Pro-lifers, please explain this to me

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: abj13
False. Up to 70% of ALL fertilized eggs never make it to birth, its called spontaneous abortion. For a multitude of intrinsic reasons, most zygotes fail during development. In addition, some zygotes decide they want to become "two" individuals, hence identical twins. So your premise is entirely BS.

Miscarriage != abprtion dumbass

Originally posted by: abj13

Having unique DNA is not unique. In a single human body, one would be hard pressed to find two cells with exactly the same DNA sequence. If one is arguing that having different DNA is sufficient for being an individual, then a tumor would qualify as being an "individual." Clearly that's an absurd argument make.

Whatever you say. Just because you have an opinion about something doesnt make it correct. Some things are true whether you believe ot or not. Your statement is taken out of context, therefor invalid.

Your context is the absurd assumption that unique DNA actually means something. You eat eggs for breakfast but you call abortion murder. You were taught to think that and live with the fantasy that what you were taught is better than what others were taught because you feel so bad about yourself you need some external bull shit belief to substitute for real self love. You think all the women in the world should think like you so you can maintain your lunatic fiction.

Youre an ass. I wasnt "taught" anything, but rather made my own decision after studying in a lab environment. Why is it that those who believe life starts at birth are somehow brainwashed? Youre closed mindedness is whats wrong with the world. Its not your hate of yourself, its your hate and disrespect of others.

Did you see what I wrote? Or did you read through partisan eyes? I never said I would outlaw abortion. Quite the contrary actually. Read again.

The fact that I'm an ass or don't read good hasn't anything to do with anything. Once you're taught something you see the evidence that supports that.

Perhaps when I read about an opposing view I didnt read good either, therefor its irrelevant.

If the point had nothing to do with anything, yes, or if was based on assumptions and not facts in evidence.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


If the point had nothing to do with anything, yes, or if was based on assumptions and not facts in evidence.

We agree.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Pro-life individuals believe that life begins at the time of conception, and is to be valued as a human life and respected as such-to terminate it is murder. Could be religious reasons or whatever, but it's fair to say this is what y'all believe, right?

Most of you, however, feel that exceptions should be made in the case of rape and incest. In fact, it's really only the outliers who feel that abortion should still be illegal for victims of rape.

My question is, how can you be pro-life for the above reasons, but only in cases where the chick was having a good time? Is the life that develops as the product of rape no longer a life? Should it not be valued?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, it's a legitimate question. Why is the sanctity of life only in place when it's the product of voluntary sexual intercourse?

EDIT: I didn't say anything about the damn death penalty!

Me and Jonks got into this awhile back.

You're right in that it's inconsistent to believe in humanity at conception AND that abortion is permissable in cases of rape.

I don't excuse abortion in cases of rape. The simple question in such a case is, "Who is at fault?" Certainly not the mother, but certainly not the child either. The fault lies squarely on the part of the rapist. Why, then, is it permissable to murder the child, who is just as innocent as a child conceived consensually?

I think what you see most often is pro-life people who mean that they are much quicker to forgive someone who aborts after being raped, then someone who aborts after consensually having sex in full knowledge of the consequences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
Pro-life individuals believe that life begins at the time of conception, and is to be valued as a human life and respected as such-to terminate it is murder. Could be religious reasons or whatever, but it's fair to say this is what y'all believe, right?

Most of you, however, feel that exceptions should be made in the case of rape and incest. In fact, it's really only the outliers who feel that abortion should still be illegal for victims of rape.

My question is, how can you be pro-life for the above reasons, but only in cases where the chick was having a good time? Is the life that develops as the product of rape no longer a life? Should it not be valued?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here, it's a legitimate question. Why is the sanctity of life only in place when it's the product of voluntary sexual intercourse?

EDIT: I didn't say anything about the damn death penalty!

Me and Jonks got into this awhile back.

You're right in that it's inconsistent to believe in humanity at conception AND that abortion is permissable in cases of rape.

I don't excuse abortion in cases of rape. The simple question in such a case is, "Who is at fault?" Certainly not the mother, but certainly not the child either. The fault lies squarely on the part of the rapist. Why, then, is it permissable to murder the child, who is just as innocent as a child conceived consensually?

I think what you see most often is pro-life people who mean that they are much quicker to forgive someone who aborts after being raped, then someone who aborts after consensually having sex in full knowledge of the consequences.

You are right except for one thing. What you call a child is collection of cells that have no consciousness and are not alive and human by law. They aren't innocent or guilty. They are nonentities. The human life you want to protect is all in your head. Your mental imagination does not make a bunch of cells legally human. You have create your own mental prison and can only go round and round in your cell. You are saying a woman shouldn't be able to abort a rock. Again, the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave. The woman is definitely human so the fetus is not. Law is a means by which we make sense out of absolutist prisons.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: KIRBYEE
Why do you want to give your rights and freedom away to the government?

Let the individual be responsible.

Why is pedophilia illegal? Because it is dangerous for children, and because sometimes adults don't have children's best interest in mind, thus we allow the government to remove the "right" to have sex with children. So too abortion is both dangerous for children and proof the adult does not have the child's best interest in mind. If the government is not okay with a child being raped, then it certainly cannot be complicit with a child being murdered.

Let the individual child live.

It's not a child. It's a fetus that happens to be a part of the mother, that can potentially become a child. Therefore, it's the mother's choice.

In your opinion, when does that choice end?

Fair question. In my opinion, which is based on nothing more, really, than gut feel, is that somewhere in the sixth month is when the fetus becomes developed enough that it should be taken to full term unless there's some compelling reason to abort it.

If, however, the woman is one or two months along and simply decides she doesn't want to have a child, then she's perfectly within her right to choose to abort it. It's between that one or two months and the six month point that she would really need to do some soul searching to make sure she's doing the right thing for her.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigot cannot see his bigotry which means he can't see his own garbage. Bigotry is the unconscious bias that turns garbage into gold. His bigotry is a part of his ego identity, in this case how good a person he is pretends he having become a Christian. To die to that would be to expose himself to how worthless his ego identity keeps him from really feeling, how worthless he was actually made to feel as a natural programmed human being.

He doesn't even get what it means to die to be reborn even though it's part of his religion because even the great religion of Christianity has been perverted by the ego it was meant to transcend. Except in rare cases Christianity has become another factory for the production of fanatics.

Christians as a whole are a group who act in a way that is so offensive they guarantee they get to feel like martyrs. There is no persecution complex more self fulling than being an asshole who thinks he means well.

Hamlet, Act III, Scene II

Hamlet: "Madam, how like you this play?"

Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, me-thinks."


The literary interpretation of Gertrude is that the lady makes such bold assertions, beyond even hyperbole, hence her words cannot be trusted. Certainly no one in P&N would accuse Moonbeam of having a slither of credibility with which to begin that one would entertain relying upon any of his many sweeping stereotypes. Yet the ridiculous protestations from Moonbeam do lend themselves to an even further negative opinion of him, if this be possible considering the amount of vice already present.

The prevailing non-literary interpretation of Gertrude is that the lady objects with such frequency and fervor, hence she appears quite guilty. Objections, declarations, and accusations of particular emotional energy do often arise from the inner self-hate of those guilty of the same complicity and very crimes (often worse even) of those they accuse. Moonbeam vainly attempts to quell his inner turmoil over the evil of abortion by an appearance of intellectual showcase, but the unfortunate result is intellectual dishonesty of which both learned and not can easily identify. The murder of purely innocent unborn children cannot be reasoned away neither in theses nor tomes, for the more that is said using any device, the more guilt is shown obvious in every event.


Jesus Christ said in Matthew ch 18:

3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."

Children are an earnest blessing and an evident lesson in how we should love one another and have faith in our heavenly Father. To quash their lives by the hand of the law before they even have the opportunity breath air and feel the sun is markedly the greatest sin of the last half century.


Dr. Seuss said: "A person's a person, no matter how small."

What great wisdom!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1I would keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also, and of he didnt, it would be illegal to come after him for ANY support. You can make the choice, but you must live with the consequences.

I'm confused. You're saying that if the father does NOT consent to an abortion (and the woman carries the fetus to term), he is NOT liable for child support? I would think in this case the father would get sole custody of the child and that the woman would not be liable for child support.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. there are many times the father is either suspected or not known. In that case, if the woman doesnt get consent and decides to give birth, the man in question isnt responsible. Or if the woman haves the child and the man denies responsibility due to not having say so in the birth.

I realize this may not ever happen, but its what I would propose. There was even a case a decade ago where the man presented a document that was to be notarized saying if the woman becomes preggers he will NOT support the baby. Unfortunately it didnt hold up in court as a valid legal document.

Maybe you SHOULD get a Harley, you don't have to tell me all reasons why you wouldn't, but that Honda seems to have gotten your rectum so constipated you have shit accumulating in your head.

SERIOUSLY! You don't get why a man can't own a womans body and you don't consider yourself indoctrinated?

There are a lot of the likes of you where i am at.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1I would keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also, and of he didnt, it would be illegal to come after him for ANY support. You can make the choice, but you must live with the consequences.

I'm confused. You're saying that if the father does NOT consent to an abortion (and the woman carries the fetus to term), he is NOT liable for child support? I would think in this case the father would get sole custody of the child and that the woman would not be liable for child support.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. there are many times the father is either suspected or not known. In that case, if the woman doesnt get consent and decides to give birth, the man in question isnt responsible. Or if the woman haves the child and the man denies responsibility due to not having say so in the birth.

I realize this may not ever happen, but its what I would propose. There was even a case a decade ago where the man presented a document that was to be notarized saying if the woman becomes preggers he will NOT support the baby. Unfortunately it didnt hold up in court as a valid legal document.

Maybe you SHOULD get a Harley, you don't have to tell me all reasons why you wouldn't, but that Honda seems to have gotten your rectum so constipated you have shit accumulating in your head.

SERIOUSLY! You don't get why a man can't own a womans body and you don't consider yourself indoctrinated?

There are a lot of the likes of you where i am at.

thanks for the attack on my beliefs and the failure on your part to comprehend. All I can say is

fuck

you

and

yours

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigot cannot see his bigotry which means he can't see his own garbage. Bigotry is the unconscious bias that turns garbage into gold. His bigotry is a part of his ego identity, in this case how good a person he is pretends he having become a Christian. To die to that would be to expose himself to how worthless his ego identity keeps him from really feeling, how worthless he was actually made to feel as a natural programmed human being.

He doesn't even get what it means to die to be reborn even though it's part of his religion because even the great religion of Christianity has been perverted by the ego it was meant to transcend. Except in rare cases Christianity has become another factory for the production of fanatics.

Christians as a whole are a group who act in a way that is so offensive they guarantee they get to feel like martyrs. There is no persecution complex more self fulling than being an asshole who thinks he means well.

Hamlet, Act III, Scene II

Hamlet: "Madam, how like you this play?"

Queen Gertrude: "The lady doth protest too much, me-thinks."


The literary interpretation of Gertrude is that the lady makes such bold assertions, beyond even hyperbole, hence her words cannot be trusted. Certainly no one in P&N would accuse Moonbeam of having a slither of credibility with which to begin that one would entertain relying upon any of his many sweeping stereotypes. Yet the ridiculous protestations from Moonbeam do lend themselves to an even further negative opinion of him, if this be possible considering the amount of vice already present.

The prevailing non-literary interpretation of Gertrude is that the lady objects with such frequency and fervor, hence she appears quite guilty. Objections, declarations, and accusations of particular emotional energy do often arise from the inner self-hate of those guilty of the same complicity and very crimes (often worse even) of those they accuse. Moonbeam vainly attempts to quell his inner turmoil over the evil of abortion by an appearance of intellectual showcase, but the unfortunate result is intellectual dishonesty of which both learned and not can easily identify. The murder of purely innocent unborn children cannot be reasoned away neither in theses nor tomes, for the more that is said using any device, the more guilt is shown obvious in every event.


Jesus Christ said in Matthew ch 18:

3 And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."

Children are an earnest blessing and an evident lesson in how we should love one another and have faith in our heavenly Father. To quash their lives by the hand of the law before they even have the opportunity breath air and feel the sun is markedly the greatest sin of the last half century.


Dr. Seuss said: "A person's a person, no matter how small."

What great wisdom!

Incredible stupidity written in prose isn't wisdom you retarded fool, neither is using prose that has nothing to do with the subject to prove something anything but stupid.

You, son, are stupid beyond all belief, probably a product of the indoctrination you have been subjected to, but hold on, there are deprogramming clinics, go find one.

How many children do you have? I've got two and i love them more than life, way, way more than life. But would i be so retarded that i would have ever thought that i have a right to decide over a womans body? Absolutely not. Would i ever be so retarded that i just shunned all available evidence just so i could keep some stupid belief alive? NO!

I'm sorry, but you don't even get your own quotes, i feel sad for you.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1I would keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also, and of he didnt, it would be illegal to come after him for ANY support. You can make the choice, but you must live with the consequences.

I'm confused. You're saying that if the father does NOT consent to an abortion (and the woman carries the fetus to term), he is NOT liable for child support? I would think in this case the father would get sole custody of the child and that the woman would not be liable for child support.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. there are many times the father is either suspected or not known. In that case, if the woman doesnt get consent and decides to give birth, the man in question isnt responsible. Or if the woman haves the child and the man denies responsibility due to not having say so in the birth.

I realize this may not ever happen, but its what I would propose. There was even a case a decade ago where the man presented a document that was to be notarized saying if the woman becomes preggers he will NOT support the baby. Unfortunately it didnt hold up in court as a valid legal document.

Maybe you SHOULD get a Harley, you don't have to tell me all reasons why you wouldn't, but that Honda seems to have gotten your rectum so constipated you have shit accumulating in your head.

SERIOUSLY! You don't get why a man can't own a womans body and you don't consider yourself indoctrinated?

There are a lot of the likes of you where i am at.

thanks for the attack on my beliefs and the failure on your part to comprehend. All I can say is

fuck

you

and

yours

You just said fuck you to the three teams that are around here, one of them is American.

That is very cute of you because no one around here gives a fuck.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1I would keep abortion legal so long as the father was required to give consent also, and of he didnt, it would be illegal to come after him for ANY support. You can make the choice, but you must live with the consequences.

I'm confused. You're saying that if the father does NOT consent to an abortion (and the woman carries the fetus to term), he is NOT liable for child support? I would think in this case the father would get sole custody of the child and that the woman would not be liable for child support.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. there are many times the father is either suspected or not known. In that case, if the woman doesnt get consent and decides to give birth, the man in question isnt responsible. Or if the woman haves the child and the man denies responsibility due to not having say so in the birth.

I realize this may not ever happen, but its what I would propose. There was even a case a decade ago where the man presented a document that was to be notarized saying if the woman becomes preggers he will NOT support the baby. Unfortunately it didnt hold up in court as a valid legal document.

Maybe you SHOULD get a Harley, you don't have to tell me all reasons why you wouldn't, but that Honda seems to have gotten your rectum so constipated you have shit accumulating in your head.

SERIOUSLY! You don't get why a man can't own a womans body and you don't consider yourself indoctrinated?

There are a lot of the likes of you where i am at.

thanks for the attack on my beliefs and the failure on your part to comprehend. All I can say is

fuck

you

and

yours

You just said fuck you to the three teams that are around here, one of them is American.

That is very cute of you because no one around here gives a fuck.

hehe you got that right!

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I fit your profile and don't see a contradiction. I believe that you choosing to have sex is your choice to accept the consequences of that action which could include having a child. In the case of rape, the woman is not choosing to have a child, thus abortion would be an option. ...

I see no problems with my point of view.

So, you basically are pro-life because the mother should be punished for having sex and getting pregnant?

How is she being punished? Did you even read what I wrote?

Being unwillingly compelled to endure an unwanted and unnecessary consequence is pretty much a punishment by definition -- at least it is in our language.

That is aside from the fact that your reasoning itself is abysmal on its face. Accepting potential consequences is not the same thing as consenting to each and every one of those potential consequences -- especially when a particular consequence invovles a violation of one's fundamental bodily rights. For example, driving a car in traffic implicitly assumes the potential consequence of being involved in an injury collision, but you do not automatically waive your rights to seek restitution to such injury every time you get behind the wheel.

Waivers to bodily rights must be explicit. That fact is well established in precedent.

I disagree with your analogy. When you get behind the wheel, are you consenting to the risk of injury, and you definitely have the right to seek restitution if you are injured however this is not the same as keeping a child. In one case, two people consent to the direct risks of their actions. In the other case, one person is injuring another and the one is seeking restitution for that injury. One has nothing to do with the other.

My point is EXTREMELY simple, so do not make additional assumptions about it. A woman HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Having sex is the choice. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to fully accept the consequences of what could happen. If she doesn't want to have a child growing inside of her, then she should not have sex. It's a very simple position and it's my own oppinion.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

i agree also. the government should not have the right to tell people what to do, but i will always choose life.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

i agree also. the government should not have the right to tell people what to do, but i will always choose life.

Does the government have the right to tell you not to kill your neighbor?

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't excuse abortion in cases of rape. The simple question in such a case is, "Who is at fault?" Certainly not the mother, but certainly not the child either. The fault lies squarely on the part of the rapist. Why, then, is it permissable to murder the child, who is just as innocent as a child conceived consensually?

I think what you see most often is pro-life people who mean that they are much quicker to forgive someone who aborts after being raped, then someone who aborts after consensually having sex in full knowledge of the consequences.

You are right except for one thing. What you call a child is collection of cells that have no consciousness and are not alive and human by law. They aren't innocent or guilty. They are nonentities. The human life you want to protect is all in your head. Your mental imagination does not make a bunch of cells legally human. You have create your own mental prison and can only go round and round in your cell. You are saying a woman shouldn't be able to abort a rock. Again, the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave. The woman is definitely human so the fetus is not. Law is a means by which we make sense out of absolutist prisons.

What you say is not human life, is human life by nature. When a blade of grass starts emerging from a seed, it may not be a fullgrown blade of grass, but it's a living piece of grass... Likewise, a human fetus is a growing, living, human life. It is human in that it comes from humans and will be a fullgrown human one day, and it is living in that it is growing and maturing. Now how you get to the dilemma that

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave

I have no idea, haven't been reading these boards enough in a while to know how in the world this came about. Is a mother ant a slave to her little antlings? Is a cat a slave to her litter? I think the word "slave" may be a little harsh, but whether or not that cat or ant had cat/ant sex with full knowledge and consent that it would bring about little younglings, there is something about life, in general, that says that the mother cares for her babes, and even has some sort of obligation to do so. I don't think you can argue against the notion that all mothers, in some way, feel some sort of love and obligation to their children growing inside them? You know as well as I, that they do, and that in almost every case, the decision to abort a fetus is not reached lightly. I'd make the argument that when a mother can have abortion after abortion without a care in the world, you usually have someone who is as conceited and selfish as can be.

Anyways, back to the OP's question, it's already been answered, but again, there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. Me being pro life doesn't mean I am against the death penalty, it means that I don't want people killing little unconscious human lives, no matter where their cognitive development is. My opinion on the whole "choice" matter is that what you're really saying is, the mother has the right to kill the human life inside her. Hm, I'd say no, she doesn't. I honestly don't know what makes a person a person, and I'm quite sure that nobody on this planet does either, so I'd say that it's better to be on the safe side, and let human lives live.. Death penalty is another thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is life but the choice is not mine to make.

i agree also. the government should not have the right to tell people what to do, but i will always choose life.

Does the government have the right to tell you not to kill your neighbor?

If your neighbour was braindead and pushed up your arse then should you be allowed to remove him even if it meant that his heartbeat, bloodflow and breathing was only supported by your own?

We're not talking about a baby, pre-week 25 a fetus is as fucking sentient as a stone, it has absolutely no brain activity beyond random impulse.

This isn't about taking a life, if you think it is then it's your indoctrination "God breathes life into the fetus before it is a fetus at the time it's not even a fucking zygote" speaking and not your brain because NO ONE can be stupid enough to believe in shit like that and be able to use a computer.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't excuse abortion in cases of rape. The simple question in such a case is, "Who is at fault?" Certainly not the mother, but certainly not the child either. The fault lies squarely on the part of the rapist. Why, then, is it permissable to murder the child, who is just as innocent as a child conceived consensually?

I think what you see most often is pro-life people who mean that they are much quicker to forgive someone who aborts after being raped, then someone who aborts after consensually having sex in full knowledge of the consequences.

You are right except for one thing. What you call a child is collection of cells that have no consciousness and are not alive and human by law. They aren't innocent or guilty. They are nonentities. The human life you want to protect is all in your head. Your mental imagination does not make a bunch of cells legally human. You have create your own mental prison and can only go round and round in your cell. You are saying a woman shouldn't be able to abort a rock. Again, the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave. The woman is definitely human so the fetus is not. Law is a means by which we make sense out of absolutist prisons.

What you say is not human life, is human life by nature. When a blade of grass starts emerging from a seed, it may not be a fullgrown blade of grass, but it's a living piece of grass... Likewise, a human fetus is a growing, living, human life. It is human in that it comes from humans and will be a fullgrown human one day, and it is living in that it is growing and maturing. Now how you get to the dilemma that

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
the fetus is a rock or a woman is a slave

I have no idea, haven't been reading these boards enough in a while to know how in the world this came about. Is a mother ant a slave to her little antlings? Is a cat a slave to her litter? I think the word "slave" may be a little harsh, but whether or not that cat or ant had cat/ant sex with full knowledge and consent that it would bring about little younglings, there is something about life, in general, that says that the mother cares for her babes, and even has some sort of obligation to do so. I don't think you can argue against the notion that all mothers, in some way, feel some sort of love and obligation to their children growing inside them? You know as well as I, that they do, and that in almost every case, the decision to abort a fetus is not reached lightly. I'd make the argument that when a mother can have abortion after abortion without a care in the world, you usually have someone who is as conceited and selfish as can be.

Anyways, back to the OP's question, it's already been answered, but again, there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents. Me being pro life doesn't mean I am against the death penalty, it means that I don't want people killing little unconscious human lives, no matter where their cognitive development is. My opinion on the whole "choice" matter is that what you're really saying is, the mother has the right to kill the human life inside her. Hm, I'd say no, she doesn't. I honestly don't know what makes a person a person, and I'm quite sure that nobody on this planet does either, so I'd say that it's better to be on the safe side, and let human lives live.. Death penalty is another thread.

Now i feel that i should retract my previous statement just for you.

 

[themusgrat]

Hm feel free to argue with me instead of kindof almost throwing around halfassed insults.

As for your previous statement, the obvious wow-I-feel-stupid-saying-this problem with your emo not-thought-out analogy is that one form of life is growing and just beginning, the other is living its final moments, dying in every way. When I say the word "life" it's not some biblical term you see? It's kindof a medical/scientific/generic term for anything that's growing, and well, alive. A human fetus is living in much the same way that you and I are living, I guess it's the opposite of dying. Does that clear it up for you?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Hm feel free to argue with me instead of kindof almost throwing around halfassed insults.

As for your previous statement, the obvious wow-I-feel-stupid-saying-this problem with your emo not-thought-out analogy is that one form of life is growing and just beginning, the other is living its final moments, dying in every way. When I say the word "life" it's not some biblical term you see? It's kindof a medical/scientific/generic term for anything that's growing, and well, alive. A human fetus is living in much the same way that you and I are living, I guess it's the opposite of dying. Does that clear it up for you?

"We're not talking about a baby, pre-week 25 a fetus is as fucking sentient as a stone, it has absolutely no brain activity beyond random impulse."

Maybe if you had the brain capacity you could have read that in my previous post.

Life is a very specific term, decided by science, that is why clinical death means the stop of brain activity beyond random impulse, the EXACT same state that a pre-week 25 fetus is in.

Since we have a definition of death, wouldn't that reasonably mean we have a definition of life? Wouldn't the same apply for the non living born as the stillborn or the fetus? Why assign special conditions for the fetus? I'll tell you why, because some nitwit who translated the Hebrew version of the old testament decided to include the part where god breathes life into the whatever and so it is made, it's kinda like an old story about how babies are made before they had any knowledge about how babies ARE made and for some reason THIS piece along with some shit regarding homosexuality was picked out as things modern day christians are supposed to believe in while leaving a LOT of it out.

And THAT is it, so either you go with religious bullsheit or you use the scientific method, you obviously have gone with the religious bullsheit though you'd never admit it and all you've accomplished is to bore me.

 

[themusgrat]

Look, first off there are ways to get your point across without the whole you're stupid-and-I-can't-believe-you-don't-agree-with-me, you must be even stupider than I thought remarks. I know that it's the norm on the internetz to give the coolest/flyest insults you can as much as you can to make you feel better about yourself, but seriously, if you were face to face with me, you would at least have some respect mate. We're all adults here..

Ok, so you think that in every applicable way to this discussion, the state of a growing fetus, who by any account is growing at an astounding rate, and will with 99.99999% likelihood become a functioning member of society, only doesn't think for itself yet, is comparable to a dying 90 year old whos brain activity has slowed to a halt. Ok. Now if you had taken a few logic classes, you'd know that just because you have the scientific definition of death, does in no way mean that you have the definition of life, and even less, that the definition of death determines the definition of life. It might, but to arbitrarily assume it does is ignorance. And then you go on to say

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
the same apply(ies) for the non living born as the stillborn or the fetus

And if you can't see past that oh so shallow random thought, then I'm not sure if I can help you at all. Also you're not helping yourself by bringing up religion like this. You're like "you don't agree with me, that means you must be some religious nut, so you're an idiot." I really haven't brought up religion at all. I mean yes it's easy to be an idiot and say "god said so" and leave it at that, but wowzorxz, I am actually arguing with you by thinking for myself. Which is more than it sounds like you're doing, you sound like a high school textbook from 1995. Also homosexuality has no place here.... There must be emonerdrage I-HATE-CHRISTIANS threads on this forum, go vent there.

edit: spelling

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Look, first off there are ways to get your point across without the whole you're stupid-and-I-can't-believe-you-don't-agree-with-me, you must be even stupider than I thought remarks. I know that it's the norm on the internetz to give the coolest/flyest insults you can as much as you can to make you feel better about yourself, but seriously, if you were face to face with me, you would at least have some respect mate. We're all adults here..

Ok, so you think that in every applicable way to this discussion, the state of a growing fetus, who by any account is growing at an astounding rate, and will with 99.99999% likelihood become a functioning member of society, only doesn't think for itself yet, is comparable to a dying 90 year old whos brain activity has slowed to a halt. Ok. Now if you had taken a few logic classes, you'd know that just because you have the scientific definition of death, does in no way mean that you have the definition of life, and even less, that the definition of death determines the definition of life. It might, but to arbitrarily assume it does is ignorance. And then you go on to say

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
the same apply(ies) for the non living born as the stillborn or the fetus

And if you can't see past that oh so shallow random thought, then I'm not sure if I can help you at all. Also you're not helping yourself by bringing up religion like this. You're like "you don't agree with me, that means you must be some religious nut, so you're an idiot." I really haven't brought up religion at all. I mean yes it's easy to be an idiot and say "god said so" and leave it at that, but wowzorxz, I am actually arguing with you by thinking for myself. Which is more than it sounds like you're doing, you sound like a high school textbook from 1995. Also homosexuality has no place here.... There must be emonerdrage I-HATE-CHRISTIANS threads on this forum, go vent there.

edit: spelling

First of all, i really don't give a fuck about you, you're the self-important type who actually keeps talking when everyone else is bored listening to him.

Second, READ, COMPREHEND, it's not a question of what is the same as something else, it's a question of life and i explained it to you in words that i thought even you could understand.


The rest of your drivel passes unread because it's a mix of strawman and some... i don't know WHAT that is? Hip internet lingo? Doesn't really matter, it's stupid either way.

I don't hate Christians which several Christian friends of mine ON THIS FORUM can verify, what disgusts me is utter stupidity and that is why i don't like you.

 

[themusgrat]

All I'm doing is attacking your arguments. If all you can answer with is "don't give a fuck... blah blah blah... read and comprehend... blah blah blah... you're self important... i though even you could understand and agree with me... you're stupid... drivel..." then that's cool. I guess putting effort into thought can be too much to ask. Of course nobody here is going to actually change their minds for anything said here, I guess we all just post to, well, share??? dunno, sounds emo. Obviously you're bored with replying, but you feel the need to have the last word, so I'll stop so you can have it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
All I'm doing is attacking your arguments. If all you can answer with is "don't give a fuck... blah blah blah... read and comprehend... blah blah blah... you're self important... i though even you could understand and agree with me... you're stupid... drivel..." then that's cool. I guess putting effort into thought can be too much to ask. Of course nobody here is going to actually change their minds for anything said here, I guess we all just post to, well, share??? dunno, sounds emo. Obviously you're bored with replying, but you feel the need to have the last word, so I'll stop so you can have it.

No, you are building a man of straw to attack because the real argument is:

How do you kill a person which does not live?

It's my first argument made and one that you have not responded to even though it was the ONLY argument i made.

Even you have to realise that all your other arguments as a response are irrelevant to that point and that that is the ONLY point that matters because it's what this debate is about, if there is no taking of human life then there is nothing to debate. You can't have opinions on clinical death or fetal development either, well i guess you can but that would be going against reality and that's just fucking daft.

 

[themusgrat]

Ok, so I'd first of all repeat myself and say that a human fetus IS living, and I'd further say that it's not whether it's living that's the question, it's whether it's a living person with the right to live. That is the question, dog fetuses live, but we're talking about whether or not the government should let people end the lives of these fetuses at x stage of development, or not.

edit: to save myself a few more posts, I am talking about the general word, life, or living. Medical doctors may have a special definition to determine when it's legal to assume that a person is dead, but even there, there is something that is still living. It's the fact that a beating heart and healthy body don't determine whether or not a person is a person, that lets us use that definition, and it's not a perfect one.

But I really have no idea when a person becomes a person. Obviously it's not at the second that sperm meets egg, nor is it at the very arbitrary moment that a mother gives birth. And I honestly don't think that you or I or anyone else really knows. Scientifically, you can't say "at this exact moment, a fetus becomes something worth protecting" because obviously it's impractical to try to decide that for every fetus. Philosophically, there's not a person alive who knows when the phenomenon we call "life" begins." That's why you and I are arguing about it. If it was set in stone, then we wouldn't be. Now this is where my opinion comes into play. I think that if it's either impossible or impractical to know when a living human fetus becomes a person with rights, then we ought to play it on the safe side, therefore I'm pro LIFE.

And let's be clear about what pro-life means. It means that I understand that I don't know it all, it means that I'd rather see an adopted baby than an aborted one, and it means that I recognize that pretty much every single fetus is going to grow up to be a member of society, with every chance in the world to make something of him/herself. Yes it's somewhat sentimental, but when you're talking about killing something/allowing it to live, then human morals and sentiments have to come into play somewhat. However much some people want the question of human life to be purely scientific, until science knows everything there is to know about how life works and why, then to some extent, our emotions, our conscience, our logic and thoughts, have to in some way make up for that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Ok, so I'd first of all repeat myself and say that a human fetus IS living, and I'd further say that it's not whether it's living that's the question, it's whether it's a living person with the right to live. That is the question, dog fetuses live, but we're talking about whether or not the government should let people end the lives of these fetuses at x stage of development, or not.

And that would be a strawman, human life, as is, is well defined and there is no way around it.

Ignoring facts, as you seem to be doing, isn't really helping anything at all and if you don't get that the living tissue and a living human is not the same thing then i really don't know what to tell you.

Stop trying to pussyfoot around the issue by bringing other issues into it, it's extremely simple, a human is either dead or alive, and a fetus pre-week 25 is as dead as any brain dead born human being, it's not alive.

If we can scrap the religious thoughts and look at the exact facts then there is no question that a fetus pre-week 25 inside (or outside of) the womb does not fit the requirement for a living human being. That isn't even up for discussion, it's reality and funny thing about reality is that no matter what you can't change it.

Should a human being have a right to their own body? Well, according to every first world constitution that is pretty much the first thing that is mentioned and so abortion is legal in every first world nation for extremely obvious reasons.