Abortion puzzles me

[TBone48]

What other legal things involve killing someone?
[/quote]

The war in Iraq?[/quote]

The death penalty? Justifiable homicide? (Killing someone in self-defense.)[/quote]

OK, the death penalty is valid, and many people fight against it. However, it (in theory) involves someone judged to be sane who has committed an act determined to be worthy of death. An unborn child has done nothing to anyone.

As for self defense, that also involves someone taking concious action. I don't see it being applicable here either.

edit: sorry, my quoting skilz aren't.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
What I want to know is...when does the US Constitution start protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? And when does it stop?

You are not a citizen or a resident until you're given a birth certificate (at birth). The Constitution starts protecting your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness the day you are issued a birth certificate (assuming you're born here).

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: joedrake
Sweet. I'm gonna go murder 5 people (whom have no friends or close family)... don't worry about them, though, (or me) its none of your business.

This issue is not black/white, zealot. You are a simpleton if you believe that this issue is simplistic as you state.

Although it saddens me to see babies getting aborted especially in later stages, the choice is the mother's alone. It's a choice made between the mother, the doctor, and God/Allah/Buddah (if she is religious).

Of course this is not a simple issue, but it should be. Murder/life aren't hard concepts to grasp.
You say the mother, doctor, and spiritual figure are involved, but what about the baby? If everyone in America hated a certain person, and they all voted to murder him, would it be justified? Should that person's life be taken away because no one wants him? No. He could move away .. to another country, for example (the equivalent of putting a baby up for adoption, in this scenario).
I can't speak for Buddah or Allah, but I know that if that person believes in God (the true God) then they should believe in the commandments. The 5th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", makes this topic pretty clear. Same goes with the non-christian branches, however, not as specific (Judaism).

Don't put words in my mouth. You are attempting to use examples irrelevant with the issue at hand to assume my beliefs. There are no examples that parallels with this issue.

As far as your examples of Christianity, you do know that the Bible contains many bloody battles and wars? Not only that, but in some scenarios, God aided certain characters in battles?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
*walks up and down aisles of ATOTers sitting in lawn chairs and sells snacks and beverages*

peanuts!! hothots!! cold beer!!! git em right here....peeeanuts!!! red hots!!! sour patch kids!! raisanettes!!! sodas!!! nachos!! git em right here!!!


and no coupons ya muther neffers!!!

Hey, see that cute blonde woman who just walked by in a bikinni? Bring her over, will ya?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

actually, in california (ironically), a guy was convicted of murder of both his wife and unborn child.

can't remember the case, it was a real big (national) one that hit the news a lot.

Scott Peterson

i thought it was Peterson, but wasn't sure, thanks

My friend is named Scott Peterson During the whole ordeal he had to show so many people his license.

 

[JDrake]

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: JS80
Yet your wife can "choose" to "abort" the baby and you can't do a damn thing and it's sanctioned by the government.

Yet, it's her body that's supporting the developing fetus.

Which, of course, was spontaneously created, requiring no sperm from a man. :roll:

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

False. One is sentient, one is most definitely not.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

WTF? A embryo is NOT equal to a human life.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Again, I was born at 7 months. Doctors are performing surgery on un-born babies earlier and earlier. Don't tell me a 5- to 6-month un-born baby can't feel pain.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Nine. NINE is the number you're looking for. Granted, it varies a bit from state-to-state, and I'm not 100% up-to-date on my laws.

I think three months would be a good compromise for abortion IMHO, but of course there IS no compromise in this debate. Only lies and insults.

I've got a great idea. (1)Abort all the rabid pro-choice people, (2)Abort all the rabid pro-life people, and (3)Have a SOMEWHAT rational and fact-based discussion about it, using that to set the governing laws.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

False. One is sentient, one is most definitely not.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

WTF? A embryo is NOT equal to a human life.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Tell you what, you worry about yourself and stop carring about what the rest of us do mmmkay?

It's really none of your business.

Put perfectly.

Sweet. I'm gonna go murder 5 people (whom have no friends or close family)... don't worry about them, though, (or me) its none of your business.

This issue is not black/white, zealot. You are a simpleton if you believe that this issue is simplistic as you state.

Although it saddens me to see babies getting aborted especially in later stages, the choice is the mother's alone. It's a choice made between the mother, the doctor, and God/Allah/Buddah (if she is religious).

It isn't the mothers choice. How can any sane person say that it's up to her if she wants to kill a child? She already made her choice.

She decided to risk pregnancy, which has consequences and responsibilities. If she doesn't want those responsibilities then she should abstain from sexual relations or make damn sure that there are two methods of birth control being used. Abortion used as birth control is just sickening.

That sentence is proof that you are the product of misinformation. Please inform yourself of actual facts and statistics before you open your mouth again.

By the wording of your last paragraph, you would support abortion if two methods of birth control are being used. This happens in real life. There is no 100% fool-proof method for preventing pregnancy. Even abstinence is not fool-proof. The successful transfer of semen can occur without intercourse.

How about rape? The woman should make sure that the rapist is using a condom, right?

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: SLCentral

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Nine. NINE is the number you're looking for. Granted, it varies a bit from state-to-state, and I'm not 100% up-to-date on my laws.

I think three months would be a good compromise for abortion IMHO, but of course there IS no compromise in this debate. Only lies and insults.

I've got a great idea. (1)Abort all the rabid pro-choice people, (2)Abort all the rabid pro-life people, and (3)Have a SOMEWHAT rational and fact-based discussion about it, using that to set the governing laws.

Then I'll be honest, and say I was mistaken.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

False. One is sentient, one is most definitely not.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

Excellent response. I cannot contend with your gargantuan adversarial wit. I bow to you.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: SLCentral

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Nine. NINE is the number you're looking for. Granted, it varies a bit from state-to-state, and I'm not 100% up-to-date on my laws.

I think three months would be a good compromise for abortion IMHO, but of course there IS no compromise in this debate. Only lies and insults.

I've got a great idea. (1)Abort all the rabid pro-choice people, (2)Abort all the rabid pro-life people, and (3)Have a SOMEWHAT rational and fact-based discussion about it, using that to set the governing laws.

I think a ban on all third-trimester abortions, except in cases of rape and incest, is perfectly justified.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die? Your logic is non-existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: OdiN
Abortion = Muder

Plain and simple. As said, there are only a few cases in which I can understand why - a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, etc.

Think of it this way. A mother who is say 2 months pregnant is mugged and stabbed, which causes her unborn child to die. Would you want the mugger charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder?

The embryo is not living on it's own; it requires the mothers support in order to survive. Therefore, the MOTHER has control as to what she wants to do with the baby. Therefore, no, it is not murder. It's her body.

Newborns require support to survive too. How many of them can feed themselves?

I still think 2 years old is a good cut-off point for "abortion" because by then they can at least walk and try to find food. :laugh:

In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

WTF? A embryo is NOT equal to a human life.

Both are human lives. Killing one is no different than killing the other.

I'm not going to even bother arguing this one.

 

[JDrake]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
That sentence is proof that you are the product of misinformation. Please inform yourself of actual facts and statistics before you open your mouth again.

By the wording of your last paragraph, you would support abortion if two methods of birth control are being used. This happens in real life. There is no 100% fool-proof method for preventing pregnancy. Even abstinence is not fool-proof. The successful transfer of semen can occur without intercourse.

How about rape? The woman should make sure that the rapist is using a condom, right?

So much for actual facts.

Rape: (quote myself)

Sure, I can symphasize with people who were raped, but that doesn't give the person the right to end/prevent another's life.
They should be spending their time and money trying to find and stop the rapists instead on abortion.

 

[SLCentral]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die. Your logic is none existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

I took a Honors Biology class last year, BTW.

The difference between a two year old toddler and a 90 year old man is much less significant then it and a embryo. An embryo relies on feeding through a tube in the mothers uterus, while a two year old does not .

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die. Your logic is none existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

I took a Honors Biology class last year, BTW.

The difference between a two year old toddler and a 90 year old man is much less significant then it and a embryo. An embryo relies on feeding through a tube in the mothers uterus, while a two year old does not .

What about the newborn? They can't feed themselves either.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: SLCentral

Originally posted by: joedrake

Originally posted by: SLCentral
In the first 4 (or whatever many of months it is legal to get an abortion until) the embryo is completely reliant on the physical body of the mother. Nor does it react, respond, talk, etc., so it is not comparable to a 2 year old toddler.

SLCentral aren't you in 10th grade?
Please take a real biology class and then try and act smart.

I wonder what percentage of the people posting in this thread have taken a college-level Biology class. It is irrelevant. Even if my post was not 100% accurate scientifically regarding the movement of the baby, the fact is that a embryo is NOT equal to a two year old toddler.

What is your point? A 2 year old toddler is not the same as a 90 year old man either so killing him isn't much of a crime because he is about to die? Your logic is non-existent.

You really need that class in Biology.

It's sad you failed to see the logic in his claim and had to instead attack a perceived lack of biology education (which is really unnecessary in this argument).

A 2 year old and a 90 year old are sentient beings, a 4 month old embryo is not.

I pity you.