What do you think about partial-birth abortions?

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
My point, since you obviously missed it, is that there is a difference between murder and killing. You either don't know the difference or you refuse to accept it. I already told you that I don't think killing is wrong; I think murder is wrong and I have been consistent throughout every post in this thread. Until you get your definitions correct, I refuse to have this discussion with you any more Monkey.

And, last time I checked, I haven't raised holy hell over abortion.

It sounds like a convenient excuse considering it doesn't matter whether they were killed or murdered, they both end up dead. You're just putting a little smiley face on whomever you decide needs to die. To make some lame distinction in the case of an Iraqi citizen and to say they were "killed" rather than "murdered" is simple-minded semantics. Ask his family if he thinks there's a difference. The only difference, Daniel, is in your own head.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
My point, since you obviously missed it, is that there is a difference between murder and killing. You either don't know the difference or you refuse to accept it. I already told you that I don't think killing is wrong; I think murder is wrong and I have been consistent throughout every post in this thread. Until you get your definitions correct, I refuse to have this discussion with you any more Monkey.

And, last time I checked, I haven't raised holy hell over abortion.

It sounds like a convenient excuse considering it doesn't matter whether they were killed or murdered, they both end up dead. You're just putting a little smiley face on whomever you decide needs to die. To make some lame distinction in the case of an Iraqi citizen and to say they were "killed" rather than "murdered" is simple-minded semantics. Ask his family if he thinks there's a difference. The only difference, Daniel, is in your own head.

The only difference, Monkey, is in your own head. That is why definitions are man-made, moron.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
My point, since you obviously missed it, is that there is a difference between murder and killing. You either don't know the difference or you refuse to accept it. I already told you that I don't think killing is wrong; I think murder is wrong and I have been consistent throughout every post in this thread. Until you get your definitions correct, I refuse to have this discussion with you any more Monkey.

And, last time I checked, I haven't raised holy hell over abortion.

It sounds like a convenient excuse considering it doesn't matter whether they were killed or murdered, they both end up dead. You're just putting a little smiley face on whomever you decide needs to die. To make some lame distinction in the case of an Iraqi citizen and to say they were "killed" rather than "murdered" is simple-minded semantics. Ask his family if he thinks there's a difference. The only difference, Daniel, is in your own head.

The only difference, Monkey, is in your own head. That is why definitions are man-made, moron.

Exactly, you just reiterated my point. There's no difference between murder and killing. They both result in death. Glad we could find some common ground

 

[glugglug]

I think 2nd/3rd trimester abortions are wrong.

However, there are some lobbyists & politicians for which a 250th trimester abortion would not be/have been a bad idea.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
My point, since you obviously missed it, is that there is a difference between murder and killing. You either don't know the difference or you refuse to accept it. I already told you that I don't think killing is wrong; I think murder is wrong and I have been consistent throughout every post in this thread. Until you get your definitions correct, I refuse to have this discussion with you any more Monkey.

And, last time I checked, I haven't raised holy hell over abortion.

It sounds like a convenient excuse considering it doesn't matter whether they were killed or murdered, they both end up dead. You're just putting a little smiley face on whomever you decide needs to die. To make some lame distinction in the case of an Iraqi citizen and to say they were "killed" rather than "murdered" is simple-minded semantics. Ask his family if he thinks there's a difference. The only difference, Daniel, is in your own head.

The only difference, Monkey, is in your own head. That is why definitions are man-made, moron.

Exactly, you just reiterated my point. There's no difference between murder and killing. They both result in death. Glad we could find some common ground

Just because they end same does not make them the same... a natural death is not the same as murder even though they both end the same.

Tell me, Monkey, do you believe it is wrong to kill a baby? I'm not talking about a fetus, I'm talking about a living baby outside of its mother's womb.

 

[glenn1]

If you're going to raise holy hell over Abortion, the least you could do is oppose war (especially unprovoked war like Iraq) as well as the death penalty. I don't see how you can rationalize one kind of killing and not another. It's schitzophrenic if nothing else.

What a stupid, pointless hijacking of the original thread topic this is. Of course, that was probably your intent as I haven't seen a single reasonable argument you've put forth why this procedure shouldn't be banned. And no, "only doctors should make decisions on medical matters" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out. That would be akin to saying that Congress shouldn't pass laws regulating what toxic chemicals industry can dump into the river because politicians aren't environmental engineers. Congress has every damn right to tell doctors what procedures they can and can't perform, otherwise Jack Kevorkian could be setting the country's euthanasia policy for example.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly, you just reiterated my point. There's no difference between murder and killing. They both result in death. Glad we could find some common ground

Just because they end same does not make them the same... a natural death is not the same as murder even though they both end the same.

Tell me, Monkey, do you believe it is wrong to kill a baby? I'm not talking about a fetus, I'm talking about a living baby outside of its mother's womb.

Unlike you, Daniel, I think ALL killing is wrong. I understand what you're getting at, however I do not consider a fetus a baby unless it's capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: glenn1

If you're going to raise holy hell over Abortion, the least you could do is oppose war (especially unprovoked war like Iraq) as well as the death penalty. I don't see how you can rationalize one kind of killing and not another. It's schitzophrenic if nothing else.

What a stupid, pointless hijacking of the original thread topic this is. Of course, that was probably your intent as I haven't seen a single reasonable argument you've put forth why this procedure shouldn't be banned. And no, "only doctors should make decisions on medical matters" isn't an argument, it's a cop-out. That would be akin to saying that Congress shouldn't pass laws regulating what toxic chemicals industry can dump into the river because politicians aren't environmental engineers. Congress has every damn right to tell doctors what procedures they can and can't perform, otherwise Jack Kevorkian could be setting the country's euthanasia policy for example.

I don't think it should be banned because I don't consider a fetus, even if taken outside it's mother's womb for a moment, to be a baby/person. I think it's just another attack on Roe v Wade, slowly chipping away. Don't think it's not painfully obvious. The only reason you're getting all pissy about it is because you're anti-abortion - right? I predict Bush will sign the ban only to see it shot down in the courts as unconstitutional.

 

[glenn1]

The only reason you're getting all pissy about it is because you're anti-abortion - right?

You are incorrect. I'm a Libertarian, and my POV on abortion is that it's none of the federal government's damn business. But I don't see a Constitutional issue with Congress asserting authority to ban this procedure. I think it's a dumb exercise (even though I'm appalled by the procedure itself), but thinking something is stupid doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so.

I predict Bush will sign the ban only to see it shot down in the courts as unconstitutional.

On what grounds? This doesn't seem to conflict with the major findings of Roe v. Wade, which held that privacy rights could be a controlling factor on whether states could impose abortion restrictions, but that this control was a vanishing factor... as the pregnancy wore on, the state could legitimately assert compelling interest to limit abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. This procedure clearly seems to fall into the "late term" category. The last time such a statute was heard by the USSC, it was struck down, but the reasoning was due to lack of specificity in the statute and a lack of a "life of the mother" provision. The Congress has written the law so that these issues have been addressed, at least in legal terms.

I think it's just another attack on Roe v Wade, slowly chipping away.

So when it gets down to it, you're not really objecting to this particular procedure being banned, but rather that you fear other procedures will follow. Is that a fair statement?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Exactly, you just reiterated my point. There's no difference between murder and killing. They both result in death. Glad we could find some common ground

Just because they end same does not make them the same... a natural death is not the same as murder even though they both end the same.

Tell me, Monkey, do you believe it is wrong to kill a baby? I'm not talking about a fetus, I'm talking about a living baby outside of its mother's womb.

Unlike you, Daniel, I think ALL killing is wrong. I understand what you're getting at, however I do not consider a fetus a baby unless it's capable of surviving on its own outside the womb.

Finally we're getting somewhere... so, you would say that all killing of human beings is wrong. Therefore, if a man walked into your house with the intent to rob you and rape your wife (if you are married), you wouldn't kill him. That is your choice, and I it really doesn't affect me. Moving on...

Your definition of human is a baby that is capable of surviving on its own outside the womb. Well... I don't think there is a single human baby that could survive on its own without any help. So, I am guessing that is not what you meant to write. Perhaps you meant that a fetus is not a baby unless it can survive on its own outside the womb with the natural care of its parents or caretakers. I am sure you can see the problems associated with this definittion (if this is what you truly mean):

First, thousands of children are born each year prematurely, and must be kept on life support or need some other large-scale medical attention to survive. Are they not human?

Not to mention, the viability (or time at which the fetus can survive outside the womb) has changed quite a bit throughout the years. Thanks to improvements in medical technology, fetuses that couldn't survive 100 years ago can be saved today. For exmaple, it may be possible for us to create artificial wombs. There is at least one that has proved to work (http://www.davinciinstitute.com/inventing-the-future.php). If the proccess were improved enough, just about any fetus, regardless of its "age", could be placed in one and survive outside its natural womb. Think of the implications...

Also, the viability of a fetus changes from country to country. A fetus born prematurely has a much greater chance of survival in the U.S. than in Afghanistan. Does that make a fetus born in Afghanistan any less human than one in the U.S.?

 

[KenGr]

I applaud those who have managed to discuss this without turning it into a flamefest. Not easy on this subject.

I generally support "right to choose" but I have trouble supporting PBA (Intact D&X) for one main reason: The experts - the American Medical Association (not usually thought to be conservative) - apparently don't believe it is necessary.

On its Web site, the AMA says "there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." It recommends that physicians not use the procedure "unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman."

Link

Also, there was some discussion about how common this procedure is today. Can't find the link now but it's about one in 1000 abortions. Very uncommon but common enough that if you believe the AMA position, it is often being done for convenience rather than necessity.

 

[MonkeyK]

I understand why many people think that abortion is wrong. I do not understand why they think that Dialation and Extraction (the medical procedure refered to as "Partial Birth Abortion") is wrong. Can someone please explain it to me?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I understand why many people think that abortion is wrong. I do not understand why they think that Dialation and Extraction (the medical procedure refered to as "Partial Birth Abortion") is wrong. Can someone please explain it to me?

It's all the same thing, only the anti-abortionists can more easily throw their indignation and moralistic outrage into high gear over it. What I'd like to hear from these people is: Suppose you do outlaw abortion? That seems to be the overwhelming drive behind the fundies/pro-lifers. Do you really think abortions would stop? What would be your solution for all of the back-alley illegal abortions? Do you even have a solution?

It would seem to me, it would take a simple review of what was going on prior to Roe v Wade to understand what our country would revert to. Even if I was opposed to abortion, I find the conditions that existed pre-Roe v Wade to be even more barbaric and horrifying. Personally, I think the pro lifers are just short-sighted enough to not even consider what would happen if they succeed.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Finally we're getting somewhere... so, you would say that all killing of human beings is wrong. Therefore, if a man walked into your house with the intent to rob you and rape your wife (if you are married), you wouldn't kill him. That is your choice, and I it really doesn't affect me. Moving on...

Your definition of human is a baby that is capable of surviving on its own outside the womb. Well... I don't think there is a single human baby that could survive on its own without any help. So, I am guessing that is not what you meant to write. Perhaps you meant that a fetus is not a baby unless it can survive on its own outside the womb with the natural care of its parents or caretakers. I am sure you can see the problems associated with this definittion (if this is what you truly mean):

First, thousands of children are born each year prematurely, and must be kept on life support or need some other large-scale medical attention to survive. Are they not human?

Not to mention, the viability (or time at which the fetus can survive outside the womb) has changed quite a bit throughout the years. Thanks to improvements in medical technology, fetuses that couldn't survive 100 years ago can be saved today. For exmaple, it may be possible for us to create artificial wombs. There is at least one that has proved to work (http://www.davinciinstitute.com/inventing-the-future.php). If the proccess were improved enough, just about any fetus, regardless of its "age", could be placed in one and survive outside its natural womb. Think of the implications...

Also, the viability of a fetus changes from country to country. A fetus born prematurely has a much greater chance of survival in the U.S. than in Afghanistan. Does that make a fetus born in Afghanistan any less human than one in the U.S.?

Because the answer to "Where does life begin?" is a subjective opinion, I can make the distinction where ever I wish. That's how opinions work Daniel. I don't have to justify it - that's what I think. Apparantly, you believe it begins at conception or thereabouts, I'm not asking you to prove it, am I?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Finally we're getting somewhere... so, you would say that all killing of human beings is wrong. Therefore, if a man walked into your house with the intent to rob you and rape your wife (if you are married), you wouldn't kill him. That is your choice, and I it really doesn't affect me. Moving on...

Your definition of human is a baby that is capable of surviving on its own outside the womb. Well... I don't think there is a single human baby that could survive on its own without any help. So, I am guessing that is not what you meant to write. Perhaps you meant that a fetus is not a baby unless it can survive on its own outside the womb with the natural care of its parents or caretakers. I am sure you can see the problems associated with this definittion (if this is what you truly mean):

First, thousands of children are born each year prematurely, and must be kept on life support or need some other large-scale medical attention to survive. Are they not human?

Not to mention, the viability (or time at which the fetus can survive outside the womb) has changed quite a bit throughout the years. Thanks to improvements in medical technology, fetuses that couldn't survive 100 years ago can be saved today. For exmaple, it may be possible for us to create artificial wombs. There is at least one that has proved to work (http://www.davinciinstitute.com/inventing-the-future.php). If the proccess were improved enough, just about any fetus, regardless of its "age", could be placed in one and survive outside its natural womb. Think of the implications...

Also, the viability of a fetus changes from country to country. A fetus born prematurely has a much greater chance of survival in the U.S. than in Afghanistan. Does that make a fetus born in Afghanistan any less human than one in the U.S.?

Because the answer to "Where does life begin?" is a subjective opinion, I can make the distinction where ever I wish. That's how opinions work Daniel. I don't have to justify it - that's what I think. Apparantly, you believe it begins at conception or thereabouts, I'm not asking you to prove it, am I?

And that is the problem Monkey. Just becaue we don't know something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Your subjective opinion is just as viable as mine until we get some scientific evidence. I choose to be on the safe side. You see, if it turns out that life does begin at conception, I'm not responsible for murdering another human. You, on the other hand, would be no better than the Nazis for your support of killing over 30 million fetuses. However, if it turns out that life doesn't being until the exact moment that a fetuses emerges from the womb, then I've done no harm to anyone. It's like that old saying: "Better safe than sorry."

I'm not asking you to prove when human life begins, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning for supporting abortion, and each time I do, you simply dodge the question and attack my beliefs.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I understand why many people think that abortion is wrong. I do not understand why they think that Dialation and Extraction (the medical procedure refered to as "Partial Birth Abortion") is wrong. Can someone please explain it to me?

It's all the same thing, only the anti-abortionists can more easily throw their indignation and moralistic outrage into high gear over it. What I'd like to hear from these people is: Suppose you do outlaw abortion? That seems to be the overwhelming drive behind the fundies/pro-lifers. Do you really think abortions would stop? What would be your solution for all of the back-alley illegal abortions? Do you even have a solution?

It would seem to me, it would take a simple review of what was going on prior to Roe v Wade to understand what our country would revert to. Even if I was opposed to abortion, I find the conditions that existed pre-Roe v Wade to be even more barbaric and horrifying. Personally, I think the pro lifers are just short-sighted enough to not even consider what would happen if they succeed.

But its not all the same thing. D&X is not a procedure to use just because you don't want to have a baby. This is a procedure to use if:
[*]The fetus is dead.
[*]The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
[*]The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
[*]The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

The alternative to D&X is a Hysterectomy.

It is important to point out that currently proposed legislation does not make allowances for the above listed purposes of D&X.

It is possible that some deranged doctor likes to perform this procedure for pregnant women who casually changed their minds about having a baby, or maybe said deranged doctor even enjoys tricking women into the procedure. However, like most useful medical procedures, the primary uses far outweigh the risk of it being abused.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
And that is the problem Monkey. Just becaue we don't know something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Your subjective opinion is just as viable as mine until we get some scientific evidence. I choose to be on the safe side. You see, if it turns out that life does begin at conception, I'm not responsible for murdering another human. You, on the other hand, would be no better than the Nazis for your support of killing over 30 million fetuses. However, if it turns out that life doesn't being until the exact moment that a fetuses emerges from the womb, then I've done no harm to anyone. It's like that old saying: "Better safe than sorry."

I'm not asking you to prove when human life begins, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning for supporting abortion, and each time I do, you simply dodge the question and attack my beliefs.

It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing. It's a matter of one belief set against the other.

Regarding your concept of it being murder - just like in court, the alleged "murderer" is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on YOU, considering you're the one alleging it's murder. So, go ahead, PROVE it's murder. I'd like to mention first however, that the US Supreme Court and a number of high courts throughout our land has already decided that it's NOT murder. In fact, the USSC decided it was a CONSTITUTIONAL right. So, I'm afraid Daniel, it's going to be an uphill climb for you. I predict, however that you'll somehow fall back on "god's law" since that's pretty much all you got.

 

[0roo0roo]

while a bit ugly, it is the mothers choice up to a point not that most medical procedures are pretty. the term waas made up by the pro lifers to boot. doesn't mean much.

having people be charitable is nice, but one isn't required to be by law. you can't force me to donate a kidney to a dying man just because i have two.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
And that is the problem Monkey. Just becaue we don't know something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Your subjective opinion is just as viable as mine until we get some scientific evidence. I choose to be on the safe side. You see, if it turns out that life does begin at conception, I'm not responsible for murdering another human. You, on the other hand, would be no better than the Nazis for your support of killing over 30 million fetuses. However, if it turns out that life doesn't being until the exact moment that a fetuses emerges from the womb, then I've done no harm to anyone. It's like that old saying: "Better safe than sorry."

I'm not asking you to prove when human life begins, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning for supporting abortion, and each time I do, you simply dodge the question and attack my beliefs.

It's not a matter of knowing or not knowing. It's a matter of one belief set against the other.

Regarding your concept of it being murder - just like in court, the alleged "murderer" is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on YOU, considering you're the one alleging it's murder. So, go ahead, PROVE it's murder. I'd like to mention first however, that the US Supreme Court and a number of high courts throughout our land has already decided that it's NOT murder. In fact, the USSC decided it was a CONSTITUTIONAL right. So, I'm afraid Daniel, it's going to be an uphill climb for you. I predict, however that you'll somehow fall back on "god's law" since that's pretty much all you got.

Once again Monkey, way to dodge my post and respond with nothing constructive to the argument.

Notice the two big IFs in my post? I never said abortion was murder. I said IF it turned out that is truly was murder. I believe it is murder, but I cannot prove it scientifically, just as you cannot prove that is not murder. Therefore, for the time being, both of our opinions are just as viable. The fact that the USSC decided it was a Constitutional right does not make the action morally right. It just means that for the time being, it is legal. However, supreme court rulings are open to change, and Woe v. Wade is already starting to be turned around. As for your comment about God's law, where did I ever say that I was basing my decision on the Bible? If I am correct, you are the one who brought up the Bible, not me. Don't remember? Go read through all your posts again. So, please stop the personal attacks, especially when you have no evidence to support them.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Once again Monkey, way to dodge my post and respond with nothing constructive to the argument.

Notice the two big IFs in my post? I never said abortion was murder. I said IF it turned out that is truly was murder. I believe it is murder, but I cannot prove it scientifically, just as you cannot prove that is not murder. Therefore, for the time being, both of our opinions are just as viable. The fact that the USSC decided it was a Constitutional right does not make the action morally right. It just means that for the time being, it is legal. However, supreme court rulings are open to change, and Woe v. Wade is already starting to be turned around. As for your comment about God's law, where did I ever say that I was basing my decision on the Bible? If I am correct, you are the one who brought up the Bible, not me. Don't remember? Go read through all your posts again. So, please stop the personal attacks, especially when you have no evidence to support them.

Daniel, you seriously need to STFU and get off your high horse for a moment. Personal attacks? You called me a "moron" a few posts back. What about that?! I was willing to overlook it because you're obviously all whipped into a moralistic fervor over this issue. Dodge your posts? Please. My posts were right on target, you're just hemming and hawing because you know I'm right: This is a conflict of one belief against another. This whole argument is about as useful as a Mormon and a Scientologist going at it over who's religion is "better."

I don't care if you said "IF" or not, fact is you can't prove it's murder and in this country if you can't prove it, you're SOL. We don't convict people of murder based on the POSSIBILITY that maybe they did it. Until you have positive proof that it is what you contend it is, then you have no case. Beyond your moralistic crusade against it, you got nothin' as usual.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Once again Monkey, way to dodge my post and respond with nothing constructive to the argument.

Notice the two big IFs in my post? I never said abortion was murder. I said IF it turned out that is truly was murder. I believe it is murder, but I cannot prove it scientifically, just as you cannot prove that is not murder. Therefore, for the time being, both of our opinions are just as viable. The fact that the USSC decided it was a Constitutional right does not make the action morally right. It just means that for the time being, it is legal. However, supreme court rulings are open to change, and Woe v. Wade is already starting to be turned around. As for your comment about God's law, where did I ever say that I was basing my decision on the Bible? If I am correct, you are the one who brought up the Bible, not me. Don't remember? Go read through all your posts again. So, please stop the personal attacks, especially when you have no evidence to support them.

Daniel, you seriously need to STFU and get off your high horse for a moment. Personal attacks? You called me a "moron" a few posts back. What about that?! I was willing to overlook it because you're obviously all whipped into a moralistic fervor over this issue. Dodge your posts? Please. My posts were right on target, you're just hemming and hawing because you know I'm right: This is a conflict of one belief against another. This whole argument is about as useful as a Mormon and a Scientologist going at it over who's religion is "better."

I don't care if you said "IF" or not, fact is you can't prove it's murder and in this country if you can't prove it, you're SOL. We don't convict people of murder based on the POSSIBILITY that maybe they did it. Until you have positive proof that it is what you contend it is, then you have no case. Beyond your moralistic crusade against it, you got nothin' as usual.

Yep... I did call you a moron after you not only posted multiple personal attacks, but also decided to post an extremely obvious statement.

Monkey, your opinion is no better than mine. So, if I need to get of my high horse, as you believe, you need to do the same. This is a conflict of one belief against another, as I said from ther very start. So, quit telling me that my opinion is any less valuable than yours. I haven't said that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal. I said that as of now, we have no evidence to prove when a fetus becomes human. As such, it is impossible for us to make a decision either way. I choose to be on the safe side. That is my choice, and belief, and will stand by it NO MATTER what you say. And, I will remain steadfast with my opinion until it is proven otherwise.

And, you are right. Thank goodness, in this country, we don't convict people of murder because it is possible that they did it. We examine all of the evidence and unless they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are innocent. However, we know that killing humans is a crime. We do not know if a fetus is human. Some of us choose to believe so, and some of us choose not to.

There is obviously something different between a human fetus and the fetus of an animal such as a zebra. Sure, both eventually have a brain, a heart beat, and display the other natural processes of life. But, we both know that a human is MUCH different than a Zebra. Where does this difference come from? Where do we get our souls? I have my beliefs as to the origins of the human soul, but the bottom line is that we don't know. If you don't believe in God (or some other deity) , then it must come from the mother or the father. There is simply no other explanation. This soul must be "implanted" in the fetus before birth, because it is fully human by then. And, it cannot happen before conception, as conception is the first time in which the soon-to-be fetus has a full set of genetic material. So, we can narrow it down sometime between conception and birth that a fetus acquires the soul that makes it human.

If you don't like my opinion, fine. Believe whatever you want, and I will continue to believe what I believe. So, please quit attacking my opinion, as it is nothing more than your opinion, Monkey.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Monkey, your opinion is no better than mine. So, if I need to get of my high horse, as you believe, you need to do the same. This is a conflict of one belief against another, as I said from ther very start. So, quit telling me that my opinion is any less valuable than yours. I haven't said that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal. I said that as of now, we have no evidence to prove when a fetus becomes human. As such, it is impossible for us to make a decision either way. I choose to be on the safe side. That is my choice, and belief, and will stand by it NO MATTER what you say. And, I will remain steadfast with my opinion until it is proven otherwise.

Really? You NEVER said it was wrong? What's this comment from you about then?

The problem with this mentality is that at a certain point, a fetus becomes human. After that point, you are not just removing something that's in your body that you don't want there, but you are affecting another life. Unfortunately we don't know the exact point that a fetus becomes human, or why it becomes human. As far as I am concerned, until we know EXACTLY when this is, ALL abortion is wrong (minus a few rare cases). Better safe than sorry...

Hmmmm, I guess you can't even remember your position now? The main problem I have with your argument is that it's simply not consistant. You advocate that killing is OK under certain circumstances, but other killing is not. I simply don't understand how you can have such conflicting points of view.

And, you are right. Thank goodness, in this country, we don't convict people of murder because it is possible that they did it. We examine all of the evidence and unless they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are innocent. However, we know that killing humans is a crime. We do not know if a fetus is human. Some of us choose to believe so, and some of us choose not to.

Well, according to you, sometimes killing is OK. If they committed a crime that, in your opinion, warrants the death penalty. Or if they happen to be "collateral damage" during war time.

There is obviously something different between a human fetus and the fetus of an animal such as a zebra. Sure, both eventually have a brain, a heart beat, and display the other natural processes of life. But, we both know that a human is MUCH different than a Zebra. Where does this difference come from? Where do we get our souls? I have my beliefs as to the origins of the human soul, but the bottom line is that we don't know. If you don't believe in God (or some other deity) , then it must come from the mother or the father. There is simply no other explanation. This soul must be "implanted" in the fetus before birth, because it is fully human by then. And, it cannot happen before conception, as conception is the first time in which the soon-to-be fetus has a full set of genetic material. So, we can narrow it down sometime between conception and birth that a fetus acquires the soul that makes it human.

See, you're bringing religion (e.g. "Souls") into the argument. You can't legislate morality and make everyone believe what you believe.

If you don't like my opinion, fine. Believe whatever you want, and I will continue to believe what I believe. So, please quit attacking my opinion, as it is nothing more than your opinion, Monkey.

Unless you've missed it, Daniel, that's the whole point of these forums. If it weren't for people attacking each other's opinions, it would be mighty boring around here. Bottom line though: I stated right up front in this thread that this topic is flame-bait. No two camps disagree more than the ones on either side of the abortion issue.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Monkey, your opinion is no better than mine. So, if I need to get of my high horse, as you believe, you need to do the same. This is a conflict of one belief against another, as I said from ther very start. So, quit telling me that my opinion is any less valuable than yours. I haven't said that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal. I said that as of now, we have no evidence to prove when a fetus becomes human. As such, it is impossible for us to make a decision either way. I choose to be on the safe side. That is my choice, and belief, and will stand by it NO MATTER what you say. And, I will remain steadfast with my opinion until it is proven otherwise.

Really? You NEVER said it was wrong? What's this comment from you about then?

The problem with this mentality is that at a certain point, a fetus becomes human. After that point, you are not just removing something that's in your body that you don't want there, but you are affecting another life. Unfortunately we don't know the exact point that a fetus becomes human, or why it becomes human. As far as I am concerned, until we know EXACTLY when this is, ALL abortion is wrong (minus a few rare cases). Better safe than sorry...

Hmmmm, I guess you can't even remember your position now? The main problem I have with your argument is that it's simply not consistant. You advocate that killing is OK under certain circumstances, but other killing is not. I simply don't understand how you can have such conflicting points of view.

And, you are right. Thank goodness, in this country, we don't convict people of murder because it is possible that they did it. We examine all of the evidence and unless they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they are innocent. However, we know that killing humans is a crime. We do not know if a fetus is human. Some of us choose to believe so, and some of us choose not to.

Well, according to you, sometimes killing is OK. If they committed a crime that, in your opinion, warrants the death penalty. Or if they happen to be "collateral damage" during war time.

There is obviously something different between a human fetus and the fetus of an animal such as a zebra. Sure, both eventually have a brain, a heart beat, and display the other natural processes of life. But, we both know that a human is MUCH different than a Zebra. Where does this difference come from? Where do we get our souls? I have my beliefs as to the origins of the human soul, but the bottom line is that we don't know. If you don't believe in God (or some other deity) , then it must come from the mother or the father. There is simply no other explanation. This soul must be "implanted" in the fetus before birth, because it is fully human by then. And, it cannot happen before conception, as conception is the first time in which the soon-to-be fetus has a full set of genetic material. So, we can narrow it down sometime between conception and birth that a fetus acquires the soul that makes it human.

See, you're bringing religion (e.g. "Souls") into the argument. You can't legislate morality and make everyone believe what you believe.

If you don't like my opinion, fine. Believe whatever you want, and I will continue to believe what I believe. So, please quit attacking my opinion, as it is nothing more than your opinion, Monkey.

Unless you've missed it, Daniel, that's the whole point of these forums. If it weren't for people attacking each other's opinions, it would be mighty boring around here. Bottom line though: I stated right up front in this thread that this topic is flame-bait. No two camps disagree more than the ones on either side of the abortion issue.

Wow... way to take everything I wrote out of context, Monkey. I wrote:

As far as I am concerned, until we know EXACTLY when this is, ALL abortion is wrong (minus a few rare cases).

I didn't say abortion is wrong. I said, as far as I am concerned, abortion is wrong UNTIL proven otherwise. It is my opinion. It may or may not be correct.

I truly have no idea what your little statement about killing had to do with me agreeing with you about being innocent until proven guilty murder. Once once you are proven guilty of murder, you are at the mercy of the courts as to your punishment. Otherwise, you are innocent. There is a difference between murder and killing. Don't believe me? Go look them up in a dictionary.

Souls are not necessarily religious. There is something that separates humans from other animals, whether you want to call it a soul or something else. I don't really care. The point is that there is something that forms in a human that makes us different. I call it a soul, but it really doesn't matter... unless, of course, you are looking to bring religion into the discussion, which you have now done three times now.

And, I have no problem with you attacking my opinion... but then you cannot say that your opinion is any more valid than my opinion. Everything that you say in regards to my opinion also applies to you. You don't like the fact that I bring morality into a discussion, and yet I don't like the fact that you don't consider morality. Neither side is more correct than the other; however, you seem to believe that my opinion is less than yours. Until you realize this, quit attacking my views.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Wow... way to take everything I wrote out of context, Monkey. I wrote:

As far as I am concerned, until we know EXACTLY when this is, ALL abortion is wrong (minus a few rare cases).

I didn't say abortion is wrong. I said, as far as I am concerned, abortion is wrong UNTIL proven otherwise. It is my opinion. It may or may not be correct.

You can't even keep track of your own statements, can you? You said, and I QUOTE: "I haven't said that abortion is wrong, or that it should be illegal." and I responded with the following quote from you: "As far as I am concerned, until we know EXACTLY when this is, ALL abortion is wrong (minus a few rare cases)."

I guess in your world, black is white and up is down.

And, I have no problem with you attacking my opinion... but then you cannot say that your opinion is any more valid than my opinion. Everything that you say in regards to my opinion also applies to you. You don't like the fact that I bring morality into a discussion, and yet I don't like the fact that you don't consider morality. Neither side is more correct than the other; however, you seem to believe that my opinion is less than yours. Until you realize this, quit attacking my views.

I never said my opinion is more valid that yours. I'm attacking your position because I don't agree with it. Beyond that, it's people who think like you which leads to politicians creating and passing bills like the very one we're talking about: The ban on partial-birth abortions. I don't agree with that either. It's yet another attempt by the gov't to legislate morality and sticking their nose into situations that should remain only between a patient and a doctor.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
There is something that separates humans from other animals, whether you want to call it a soul or something else. I don't really care.

And what makes you think that a dog has no soul?