do that.

[Ausinus]

I would discount the one in Athens - you know what the Greeks are like.

In any case the National Cancer Institute and most other major cancer research organistations, as well as the British Medical Journal, have done studies which show exactly the opposite.

[ajk]

Again I have already explained why. And 13 of 15 US studies can't be wrong.

[Ausinus]

No, but we can understand more about what is what and so on. And there's no reason to belive that abortion leads to breastcancer. I don't see how it possible can do that.

Exactly. Its just another conspiracy theory started by the pro lifers to scare people into not having abortions.

[something]

I would discount the one in Athens - you know what the Greeks are like.

In any case the National Cancer Institute and most other major cancer research organistations, as well as the British Medical Journal, have done studies which show exactly the opposite.

You see ajk?

[Ausinus]

Again I have already explained why. And 13 of 15 US studies can't be wrong.

There have been far more than 15 studies in the US.

[ajk]

Exactly. Its just another conspiracy theory started by the pro lifers to scare people into not having abortions.

No it's the other way around. It's a conspiracy against women so that they will keep having them.

[ajk]

There have been far more than 15 studies in the US.

No kidding but 13 of 15 is quite significant wouldn't you say?

[Ausinus]

No it's the other way around. It's a conspiracy against women so that they will keep having them.

Two things.

1) There is no reason to do so
2) You cannot prove that

[ajk]

Yes there is a good reason. Comes down to one word: Money.

[Ausinus]

No kidding but 13 of 15 is quite significant wouldn't you say?

Not really, simply because far more than 15 have been done, and the majority do not indicate an abortion-breast cancer link.

[Ausinus]

Yes there is a good reason. Comes down to one word: Money.

I dont think you understand how seriously the scientific community takes forging experimental results.

[ajk]

In any case the National Cancer Institute and most other major cancer research organistations, as well as the British Medical Journal, have done studies which show exactly the opposite.

About that here's something you may not know (this has to do with an Oxford study done around 2004)

Oxford researchers discount retrospective studies because they say that healthy women lie about their abortions more often than do breast cancer patients.

In a news release from Lancet announcing the publication of the study, Professor Richard Peto said, "Studies can give misleading results if women are asked about previous abortions only after they are diagnosed with breast cancer. This may well be because, on average, women with breast cancer are more likely than other women to disclose any prior induced abortions."

However, Malec says, on the contrary, a number of other researchers have found that such "report bias" does not exist.

Also in regards to this there really wasn't a study done at all. All they did was take a second look at studies done in the past.

BTW the retrospective studies referred to means the 28 that showed a link between abortion and breast cancer.

[ajk]

I dont think you understand how seriously the scientific community takes forging experimental results.

I understand your point, but let's be honest here. You know and I know that money talks and can be a great motivator.

[Ausinus]

About that here's something you may not know (this has to do with an Oxford study done around 2004)

Oxford researchers discount retrospective studies because they say that healthy women lie about their abortions more often than do breast cancer patients.

In a news release from Lancet announcing the publication of the study, Professor Richard Peto said, "Studies can give misleading results if women are asked about previous abortions only after they are diagnosed with breast cancer. This may well be because, on average, women with breast cancer are more likely than other women to disclose any prior induced abortions."

However, Malec says, on the contrary, a number of other researchers have found that such "report bias" does not exist.

Also in regards to this there really wasn't a study done at all. All they did was take a second look at studies done in the past.

There have been studies done, including by the National Cancer Institute - an actual study, not a meta analysis, as well as by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

The majority of the medical community agree that abortion does not lead to breast cancer.

[Ausinus]

I understand your point, but let's be honest here. You know and I know that money talks and can be a great motivator.

It can be, in situations where money is involved. With the NCI, RCOG and BMJ studies, no such thing is involved.

[ajk]

Here's something else too about the Melbye study done in Denmark (that showed no link supposedly)

A Denmark study, known as the Melbye study, "misclassified 60,000 women as non-abortive when they had in fact had abortions. Much worse, his study covered only women aged 12 to 57.

Also from Oxford a study ignored abortions done in the private sector.

[ajk]

It can be, in situations where money is involved. With the NCI, RCOG and BMJ studies, no such thing is involved.

Planned Parenthood could be paying them off for all we know.

[Ausinus]

Here's something else too about the Melbye study done in Denmark (that showed no link supposedly)

A Denmark study, known as the Melbye study, "misclassified 60,000 women as non-abortive when they had in fact had abortions. Much worse, his study covered only women aged 12 to 57.

Also from Oxford a study ignored abortions done in the private sector.


The number was actually closer to 30,000, and their results were adjusted accordingly, which still gave the same result.

Many studies which seem indicate a link often ignore lifestyle and other confounding factors.

Even if there was a statistical correlation: correlation does not imply causuality.

[Ausinus]

Planned Parenthood could be paying them off for all we know.

Yeah right. I knew you were daft but I had no idea you were this stupid.

Also it is virtually impossible to fake results when they are submitted for peer analysis.

[ajk]

Talking about the American Cancer Society, raises something I find quite interesting. According to the ACS:

“One study suggests that more than three alcoholic drinks per week, may increase your risk of getting breast cancer."

Now you notice they base that one study. How is it they can base something like that on just one study that shows the risk, and yet when it comes to abortions they seem to ignore 28 studies that show a risk?

[ajk]

Even if there was a statistical correlation: correlation does not imply causuality.

But the casualty risk would be higher obviously.

[Ausinus]

Im talking about the NCI, not the ACS.

Note how they said "one study suggests" not "this is actual fact".

It is a well established fact that alcohol can be carcinogenic in large amounts.

[Ausinus]

But the casualty risk would be higher obviously.

Not casualty: causuality.

Let me rephrase it. correlation does not imply causation.

[ajk]

Yeah right. I knew you were daft but I had no idea you were this stupid.

Am I? Think about it, Planned Parenthood gets there money from abortions no? No abortions means no money for them. So it would benefit them to pay off the cancer researchers to not release that their is a link so that they could stay in business.


Also it is virtually impossible to fake results when they are submitted for peer analysis.

The peers could be just as biased as anyone else would be.

[ajk]

Im talking about the NCI, not the ACS.

Note how they said "one study suggests" not "this is actual fact".

It is a well established fact that alcohol can be carcinogenic in large amounts.

Yes but my point is, they based this off ONE STUDY. Yet they conveniently ignore 28 studies that show an abortion/breast cancer link.

[Ausinus]

Am I? Think about it, Planned Parenthood gets there money from abortions no? No abortions means no money for them. So it would benefit them to pay off the cancer researchers to not release that their is a link so that they could stay in business.

Oh really? And why havent they paid off the researchers who say there is a link then?


The peers could be just as biased as anyone else would be.

Its amazing any college admitted you. You dont understand how the scientific community works at all, so there is no point in continuing.

[Ausinus]

Yes but my point is, they based this off ONE STUDY. Yet they conveniently ignore 28 studies that show an abortion/breast cancer link.

No, they didnt. Many studies have shown this - they are citing an example of one.

Maybe they should say this. "Some studies suggest a possible abortion/breast cancer link, however this is regarded as a myth by the majority of the medical community and assumes that correlation implies causation"

[ajk]

I'm gonna try and explain this again, this is why abortion increases the breast cancer risk:

It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young girl into a woman. When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer.

In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.

In short those cells don't go anywhere they stay in the breast and could eventually become cancerous.

[ajk]

No, they didnt. Many studies have shown this - they are citing an example of one.


If that was the case why wouldn't they say XXX studies show.....?

[Ausinus]

Three things.

Firstly, the vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester.

Secondly, women between the ages of 16 and 25 are can develop cancer in a similar way even if they carry the foetus to term.

Finally, this effect can be minimised with hormone dosages.

[Ausinus]

If that was the case why wouldn't they say XXX studies show.....?

Dont ask me, im not their pamphlet maker.

[ajk]

Here's some more food for thought for you:

Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first full term delivery, the greater the risk.

If he can come out and admit there's a link why can't the ACS as a whole say it?

[ajk]

Dont ask me, im not their pamphlet maker.

I would reason to believe the reason they didn't say XXX studies show.... is because there were no other studies at that time. If there were one would think they'd say so.

[Ausinus]

Here's some more food for thought for you:

Dr. Clark Heath, who is the head of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society, on February 20, 1998, conceded to one aspect of the ABC link -- that an abortion delayed first birth increases breast cancer risk. The longer the time to her first full term delivery, the greater the risk.

If he can come out and admit there's a link why can't the ACS as a whole say it?

Every one knows that childess women are at greater risk. That is a definite fact. Even naturally delayed births (not having one) increases that risk.

Why dont we make a law forcing all women to have at least one baby then?

[Ausinus]

I would reason to believe the reason they didn't say XXX studies show.... is because there were no other studies at that time. If there were one would think they'd say so.

Can you prove this? When was this thing written?

[theicidal maniac]

Talking about the American Cancer Society, raises something I find quite interesting. According to the ACS: “One study suggests that more than three alcoholic drinks per week, may increase your risk of getting breast cancer."
Now you notice they base that one study. How is it they can base something like that on just one study that shows the risk, and yet when it comes to abortions they seem to ignore 28 studies that show a risk?

Notice the verbage AJK; "One study *SUGGESTS* that more than 3 alcoholic drinks per week *MAY* increase your *RISK* of getting breast cancer."

That's hardly a definitive solution. They are saying that they have found a possible link. It will be investigated, tested, more studies will be done, and THEN they may begin to draw conclusions. The problem here is that you don't understand scientific findings at all. If something "SUGGESTS" that something else "MAY" increase your "RISK" that still leaves open the possibility that it MAY NOT increase your risk. Basically they found some interesting data and will look into it. That is all this means. It's ABSOLUTELY FINE to base a statement like that on one study, becasue the statement really isn't saying ANYTHING.



Planned Parenthood could be paying them off for all we know.

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. They can't afford to pay for scientific research like that, and definitely couldn't offer a scientist the type of money to persuade him to jeapordize his entire career.

[theicidal maniac]

I'm gonna try and explain this again, this is why abortion increases the breast cancer risk:

It is estrogen, which is produced in the ovaries, that transforms a young girl into a woman. When pregnancy occurs, there is a SURGE of this hormone causing the breast cells to proliferate dramatically in the first trimester, in order to lay the foundation for the production of milk. These young growing cells are more prone to develop cancer.

So it's actually PUBERTY and PREGNANCY, not abortion, that set the stage for risk. Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure this is going to end up supporting MY CASE, but let's see.............


In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

That may be one way that the risk factor begins to drop, but even if a girl carried to term, and delivered a natural birth, she would still be at a higher risk level than a woman who never got pregnant. So is your god punishing women for procreating AS HE COMMANDED? Nother way the risk factor is reduced is when the pregnancy terminates, by miscarriage or abortion or any number of other causes. The cells will not, as I know you are about to say, "be stuck in limbo." That's not how biology works. The human body strives towards homeostasis and will try to revert to it's former condition, and it will most likely succeed, meaning that PREGNANCY is the risk factor, not abortion.


When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.
In short those cells don't go anywhere they stay in the breast and could eventually become cancerous.

Yup there it is, the "LIMBO" comment. All cells can eventually become cancerous. When dna is replicated sometimes mistakes are made and the dna is damaged, causing your cells to age. The cells that do not make these mistakes in replication are always more likely to turn cancerous. This includes every cell in your body.

What I find interesting, AJK, is that most of the pseudo-science that you post on this forum is very clearly NOT your own wording. It is obvious when you cut and paste, or when you plagiarize and just change one or two words. There is a stark difference between your propaganda talk and your every day jesus-laced colloquial speech. So I know you are cutting and pasting, and I know that you really don't understand the topics at hand. As evidence of this I submit that every few days you will post some random FACTOID (Humanoid=LIKE a human but NOT human, ergo factoid=like a fact but NOT fact) and say that this or that unrecognized scientist says blah blah blah, then Ausi and I tear it apart, and then you ABANDON the post. You leave it for dead, and post something different, until we rip that apart, too. You need to STUDY and learn to THINK. Then you won't have to just believe whatever you are told to believe, you sheep.

[ajk]

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. They can't afford to pay for scientific research like that, and definitely couldn't offer a scientist the type of money to persuade him to jeapordize his entire career.

Wrong, what about the money made from the abortion clinics?

[ajk]

Can you prove this? When was this thing written?

Obviously I don't know how many studies have been done on this over time, but it would stand to reason that if they were basing this on more then one study they would say as much. Common sense dictates that.

My point though is this: If they can report this based on the findings of one study (no matter if it's just suggested or not), why couldn't they report the abortion/breast cancer link when there are 28 studies worldwide that show this? Seems like a bit of a double standard.

[Ausinus]

Obviously I don't know how many studies have been done on this over time, but it would stand to reason that if they were basing this on more then one study they would say as much. Common sense dictates that.

My point though is this: If they can report this based on the findings of one study (no matter if it's just suggested or not), why couldn't they report the abortion/breast cancer link when there are 28 studies worldwide that show this? Seems like a bit of a double standard.

Because the postulated link isnt a documented fact, whereas the carcinogenic effects of too much alcohol are.

Sure they might have fucked up a bit, however what they are saying has some merit, unlike the postulated link.

[Ausinus]

Wrong, what about the money made from the abortion clinics?

That tends to go to the abortionists and the clinic staff.

[ajk]

Sure they might have fucked up a bit, however what they are saying has some merit, unlike the postulated link.

When you got 28 studies showing this, it's far from postulated.

[Ausinus]

When you got 28 studies showing this, it's far from postulated.

You have far more studies than that showing the opposite. The majority of the medical community regards it as a myth, as does every major cancer organisation worldwide.

Its just another scare tactic from the pro life said. How come you never see this sort of shit from the pro choicers?

[ajk]

Funny you say that when even a person who is pro choice admitted there's a link.

[Ausinus]

Funny you say that when even a person who is pro choice admitted there's a link.

All he admitted was that women who belate their pregnancies have an increased breast cancer risk. Pro lifers have misinterpreted his statement, as this applies to all women, not just to ones who have abortion. Merely not getting pregnant gives you an increased risk.

It in no way indicates a link. Im sure pro lifers have admitted that there isnt a link.

[theicidal maniac]

Oh wow, a person who is pro choice ADMITTED IT!!! Whoa I did not realize that, well, I am changing my mind. Abortion IS evil, and despite ALL THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN BREAST CANCER AND ABORTION I'm gonna change my mind on that, too, and just go with the lone rogue out there, no matter what the PROOF is.

BTW, AJK, I was a religious person once. And now I admit that religion is bullshit. SEE, even YOUR OWN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE believe that Jesus is made up!!

LOL...what a maroon. Good job avoiding a response to my last post.

[ajk]

All he admitted was that women who belate their pregnancies have an increased breast cancer risk. Pro lifers have misinterpreted his statement, as this applies to all women, not just to ones who have abortion. Merely not getting pregnant gives you an increased risk.

It in no way indicates a link. Im sure pro lifers have admitted that there isnt a link.

I didn't mean him, I meant the woman I had mentioned before a while back.

[Ausinus]

I didn't mean him, I meant the woman I had mentioned before a while back.

It could have been statistical error, there could have been unaccounted variables.

Anyway one pro choicer admitting it isnt that significant, since the majority of studies incidacte the opposite.

[ajk]

Yes it is, it doesn't matter if one admits it or 100 admits it. The fact remains that even they know there is a link. It shoots this idea that it's not in the foot.

[theicidal maniac]

Yes it is, it doesn't matter if one admits it or 100 admits it. The fact remains that even they know there is a link. It shoots this idea that it's not in the foot.

WELL BY THAT LOGIC, MY ADMISSION THAT THERE IS NO GOD SHOOTS YOUR RELIGION IN THE FOOT.

[Ausinus]

Yes it is, it doesn't matter if one admits it or 100 admits it. The fact remains that even they know there is a link. It shoots this idea that it's not in the foot.

Oh and I suppose the fact that pro lifers admit there isnt a link does too? Anyway how do you know she isnt just saying she was pro choice to futhur her findings?

"Even they know there is a link?" Bullshit - the fact is that they know otherwise or dont know at all. It sounds just like the idiotic "There are no atheists in foxholes" argument.

Stop asserting everything you think is right is fact despite evidence to the contrary.

[ajk]

This woman did a study on teenage girls that aborted their first pregnancy. And in such cases their risk of breast cancer went up 150%, with it going even higher if there was a history of it in the family. On top of that, every teenage girl in this study developed breast cancer by the age of 45.

[theicidal maniac]

This woman did a study on teenage girls that aborted their first pregnancy. And in such cases their risk of breast cancer went up 150%, with it going even higher if there was a history of it in the family. On top of that, every teenage girl in this study developed breast cancer by the age of 45.

TEENAGE GIRLS??? Well no fucking DUH she got those results. You and I have agreed that the risk of breast cancer increases AFTER PUBERTY AND PREGNANCY. Teenage girls are at VERY LOW RISK. ANY increase would be a high-percentage increase, and there would OF COURSE be an increase due to thier biology.

AJK give me the links to this study again, please.

[ajk]

Yes but you're missing the point, having the abortion causes these risks to skyrocket as the above study shows.

[theicidal maniac]

AJK give me the links to this study again, please.

[ajk]

http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/daling.html

[ajk]

I should restate what I said before, I misinterpreted what was meant by it. In the study on teenage girls, every single one that had an abortion and a family history of breast cancer did indeed get it later in life (there were 12 as you'll find)

[theicidal maniac]

I should restate what I said before, I misinterpreted what was meant by it. In the study on teenage girls, every single one that had an abortion and a family history of breast cancer did indeed get it later in life (there were 12 as you'll find)

Family history is a huge risk factor by itself. Of course those people got breast cancer.

[ajk]

True, but somehow I sort of doubt that all 12 would have gotten it had they not had the abortion. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. What did you make of the rest of the study incidentally?

[theicidal maniac]

Here's the problem I have with the study...It was a survey. Surveys are not conclusive scientific evidence. There is a HUGE margin for error. This is definitely a well written piece by someone who really wants to show a real link between breast cancer and abortion, but if she wanted to show that definitively she should have done experiments. This was 13 years ago. Since then there has been a lot of research done by the NCI as well as the ACS.

The following is from the ACLU's website. Why is the ACLU involved? It turns out that some are trying to get laws passed to force abortion clinincs to "warn" women of their "risks." This is really just a scare tactic. But this, again, is from the ACLU, whose job it is to protect the Civil Liberties of Americans.:

-------------------------
Since this "warning" directly contradicts expert medical research, it can only be viewed as a politically inspired scare tactic; it is not motivated by a genuine concern for women's health.

(2) The National Cancer Institute has charged that the study has been interpreted inaccurately and "[t]here is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion."

(3) The American Cancer Society has concluded, "the inconsistencies of existing research do not permit definitive scientific conclusions."

(4)On the day the study was published, JNCI printed an editorial stating that "the overall results [of the study] as well as the particulars are far from conclusive, and it is difficult to see how they will be informative to the public." The study was particularly criticized because of the methodological problem of possible inaccurate reporting of a history of abortion by participants.

(5) Four recent reviews published in scientific journals have assessed more than 30 studies and concluded that the available data on the relationship between induced or spontaneous abortions and breast cancer are inconclusive.

(6) A 1995 article in Cancer Causes and Controls reported on "Abortion and Breast Cancer Causes in Seven Countries." The study concluded, "In summary, these data suggest that any overall relation between abortion and risk of breast cancer is likely to be weak at most."

(7)A 1996 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluating the association between pregnancy terminations and risk of breast cancer concluded, "Our data suggest that the risk of breast cancer associated with any pregnancy termination is likely to be small, if it exists at all."

(8)The California Medical Association convened a task force to review all of the literature on abortion and breast cancer. The task force found the evidence to be inconclusive. "Some studies reported an adverse effect, some no effect, and some a positive effect. . . . [E]vidence is insufficient to support claims that induced abortion has an effect on the later development of breast cancer." This position was adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

(9) A widely noted 1997 study of more than 1.5 million women in Denmark, where abortion histories are corroborated by a government sponsored medical registry, and no chance of reporting bias exists, concluded that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." In a New England Journal of Medicine editorial accompanying the Danish research, Dr. Patricia Hartge of the National Cancer Institute said of the study, "[It] provides important new evidence to resolve a controversy that previous investigations have been unable to settle. . . . In short, a woman need not worry about the risk of breast cancer when facing the difficult decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy."
---------------------------------

Dr. Daling's findings have been conclusively dismissed in the last 13 years.

[something]

I think I see a patton here.

People with common sense understand that abortion does not lead to breastcancer. But the pro-lifers presents studies that shows the opposite. Who do you think the pro-lifers choose to listen to?

[ajk]

Actually I think it's the other way around. The pro life people are the ones that have the common sense and know that abortion does cause breast cancer (which numerous studies have backed up), while pro choicers just take a blind eye to something that deep down they know is true.

[something]

Actually I think it's the other way around. The pro life people are the ones that have the common sense and know that abortion does cause breast cancer (which numerous studies have backed up), while pro choicers just take a blind eye to something that deep down they know is true.

Hey, if studies shown that abortions lead to breastcancer, would I belive them. Now, does most studies show the opposite, but the pro-lifers refuse to belive them, so it's just you who choose what to be true and what to be false.

[ajk]

There are plenty of studies that show the abortion and breast cancer link. Furthermore the statistics back it up. 28 out of 37 would equal to most in my book. If you want to ignore that, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

[something]

There are plenty of studies that show the abortion and breast cancer link. Furthermore the statistics back it up. 28 out of 37 would equal to most in my book. If you want to ignore that, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

That's what I'm talking about. I would be glad to belive that, but a lot of studies show the opposite, and the studies that you say are oftenly old.

BTW if there was a link between abortion and breastcancer, why don't you do something about it, instead of just jagging about abortions are bad? Because you are pro-lifers, and the only thing you want is preventing people from doing abortions. At the same time as millions of real people, including children, die in much harder ways. That, my friend, is dubble moral.

[ajk]

That's what I'm talking about. I would be glad to belive that, but a lot of studies show the opposite, and the studies that you say are oftenly old.


I still don't think that matters though. Reason being that although the way bodies can be studied and restudied may change over time, the body's natural reaction to things will not.

[ajk]

BTW if there was a link between abortion and breastcancer, why don't you do something about it, instead of just jagging about abortions are bad? Because you are pro-lifers, and the only thing you want is preventing people from doing abortions. At the same time as millions of real people, including children, die in much harder ways. That, my friend, is dubble moral.

What exactly do you mean by all this? What do you want me to do?

[something]

What exactly do you mean by all this? What do you want me to do?

Well instead of jelling about abortion is bad, you could start by preventing Right kinds of murder. Collect money for poor people in Africa and Thailand, better healthcare, more food to the earth.There's A LOT of things that's better then saying abortions is bad.

[ajk]

I understand all of that, there are a lot of rough things that go on in the world these days I agree. However at the same time, I feel as though I have a duty to speak for those who cannot do so (the unborn). We have got to realize that every single life is sacred, every last one. Who are we to say that one life has more value then another?

[something]

I understand all of that, there are a lot of rough things that go on in the world these days I agree. However at the same time, I feel as though I have a duty to speak for those who cannot do so (the unborn). We have got to realize that every single life is sacred, every last one. Who are we to say that one life has more value then another?

I really don't. It's just that if fetuses are real life or noe is just a question about opinions, and would say no. So I say it's better to fight about what you can be sure about is, then about something that you "think" is bad.

You can discusse abortion politics, and in many cases it may not be the only right thing to do, but I don't think it's right to call it murder. It feels wrong.

[Ausinus]

I understand all of that, there are a lot of rough things that go on in the world these days I agree. However at the same time, I feel as though I have a duty to speak for those who cannot do so (the unborn). We have got to realize that every single life is sacred, every last one. Who are we to say that one life has more value then another?

You dont need to speak for them. They dont have the capacity to know or care either way. Saying that "they would is called conjecture.

[ajk]

I really don't. It's just that if fetuses are real life or noe is just a question about opinions, and would say no. So I say it's better to fight about what you can be sure about is, then about something that you "think" is bad.


Not true, it is life, it is a person. As I've stated before they have unique human DNA that only we can have. Because of that reason, from the beginning of conception till death that's a person. That's also why it's murder.

[Ausinus]

Not true, it is life, it is a person. As I've stated before they have unique human DNA that only we can have. Because of that reason, from the beginning of conception till death that's a person. That's also why it's murder.

Genetics is not a criteria for personhood. This is clearlu demonstrated by the fact that embryos are not people.

[ajk]

Again you're wrong, they are people. They are in a different stage of life from others yes, but it doesn't change the fact that that is still a person.

[General Septem]

Genetics is not a criteria for personhood. This is clearlu demonstrated by the fact that embryos are not people.

Oh for fuck's sake already, it doesn't matter if it's a person or not, they're still human beings.

[theicidal maniac]

Oh for fuck's sake already, it doesn't matter if it's a person or not, they're still human beings.

An embryo is less of a person than anyone you have ever met. Remember Terry Schiavo? She was a vegetable. Beyond repair. She would never be a functioning person again. She had basically become a meat sack with a brain that didn't even have enough function to keep it's own body alive. Anyone that knew her BEFORE the accident, I'm sure, would tell you that THAT vegetable is not the same PERSON that they knew before. Certainly anything that makes us HUMAN was not represented in her, except for the fact that she still LOOKED human, she still LOOKED like the personality that they had come to know as "Terry." But she certainly is not what anyone would consider a functional human. STILL, she was more human at that stage than any embryo ever will be. Even if only because she LOOKED human. An embryo certainly doesn't look human. An embryo never established itself in one of our communities. An embryo never contributed to society, learned human social behaviors, ate food, or breathed air, never loved, never felt pain (didn't have the nervous system for it) never felt loss (unable to process a complex thought). It never learned to speak. It never saw another human being. It never developed human physical traits.

On what grounds do you call this thing HUMAN? What resemblance of yourself do you see in it?

[ajk]

None of that matters. Regardless of the stage of development it is a person.

[theicidal maniac]

AJK, if you don't have anything to say, it's ok NOT to post.

[beelzebub]

Oh for fuck's sake already, it doesn't matter if it's a person or not, they're still human beings.


But GS... there are many examples of "things" that are human beings yet are born. They may live but.. not very long and very well. It is fascistic to force mothers to carry them to term and to force your opinions on them.

[General Septem]

But GS... there are many examples of "things" that are human beings yet are born. They may live but.. not very long. It is fascistic to force them to carry them to term or for you to force your opinions on them.

Example?


_____________

[beelzebub]

Example?

here is one: Anencephaly

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Anencephaly_front.jpg

[General Septem]

here is one: Anencephaly

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Anencephaly_front.jpg

And what are you suggesting?

[beelzebub]

And what are you suggesting?

ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT

[General Septem]

ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT

Euthanasia is one thing, not even giving someone the choice is quite another. You'd abort a baby like that before you'd even try to save his life?

[Ausinus]

Euthanasia is one thing, not even giving someone the choice is quite another. You'd abort a baby like that before you'd even try to save his life?

That particular foetus had anacephalia - no brain.

[General Septem]

That particular foetus had anacephalia - no brain.

Anencephaly is when the top of one's skull and scalp are missing, not when one's brain is missing. If his brain were missing, he'd be dead already, in which case abortion would not be an issue since you can't kill a corpse.

[RandomPerson]

Wow, haven't been on here in a while. Good to see Septem and Beezle still frequent these forums.


Anencephaly is when the top of one's skull and scalp are missing, not when one's brain is missing. If his brain were missing, he'd be dead already, in which case abortion would not be an issue since you can't kill a corpse.

Actually, a large part of the brain is missing, the forebrain. Sometimes, there is a brainstem, but this allows only for primitive responses, like touch if enough of the brain stem is there.
Abortion for an individual with this type of disorder is perfectly fine. There is no chance that it will live for more than several months even with treatment. In fact, it will never have consciousness.

I'm sure many of you have heard about the chicken with the severed head that lived for a year or so, this is basically the human equivalent, except the chicken lived longer (after its decapitation) than any individual with anecephaly would.

[General Septem]

Wow, haven't been on here in a while. Good to see Septem and Beezle still frequent these forums.

I'm basically the king, post wise. :D


Actually, a large part of the brain is missing, the forebrain. Sometimes, there is a brainstem, but this allows only for primitive responses, like touch if enough of the brain stem is there.
Abortion for an individual with this type of disorder is perfectly fine. There is no chance that it will live for more than several months even with treatment. In fact, it will never have consciousness.

I'm sure many of you have heard about the chicken with the severed head that lived for a year or so, this is basically the human equivalent, except the chicken lived longer (after its decapitation) than any individual with anecephaly would.

If someone had lost part of their brain in an accident, they would not be killed in the hospital. Made comfortable, maybe, but not killed.

[RandomPerson]

I'm basically the king, post wise. :D

Yeah, definately seems to be the case.





If someone had lost part of their brain in an accident, they would not be killed in the hospital. Made comfortable, maybe, but not killed.

This is very true; however, if an individual lost as much of the brain as individuals with the disorder do not have, they would most likely die within a few hours, if that. We are talking about a major part of the brain here. While it is very possible for people to live after parts of their brain have been damaged or lost, typically the damage is not as severe as with anencephaly. If an individual was actually able to live, then I could see a point in allowing it to live. But when more than half of those born are stillborn, and when those that live usually die within a few days (anything past that is rare, but there is still no chance for survival), there is no point to allowing such a birth to occur.

[MrJim]

This is very true; however, if an individual lost as much of the brain as individuals with the disorder do not have, they would most likely die within a few hours, if that. We are talking about a major part of the brain here. While it is very possible for people to live after parts of their brain have been damaged or lost, typically the damage is not as severe as with anencephaly. If an individual was actually able to live, then I could see a point in allowing it to live. But when more than half of those born are stillborn, and when those that live usually die within a few days (anything past that is rare, but there is still no chance for survival), there is no point to allowing such a birth to occur.

I agree with you on this very, very rarely occuring birth defect.

[General Septem]

This is very true; however, if an individual lost as much of the brain as individuals with the disorder do not have, they would most likely die within a few hours, if that. We are talking about a major part of the brain here. While it is very possible for people to live after parts of their brain have been damaged or lost, typically the damage is not as severe as with anencephaly. If an individual was actually able to live, then I could see a point in allowing it to live. But when more than half of those born are stillborn, and when those that live usually die within a few days (anything past that is rare, but there is still no chance for survival), there is no point to allowing such a birth to occur.

You're missing the point. Whether they would die naturally anyway doesn't matter, what matters is that we wouldn't be the ones to pull the trigger if it were someone who'd bee born and lost their brain in an accident. I mean, life has a mortality rate of 100%, but that doesn't mean we just go around killing people.

Stillborns are another matter too - they're already dead for fuck's sake, why the hell should I care if you abort them? You can't kill a corpse. That's not even an abortion since they're already dead; that's just a removal.

[MrJim]

You're missing the point. Whether they would die naturally anyway doesn't matter, what matters is that we wouldn't be the ones to pull the trigger if it were someone who'd bee born and lost their brain in an accident. I mean, life has a mortality rate of 100%, but that doesn't mean we just go around killing people.

Stillborns are another matter too - they're already dead for fuck's sake, why the hell should I care if you abort them? You can't kill a corpse. That's not even an abortion since they're already dead; that's just a removal.

So you're saying it's the best choice to give birth to a vegetable? Maybe a carrot... how about a squash... that's it... I want to raise a squash.

[RandomPerson]

I agree with you on this very, very rarely occuring birth defect.

This is why I believe abortion should be available. I do not believe it should be encouraged, however. It should be limited in its usage for disorders that would cause an individual to lead a very limited life, and in some instances, those who have been raped. If you're going to fuck, then be ready to deal with the consequences. Though, frankly, I do not see how it is possible to screw up sex enough that someone gets pregnant, if you are doing things safely (and do not give me some bullshit about how something is never 100%, that's an excuse used by somebody who doesn't want to live up to the fact that they forgot to take her pill for a day or someone used a condom incorrectly, why is it that people, like Tucker Max, for example, can be a swinger, but never get a girl pregnant for years?) Anywho, back to abortion, abortion is wrong as long as the fetus can be a possible normal human.

As for is a fetus a human, honestly, I'm still trying to figure out the question for myself. By its potential to be human and DNA, yes; however, I would not associate a fetus (first to part of second trimester) with being a human for the fact when I think of a human, a person, there is some emotional attachment there. To me, a human person is able to communicate with you. A human fetus is not. Away from the technicalities, I do not agree that a human fetus is a full human; it is incomplete and only has the potential, given the right circumstances mind you, to become human.

[RandomPerson]

You're missing the point. Whether they would die naturally anyway doesn't matter, what matters is that we wouldn't be the ones to pull the trigger if it were someone who'd bee born and lost their brain in an accident. I mean, life has a mortality rate of 100%, but that doesn't mean we just go around killing people.

Stillborns are another matter too - they're already dead for fuck's sake, why the hell should I care if you abort them? You can't kill a corpse. That's not even an abortion since they're already dead; that's just a removal.

I wouldn't associate an individual with the disorder as a human being; it never had the potential to be one, ever. It was doomed the minute the embryo was formed (or whenever it actually started to show the symptoms). I mean, put it this way, what makes us human? Is it what we look like, the potential to be human, our DNA, what? Or is it a combination of all of these things?

[General Septem]

I mean, put it this way, what makes us human? Is it what we look like, the potential to be human, our DNA, what? Or is it a combination of all of these things?

How do we determine the species of any other animal?

[RandomPerson]

How do we determine the species of any other animal?

Well, there's a number of things that go into that (some of the things I listed above). But let's try not to bring other species into the matter. As humans, we are much different than other animals, whether you admit it or not. If you're going to bring animals into the situation, does it make it right for a farmer to remove eggs from a chicken for food? Isn't that an abortion of a chicken fetus right there?

The point I was getting at was that I do not consider individuals with anencephaly a full human. They lack the potential to become a human being: the forebrain. Yes, they have the shape, they have the DNA, hell, I'll even give you that you probably could take its germ cells and somehow get them to be able to be used for reproduction, but it lacks any potential of ever becoming a human being. If, hypothetically, someone could get one of these individuals to live past to live to be the age of an adult, you still wouldn't have a human being. What you'd have is basically a large lump of organs in front of you with a human shape. It would probably resemble an very large baby (since the brain is what triggers hormones for the various life stages). And even if it went through the correct hormonal dosage and everything the body needed to survive, it still wouldn't be a human being. As I said, it lacks any potential to be a human being.

Oh, and this will probably cause a number of you to shudder, but do you know they're considering, for the very distant future of course, being able to "grow" something very similar to this. Basically, it would be a lump of organs with a human shape, but no head. Pretty much, the science that is based around this is that scientists are able to knock out the gene that is responsible for the head in mice and are able to (though, very rarely) to produce these kinds of mice at birth, though, they do not live very long. So, pretty much, the idea is to eventually take your DNA, knock out the gene for the head, and grow you a type of clone for you in case you ever need a replacement part. Freaky, isn't it? But before you got all up in arms over it, this is just an idea, it hasn't even been close to being accomplished, let alone in mice.

[General Septem]

But let's try not to bring other species into the matter. As humans, we are much different than other animals, whether you admit it or not.

That's right, we have human reasoning which makes us higher than animals, who kill members of their own species. We're above that, we don't kill our own.


If you're going to bring animals into the situation, does it make it right for a farmer to remove eggs from a chicken for food? Isn't that an abortion of a chicken fetus right there?

Killing chickens for food is not the same as killing other human beings. And no, unfertilized eggs are not chickens anyway.


The point I was getting at was that I do not consider individuals with anencephaly a full human. They lack the potential to become a human being: the forebrain. Yes, they have the shape, they have the DNA, hell, I'll even give you that you probably could take its germ cells and somehow get them to be able to be used for reproduction, but it lacks any potential of ever becoming a human being. If, hypothetically, someone could get one of these individuals to live past to live to be the age of an adult, you still wouldn't have a human being. What you'd have is basically a large lump of organs in front of you with a human shape. It would probably resemble an very large baby (since the brain is what triggers hormones for the various life stages). And even if it went through the correct hormonal dosage and everything the body needed to survive, it still wouldn't be a human being. As I said, it lacks any potential to be a human being.

The problem is when we describe fetuses as potential human beings. They're not potential anything, they're already human. Anacephaly is no different than a human born with any other birth defect, except that this defect is fatal. Well just because it's fatal doesn't mean we can just come in and kill someone before the defect has a chance to.


Oh, and this will probably cause a number of you to shudder, but do you know they're considering, for the very distant future of course, being able to "grow" something very similar to this. Basically, it would be a lump of organs with a human shape, but no head. Pretty much, the science that is based around this is that scientists are able to knock out the gene that is responsible for the head in mice and are able to (though, very rarely) to produce these kinds of mice at birth, though, they do not live very long. So, pretty much, the idea is to eventually take your DNA, knock out the gene for the head, and grow you a type of clone for you in case you ever need a replacement part. Freaky, isn't it? But before you got all up in arms over it, this is just an idea, it hasn't even been close to being accomplished, let alone in mice.

I think there was somewhere in The Matrix where Morpheus said something about humans not being born, but grown. :D

[Ausinus]

That's right, we have human reasoning which makes us higher than animals, who kill members of their own species. We're above that, we don't kill our own.

I suppose Bundi wasnt human then? :D Seriously, humans kill each other far more than any other species of mammal.

[General Septem]

I suppose Bundi wasnt human then? :D Seriously, humans kill each other far more than any other species of mammal.

Yes, but we kill each other based on reason and not instinct. We have the capacity to understand that murder is wrong.

[Ausinus]

Yes, but we kill each other based on reason and not instinct. We have the capacity to understand that murder is wrong.

But other animals in a specie still kill each other less don't they?

[General Septem]

But other animals in a specie still kill each other less don't they?

Perhaps. One thing inherent to having the capacity for intelligence and reason is that we also have the capacity to be incredibly stupid.

[RandomPerson]

That's right, we have human reasoning which makes us higher than animals, who kill members of their own species. We're above that, we don't kill our own.

Okay, it's great that you can point out a similarity between humans and other species, but that's not taking away from my point. When's the last time you saw a mouse, hell, I'll even go to what's one step below us, a chimp, carry out calculus? The reason we're human, and higher than everything else (on this planet), is the ability to comprehend and think and create at a much higher level than our closest rival in that area.



Killing chickens for food is not the same as killing other human beings. And no, unfertilized eggs are not chickens anyway.

It's true that unfertilized eggs are not chickens, but you can take a fertlized egg, fertilize it, and then take it away from the hen and eat it. That's how it was when humans first started because I'm sure they were able to make sure all of the eggs were not fertilized (since hens can store sperm). Oh, and are you saying that if we killed humans for food, it'd be okay then?




The problem is when we describe fetuses as potential human beings. They're not potential anything, they're already human. Anacephaly is no different than a human born with any other birth defect, except that this defect is fatal. Well just because it's fatal doesn't mean we can just come in and kill someone before the defect has a chance to.

As I said before in a previous post, I distinguish between a human and a human being. Killing anything that has the potential to be a human being is wrong, as you never know what could happen during its time in the womb. But just because something is human, doesn't mean it will turn out to be a human being. The reason I say all of this is because most of what I base what constitutes a human being is the located in the forebrain, which these individuals lack, no matter what.



I think there was somewhere in The Matrix where Morpheus said something about humans not being born, but grown. :D

Yeah, for the endless amount of energy....oooooh, spooky. A shame that trilogy went to shambles.

And Septem, in your sig, is that Trigger Happy TV I see?

[General Septem]

Okay, it's great that you can point out a similarity between humans and other species, but that's not taking away from my point. When's the last time you saw a mouse, hell, I'll even go to what's one step below us, a chimp, carry out calculus? The reason we're human, and higher than everything else (on this planet), is the ability to comprehend and think and create at a much higher level than our closest rival in that area.

I wasn't pointing out the similarity, I was pointing out the difference.



It's true that unfertilized eggs are not chickens, but you can take a fertlized egg, fertilize it, and then take it away from the hen and eat it. That's how it was when humans first started because I'm sure they were able to make sure all of the eggs were not fertilized (since hens can store sperm).

That's where that whole "killing a chicken for food" comes in. There's nothing wrong with it, but you are killing a chicken. Abortion, in the same way, you are killing a human being, but that's wrong.


Oh, and are you saying that if we killed humans for food, it'd be okay then?

No. The emphasis is not on "for food", but on "chicken".



As I said before in a previous post, I distinguish between a human and a human being. Killing anything that has the potential to be a human being is wrong, as you never know what could happen during its time in the womb. But just because something is human, doesn't mean it will turn out to be a human being. The reason I say all of this is because most of what I base what constitutes a human being is the located in the forebrain, which these individuals lack, no matter what.

Being, human, human being, person - it doesn't really matter. It's all semantics. The problem is not on their end but on our end. But let's put it this way, if someone had an accident in which their forebrain was destroyed, would you advocate killing them, or letting them die comfortably?

We have brain in our stomachs too, you know. Just about everything that's in our head can be found in our gut area.



And Septem, in your sig, is that Trigger Happy TV I see?

I don't know, is it? I've never seen that show.

[RandomPerson]

I wasn't pointing out the similarity, I was pointing out the difference.




That's where that whole "killing a chicken for food" comes in. There's nothing wrong with it, but you are killing a chicken. Abortion, in the same way, you are killing a human being, but that's wrong.



No. The emphasis is not on "for food", but on "chicken".


All right, before we stray too far away from the subject, I had talked about what constitutes a human being, and you had countered with what designates any other species. The point I was making with this whole business is that we're higher than other animals, and because of such, I do not have a problem with killing chickens for food either. I do have a problem with killing human beings though.


Being, human, human being, person - it doesn't really matter. It's all semantics. The problem is not on their end but on our end. But let's put it this way, if someone had an accident in which their forebrain was destroyed, would you advocate killing them, or letting them die comfortably?

We have brain in our stomachs too, you know. Just about everything that's in our head can be found in our gut area.

It does matter though; why do we place ourselves in such high favor when compared to other species: because of our ability to think at a much higher degree than anything else on this planet. What do these individuals lack? The very thing that allows such a process to ever occur.

And if someone's forebrain was destroyed in an accident, I'd go for euthanasia. I'd allow the individual to die right there and then because I know he or she would never recover, and would be a vegetable if anything. If you knew that the fetus had the disorder at the second trimester and that it has a 50 percent chance of being stillborn and a much, much higher chance of being dead within days, why go through it all? There is no point to it, you know it is a vegetable the minute it is diagnosed. As I said, if a person lost his forebrain, I would be for euthanasia. And yes, that means killing the fetus in this case through abortion. I do not view the fetus as a full human being because they lack that which makes us human beings. It is different for the guy in the accident, he was a human being at one point; the fetus never was a human being.

I mean, would you have let Terry Schiavo live or would you have pushed for euthanasia? If you say that you would have let her live, then it is a matter of our ethics differing; if you would have put her down, then why not the fetus?

As for the stomach brain, they are still researching that to figure out what it can do. From what I have read, it is basically a cluster of neural tissue that acts upon reflexes and is able to release neurotransmitters that can influence emotion, but there is nothing that shows it can function at the cognitive level.


I don't know, is it? I've never seen that show.

Yeah, the pigeon looks like it is. Check it out if on youtube if you ever have the chance.

[General Septem]

All right, before we stray too far away from the subject, I had talked about what constitutes a human being, and you had countered with what designates any other species. The point I was making with this whole business is that we're higher than other animals, and because of such, I do not have a problem with killing chickens for food either. I do have a problem with killing human beings though.

That's what I'm saying, that it's wrong for a human to kill another human. That's what animals do, and we're higher than animals. So now that that's out of the way.


It does matter though; why do we place ourselves in such high favor when compared to other species: because of our ability to think at a much higher degree than anything else on this planet. What do these individuals lack? The very thing that allows such a process to ever occur.

That connection is flawed. Yes, the reason we're higher than other animals is that we have the ability to reason, and it's for that very reason that we don't kill members of our own species. Reasonability or not, humans are still humans, heir to the same ability to reason that we are. They just don't have the ability to use this ability.


And if someone's forebrain was destroyed in an accident, I'd go for euthanasia. I'd allow the individual to die right there and then because I know he or she would never recover, and would be a vegetable if anything. If you knew that the fetus had the disorder at the second trimester and that it has a 50 percent chance of being stillborn and a much, much higher chance of being dead within days, why go through it all? There is no point to it, you know it is a vegetable the minute it is diagnosed. As I said, if a person lost his forebrain, I would be for euthanasia. And yes, that means killing the fetus in this case through abortion. I do not view the fetus as a full human being because they lack that which makes us human beings. It is different for the guy in the accident, he was a human being at one point; the fetus never was a human being.

You'd euthanise the guy automatically then? What happened to choice?


I mean, would you have let Terry Schiavo live or would you have pushed for euthanasia? If you say that you would have let her live, then it is a matter of our ethics differing; if you would have put her down, then why not the fetus?

Killing someone deliberately and terminating life support are two different things. In Teri Schiavo's case, she was not on life support, but if she were, I would not have had a problem with that life support being terminated to allow her to die naturally, since her condition was terminal anyway. But feeding someone is not life support, it's a basic human right, even if the food has to be supplied through a tube. Letting someone starve to death is inhumane whether they can feel it or not.


Yeah, the pigeon looks like it is. Check it out if on youtube if you ever have the chance.

I'll have to check it out some time. I just saw the GIF on net-net and I thought it was funny, so I put it in my sig.

[RandomPerson]

That connection is flawed. Yes, the reason we're higher than other animals is that we have the ability to reason, and it's for that very reason that we don't kill members of our own species. Reasonability or not, humans are still humans, heir to the same ability to reason that we are. They just don't have the ability to use this ability.

So, you're saying it is more ethical to let the individual live, place it under intensive care, and wait for it to die as bacteria much on the exposed brain stem? You're basically letting it rot until it dies. And the individual never was able to have the ability to begin with; it was never there.


You'd euthanise the guy automatically then? What happened to choice?

The reason why I'd euthanize him or her is because I would consider more ethical than to let him exist in a vegetative state. Frankly, if this were to ever happen to me, I would want to be put down rather than exist as a vegetable. And because he or she lost the ability to think, then he or she does not have choice because he or she cannot make the decision. Others fill this gap. Ultimately, it is up to the family, but I see it as more ethical to euthanize someone in that condition.


Killing someone deliberately and terminating life support are two different things. In Teri Schiavo's case, she was not on life support, but if she were, I would not have had a problem with that life support being terminated to allow her to die naturally, since her condition was terminal anyway. But feeding someone is not life support, it's a basic human right, even if the food has to be supplied through a tube. Letting someone starve to death is inhumane whether they can feel it or not.

Again, I believe it is more ethical to terminate the person rather than live as a vegetable. But as I said, I would not want myself to be a burden upon others because I am literally not there in the head. So, do not let them starve. There are ways to put the person to sleep without starvation.

[General Septem]

So, you're saying it is more ethical to let the individual live, place it under intensive care, and wait for it to die as bacteria much on the exposed brain stem? You're basically letting it rot until it dies. And the individual never was able to have the ability to begin with; it was never there.

It would be ethical to place the baby in care and let him or her die naturally and comfortably than to kill them.


The reason why I'd euthanize him or her is because I would consider more ethical than to let him exist in a vegetative state. Frankly, if this were to ever happen to me, I would want to be put down rather than exist as a vegetable. And because he or she lost the ability to think, then he or she does not have choice because he or she cannot make the decision. Others fill this gap. Ultimately, it is up to the family, but I see it as more ethical to euthanize someone in that condition.

So if someone is unable to make a choice, the choice is no longer his to make?


Again, I believe it is more ethical to terminate the person rather than live as a vegetable. But as I said, I would not want myself to be a burden upon others because I am literally not there in the head. So, do not let them starve. There are ways to put the person to sleep without starvation.

Well again, killing someone directly and terminating life support are two different things. If someone with a terminal illness is on life support with no hope of recovery, then terminating this life support would be ethical because the body would die naturally.

However, killing someone directly, either by removing their feeding tube and letting them starve to death like Teri Schiavo, or injecting a poison in them to "put them to sleep", is not ethical. As long as the body can sustain itself, one is not dead yet.

[RandomPerson]

It would be ethical to place the baby in care and let him or her die naturally and comfortably than to kill them.

As I said, I disagree on this point. Just because it is natural does not mean it is more comfortable and better.



So if someone is unable to make a choice, the choice is no longer his to make?

The person lost the ability to make the choice. He has no choice because he cannot form his own thoughts. He has the right to live if his family so chooses to, but if it their wish to see him not suffer in a vegetative state, then so be it. His choice is moved to the choice of his family, since he has lost it.


Well again, killing someone directly and terminating life support are two different things. If someone with a terminal illness is on life support with no hope of recovery, then terminating this life support would be ethical because the body would die naturally.

However, killing someone directly, either by removing their feeding tube and letting them starve to death like Teri Schiavo, or injecting a poison in them to "put them to sleep", is not ethical. As long as the body can sustain itself, one is not dead yet.

If the body can sustain itself, sure. But if it can't, then there is no reason. One is as good as dead if it cannot sustain itself. So, using Schiavo, she could not feed herself. She could not eat food if it was placed to her mouth or in it; they had to use feeding tubes. An infant can at least suck on its mother's tit for nourishment and let someone know it is hungry.

[General Septem]

As I said, I disagree on this point. Just because it is natural does not mean it is more comfortable and better.

Which option is "better" isn't up for debate, it's that no human should ever kill another human unless the other human is trying to hurt them.


The person lost the ability to make the choice. He has no choice because he cannot form his own thoughts. He has the right to live if his family so chooses to, but if it their wish to see him not suffer in a vegetative state, then so be it. His choice is moved to the choice of his family, since he has lost it.

If anyone ever tries to make any choice for me because they don't think I can, my unconscious self will kick their sorry ass.


If the body can sustain itself, sure. But if it can't, then there is no reason. One is as good as dead if it cannot sustain itself. So, using Schiavo, she could not feed herself. She could not eat food if it was placed to her mouth or in it; they had to use feeding tubes. An infant can at least suck on its mother's tit for nourishment and let someone know it is hungry.

That's what I'm saying. If the body can't sustain itself, and will not heal, then it is not wrong to remove their life support.

Feeding tubes are another matter, though. Just because the body needs food doesn't mean it can't sustain itself; we all need food. Many people can't eat for whatever reason, whether they cannot access any food because they live in poverty or because they are unconscious for an extended period of time. It is one's duty as this person's caregiver to make sure their patient is well-fed, even if it means food must be supplied through a feeding tube. If feeding is possible, you are letting the person starve by not feeding them.

Of course, you might say "well then instead of letting them starve, just put them to sleep". But now you're getting into directly killing them. So now you're talking about the difference between murdering someone, or letting them starve to death, neither of which are humane.

[theicidal maniac]

Which option is "better" isn't up for debate, it's that no human should ever kill another human unless the other human is trying to hurt them.

You are saying that what is better is not up for debate. But what you fail to recognize is that the "better" that you are referring to is going to be something that is going to be a better situation for an individual life. For you, that means "what is better for the developing cell-cluster that may become a human life" and for me it is "what is better for the established member of our current social structure." Either way, to say that a thing is better for an individual reveals it's position as an opinion. Opinion is ALWAYS open to debate, except in a fascist environment of absolutism, such as one might find in the dogmatic mind.



That's what I'm saying. If the body can't sustain itself, and will not heal, then it is not wrong to remove their life support.

An embryo cannot sustain itself, so therefore (according to what you just said) it is not wrong to remove it from it's life support system; the womb.


Feeding tubes are another matter, though. Just because the body needs food doesn't mean it can't sustain itself; we all need food. Many people can't eat for whatever reason, whether they cannot access any food because they live in poverty or because they are unconscious for an extended period of time. It is one's duty as this person's caregiver to make sure their patient is well-fed, even if it means food must be supplied through a feeding tube. If feeding is possible, you are letting the person starve by not feeding them.

Of course, you might say "well then instead of letting them starve, just put them to sleep". But now you're getting into directly killing them. So now you're talking about the difference between murdering someone, or letting them starve to death, neither of which are humane.

The issue here and the question to ask when considering pulling the plug should be an issue of quality of life. Will this person be able to have a quality life again? Will those who surround this person still be able to live quality lives. You are trying to make distinctions based on the origin of their sustenance (biological [food] or synthetic [breathing tube]) that are simply opinion. Asthmatics often have attacks in which they cannot breathe without help from a man-made inhaler, and I have met many people who live happy lives but will forever be attatched to oxygen tanks. Looking at it this way doesn't solve the issue at all, because you are just arbitrarily making up rules, instead of investigating social impact. We should be trying to make life better for HUMANITY, not just for a few individuals. If that means aborting an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy for the greater good of the world, so be it. The last thing we need is MORE people who don't feel loved.

[ajk]

You are saying that what is better is not up for debate. But what you fail to recognize is that the "better" that you are referring to is going to be something that is going to be a better situation for an individual life. For you, that means "what is better for the developing cell-cluster that may become a human life" and for me it is "what is better for the established member of our current social structure." Either way, to say that a thing is better for an individual reveals it's position as an opinion. Opinion is ALWAYS open to debate, except in a fascist environment of absolutism, such as one might find in the dogmatic mind.

Not exactly. Murdering another is always wrong. That's not an opinion, that's plain fact.

[something]

Not exactly. Murdering another is always wrong. That's not an opinion, that's plain fact.

But if a fetus is a human or not, that's an opinion.

[ajk]

No it's a fact that a fetus is a person just as much as an infant, teenager or adult is a person.

[Ausinus]

No it's a fact that a fetus is a person just as much as an infant, teenager or adult is a person.

You keep insisting this but you have not been able to prove it.

[ajk]

I've proved it time and time again to you, or at least attempted to. You just don't get it, every time it ends up that way.

[Ausinus]

I've proved it time and time again to you, or at least attempted to. You just don't get it, every time it ends up that way.

No you havent proved it. Which means that it is not fact.

[ajk]

Yes I have. You just don't want to believe it.

[something]

Yes I have. You just don't want to believe it.

How? A basic thing for a human is thinking, and thinking requires a BRAIN.
And the last time I checked, fetuses doesn't have one, so it's stupid to belive that they are humans, since the brain that makes human is missing.

[ajk]

Wrong. It's unique human DNA makes it a person.

[theicidal maniac]

Wrong. It's unique human DNA makes it a person.

Human DNA is far from unique. Every living thing on the planet has DNA, and it's all fairly similar. In animals it's VERY similar, and in mammals it's nearly indistinguishable and among primates IT'S NEARLY IDENTICAL.

[ajk]

The point is, we are the only ones that have HUMAN DNA. Not animal not mammal, human. Regardless of how little the difference it sets us apart from the rest.

[unclepops07]

I'm all for abortion.
I, myself being adopted as a child believe that the female of the species has the primary say on the most difficult decision on the planet.

Whether to keep their child or not?

There are so many unwanted children in the world.
I used to hate my mother for what she did, but after a little education.... after a little realisation.... I believe she felt she had no choice or just couldn't cope with idea of dedicating her life to another life maybe she wasn't mentally or financially prepared to take me on. I have\and have had a great life growing up. However when I see little kids without their parents or teenage mothers that recent their children I often wonder what their own personal circumstances were to end up where they are now.

Without sounding too morbid. I believe that abortions should not only be free but also should be as easy to organise as an appointment to the dentists.

I am a father now myself, Liam is 8 years old.
A girlfriend from a previous relationship aborted "our" child. We felt it was a good decision, but when i look at her now..... I know she regrets it. I think she still secretly celebrates his/her birthday every year. Which breaks my heart. I see it in her eyes.
Like i said before. She made the most difficult decision on the planet, volentarily killing "our" potential child.

[something]

Wrong. It's unique human DNA makes it a person.

A dead body has uniqe human DNA, but is it possible to murder it? Don't think so. A philosophic qoute is "I think, so I am" and there's no way you can disagree with that. You think, so you are, and if you were dead you couldn't think, so you couldn't be.

Now if fetuses can think or not is hard to tell, but we know that thinking requries a brain, and in the early pregnacy they haven't developed one.

[ajk]

A girlfriend from a previous relationship aborted "our" child. We felt it was a good decision, but when i look at her now..... I know she regrets it. I think she still secretly celebrates his/her birthday every year. Which breaks my heart. I see it in her eyes.
Like i said before. She made the most difficult decision on the planet, volentarily killing "our" potential child.

If you know she regrets it, why would you wish that sort of feeling on other women like her? Incidentally too, do you wish you had that child now looking back?

[unclepops07]

She's always agreed it was the right thing to do at the time. However, it's something that will never leave her mind. (or mine)

It's a bitter choice i guess: Kill a feotus or give a kid a shit life, with shit parents, and shit circumstances.

[ajk]

Wouldn't it be better though to give the child a chance to make something of himself/herself in this world then to kill it?

[something]

Wouldn't it be better though to give the child a chance to make something of himself/herself in this world then to kill it?

No. Why? Because we have to think about the people that is going to raise this child. Now, I know, uncle said that his girlfriend regreted her abortion, but I know a few that doesn't.

Abortion is a right, if it's wrong or not is an opinion, and if you want it or not you can choose.

[ajk]

No it's not an opinion as to if it's right or wrong, it's a plain out fact that is wrong. Second abortion is not a right, it's a license to kill that's what it is. We have no right to take away the life of another willingly unless in self defense. Regardless of what the government says about it, we still have no business doing that.

As for the comment about the people who are going to raise the child, it's called a sacrifice. If you aren't willing to sacrifice your time for this child that needs you, you probably shouldn't be having sex for one, and two if you do have sex and conceive then give it to a family who is willing to sacrifice their time. There are plenty out there.

[MrJim]

As for the comment about the people who are going to raise the child, it's called a sacrifice. If you aren't willing to sacrifice your time for this child that needs you, you probably shouldn't be having sex for one, and two if you do have sex and conceive then give it to a family who is willing to sacrifice their time. There are plenty out there.

You would be on the right page here, except replace the word "sex" with "kids". You already voiced your opinions on birth control before, which kicks abortion out of the picture altogether..

[beelzebub]

The point is, we are the only ones that have HUMAN DNA. Not animal not mammal, human. Regardless of how little the difference it sets us apart from the rest.

Your point is WRONG! We have DNA that is shared by many other creatures. some of our genes are identical to other living things that are drastically different.

Humans ARE animals you dingleberry! If you insist that we are not animals please choose the kingdom to which you think we belong:

Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Eubacteria or Archaebacteria.

Furthermore we ARE MAMMALS. Find you mom and look at the big bumps on her chest. Those are called mammary glands (Tits, Boobs, Hooters, Breasts) which identifies her as a mammal. Mammals are also distinguished by hair and special bones in the ear.

The examples you have provided UNIFY us with other organisms. They do not set us apart. We share 96-99% of our DNA with a chimpanzee.

[ajk]

I am not wrong in the least. When you combine everything together, we have unique characteristics about us that make us human.

[ajk]

You would be on the right page here, except replace the word "sex" with "kids". You already voiced your opinions on birth control before, which kicks abortion out of the picture altogether..

Yeah that is true. Either way though, the point I was trying to make is the same.

[beelzebub]

I am not wrong in the least. When you combine everything together, we have unique characteristics about us that make us human.

Whatever little boy. You need to listen and learn. There are characteristics that make us human but we are not drastically (or even moderately) different from other organisms.

You would think that a person without a high school diploma would listen to a Biology Teacher who holds 2 college degrees in Biology and one in teaching.

But,... You cannot teach the unwilling.....

[ajk]

Whatever little boy. You need to listen and learn. There are characteristics that make us human but we are not drastically (or even moderately) different from other organisms.

Yes but those little differences are enough. And please don't judge me. I do my best not to judge you, so I'd like the same courtesy. As I've said before I did graduate and get my diploma 2 years ago now.

[beelzebub]

Yes but those little differences are enough.

Are enough for what????

[ajk]

Enough to separate us from the rest of the world's organisms.

[buttless_wonder]

Regardless of myopinion on the subject I really have no right to tell a woman what she can or can not do to HER body. I wish anti-abortion people would understand this simple concept.

[MrJim]

Yeah that is true. Either way though, the point I was trying to make is the same.

That killing babies is wrong.
But (for you) killing sperm by the means of spermicidal condoms is wrong.

Problem is, having a 'wet dream' is the same as having birth control play a part in having sex, except that a wet dream is messier. And you will have them until you have sex or masturbate. Gross.

[beelzebub]

Enough to separate us from the rest of the world's organisms.

Thats .... so ... so ... stupid! But lets play with it...

You realize (I hope) that you could find distinguishing factors for all organisms. Therefore we could then say that all the organisms are seperate from each other.
Realize, However; That focusing on one or two unique factors would ignore that VAST similarities that the organisms have in common.

That would be ignorance and it does not match reality.

Judeo-Religious people are always trying to separate humans from other organisms. WHY? Because the religion is one of a hierarchy (King, Lord, Duke, Baron,......... Pauper) and they have to have that in every aspect of their life (even imposing it on nature). I tell you that nature is not based on on this governance system and we are a part of this world and not separate from it. To deny this goes against nature and is FOOLISH.