I didn't say it was murder. I was just pointing out the completely ridiculous nature of your statements. I thought that was plain enough for you.
A fetus/embryo/zygote is not part of a woman's body. I have demonstrated this numerous times in this forum. This is a patently false construction used by those who support abortion rights to avoid discussing the real issues of this topic.
You have never conclusively demonstrated that point. I've read many of your discussions on this point and I'm sure you believe your arguement but its far from proving anything. It doesn't help the discussion and I wish you'd stop saying such an incorrect statement. However, I have no interest in debating that since we could spend that time discussing the topic at hand. I'd have to say after discussing this for a while now, I don't believe the viability of the baby outside of the womb is a justiafiable arguement for abortion. It just doesn't make since to base a discusion on a constantly shifting line that depends on technology. I mean lets face it, eventually, we will be able to form a baby from a fertilized egg completely outside of the womb. Would that effectively end abortion? It would under the viability outside of the womb arguement.
So, I've read a lot about fetal development in the last few days ( I just found out my wife is pregnant)
. There are several interesting facts that I think weigh in on this discussion. First, there is a primitive brain and heart by the end of the first month of fetal development (absololutely amazing). Now by primitive, I mean not functioning in its intended capacity at all, but its there never-the-less. Second, 20% of pregnancies abort from natural causes before the end of the first trimester. So in other words, nature itself, uses abortion before the frist trimester as a way to protect the mother's health and for other various reasons. The first point is, obviously, supportive of the pro-life stance. I've heard many people say once it has a heart, its alive. Well, that means you give a grand total of about 3 weeks from concpetion (so just shortly after most people miss thier periods) to abort if that were your criteria. The second point seems to support (to me at least) that abortion is a perfectly acceptable method for protecting the interetest of the mother in such an early stage of fetal development.
I can't imagine aborting a baby. Its a gift, but at the same time, I don't feel its my place to tell other people how to live their lives. Anyway, I look forward to further discussion.
where's rip he should have posted by now
i'm pro abortion, but i do feel that there is no excuse for waitng until the second trimester to get an abortion. I also support the legalizing of aboriton pills in the US, (the morning after pill is not an abortion pill per se)
i've always felt since the women is carrying the child, its her choice and a man has no business telling her what she can and can't do with her body
i'm pro abortion, but i do feel that there is no excuse for waitng until the second trimester to get an abortion. I also support the legalizing of aboriton pills in the US, (the morning after pill is not an abortion pill per se)
i've always felt since the women is carrying the child, its her choice and a man has no business telling her what she can and can't do with her body
I had quite a lengthy discussion with DealMonkey on this subject. This argument pretty much requires the form of a discussion, which only DM thus far has been willing to undertake in any honest, open-minded sense. I don't immediately recall which thread it was in, but it's not practical to try to repeat it, especially every time someone puts up this argument. As my father, who is not religious and is a biophysicist-turned-MD, often says, everyone knows the reality of the situation a priori. Ask any young child and you will hear the truth of the situation. The only reason this argument is still used is because it's constantly thrown out there by the supporters of abortion rights, not because it has any actual merit. It's used here because people want to support abortion rights because that makes them caring liberals and that's what the abortion advocates tell them to argue.
No, you specifically claimed that pro-lifers are represented by the views of this one extremist. 'Now we're seeing the true colors of the "right to lifers".' Therefore, it is your logic, if it can even be called logic. I'd like to see where I think that what this guy did was OK. I'd really like to see that. You won't find it, however, since it's just another construct of a feeble intellect trying to justify your own position by bashing anyone who opposes it.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
But then I didn't say that.
I'm my option, and in the opinion of society expressed by own use of lanuguage; it isn't a human life until it is born. Otherwise, when cacluating how old somone is we would start from a date prior to birth.
Nah, that would clearly and unarguably be taking a human life.
It does nothing to always say, "I allready went over that". I remember that thread. You presented a good case, but you didn't prove it. I repect your opinion, but its far from proven.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
[/quote]
So would you be amenable to allowing women to keep the child until it is medically viable, then induce premature delivery, give it up for adoption, and let the doctors take it from there?
Personally, I prefer allowing first-trimester abortions, and nothing beyond that unless it is absolutely medically necessary to prevent death or very serious consequences to the mother. But eviction is a perfectly valid option, I suppose.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This comes back to the same point I've made several times in the last week. I'm really beginning to wonder if liberals think this way. Do you honestly think conservatives support gun violence and lack of health care? I don't think you can tell me in good faith that you really believe that.Originally posted by: loki8481
I thought the op-ed raised some good points... I've never really understood how someone could claim to be pro-life when it comes to abotion but totally ignore other life issues like gun violence, health care, or the death penalty.
I know we're supposed to avoid the cut-n-paste editorials, but I was really hoping some of the pro-life members of this forum could help me come to an understanding
No, they support non-guncontrol and non-governmental health care.
Should people be allowed to carry automatic weapons, such as the AK-47? It seems to me that you would support anything that would give law abiding citizens the same abilities as criminals. If criminals can obtain AK-47s, I should be able to obtain one also, and carry it around as I please.
If you think we shouldn't be allowed to carry AK-47s, draw me a distinction between these weapons and handguns.
"From the patient's perspective, they get the short end of the stick because now any doctor worth his salt rejects the government-covered patients as a unit."
Do you know how many poor people get the "short end of the stick", as in death, because they cannot pay? The reason our country's quality of health care is so good is that we only provide it to a select few people. The quantity of our health care is severely lacking. I think the government should at least pay for the health care of people who cannot afford it. Medicare/Medicaid is simply not enough.
A priori principles are the hardest to prove, and they are often used as an excuse to avoid forming an argument. Children often do not know the difference between right and wrong, and many other fundamental human principles. Using them to support an a priori principle is really specious.
Could you find that thread for me? Using phrases like "patently false construction" are just cop outs, slogans that are used to bash ideas to avoid giving an argument. It's ironic that you say it's "used by those who support abortion rights to avoid discussing the real issues of this topic" when you are avoiding discussion yourself.
In general, you seem to avoid argument as much as possible. If you choose to oppose other people's viewpoints, it's generally held that you should give some evidence to back it up, whether it's a link, or repeating your old argument, or just keep your view to yourself.
When confronted with the ridiculousness of your position, beat a hasty retreat. Or, just pretend the other guy is a spaz and that you were only kidding. :roll:Originally posted by: arsbanned
heh. Wow. Better lay off the caffeine there pal.
I responded to your points previously. Just because I don't want to participate in repititious arguments doesn't mean I'm "beating a hasty retreat". Your over-the-top emotional responses aptly illustrate the weakness of your thinking.
Starbuck1975
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2005
- 14,698
- 1,909
- 126
Why don't you provide an argument or even some discussion points as to why this is a fantasy world, or is it simply easier for you to dismiss another perspective on how our soldiers operate in combat?
It seems that anything you do not agree with, or does not fall in line with your world view, is hypocricy...there was nothing incoherent about my post...it was actually a fairly straightforward and not particularly complex argument...if you were to point out which parts you did not comprehend, I can clarify them for you.
I was merely pointing out the correct spelling, my excitable friend. I'm not typically a spelling Nazi, but this time I was.
You feel that the U.S. has "mitigated civilian casualties" in Iraq. In fact, the U.S has killed plenty of civilians, imprisoned others (torturing them to boot) and probably "disappeared" plenty. I don't see that as mitigatng civilian casalties. Just stick to the facts and drop the shrill responses and maybe we can get somewhere.
You feel that the U.S. has "mitigated civilian casualties" in Iraq. In fact, the U.S has killed plenty of civilians, imprisoned others (torturing them to boot) and probably "disappeared" plenty. I don't see that as mitigatng civilian casalties. Just stick to the facts and drop the shrill responses and maybe we can get somewhere.
I'm sorry if it isn't sufficient for me to say 'I've already covered that' but I don't have time to have an in-depth discussion regarding the same topics over and over again, especially when the people I'm discussing it with aren't the least bit open to what I'm saying. If people were actually interested, they could easily go and find the very same arguments without my having to restate them yet again.
Let me ask you a question: if a fetus is part of a woman's body, why should she not be allowed to abort even after the point of viability? If it's part of her body at conception, it most certainly is right up until it is born.
Why would you force labor after the first trimester? I don't see where I stated anything remotely resembling what you state here, so I'm not sure I can or need to defend it.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to own AK-47s? If you want to carry it around on the streets in accordance with existing laws, then by all means do so. I might be a little nervous, but it's whatever you want to do I guess. Gun control is a tricky issue for me. As I said, I know several people that have died in gun accidents. I've had good friends robbed at gunpoint since moving to St. Louis. When I was a young kid (10 maybe?), I saw a man blow his brains out on the street with a gun. My best friend's entire family, minus one, was killed one night by some crazy bastard with a shotgun. The reason it's minus one is because there was a gun in the house that was used against the guy with the shotgun. Point is, I've seen the very worst that guns can do. I will never personally own a gun, but I have shot many different kinds. Comparing the vices and the virtues, I would err on the side of allowing people to defend themselves from aggressors with firearms. I can add more later but I gotta run.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
My point is that if the child is not part of the woman's body, even if you assume it is fully human as soon as it's conceived, then the women should be allowed to evict it once it reaches the point of viability, without facing murder charges.
My position is the opposite - abortion should be legal in the first trimester and/or as long as the child could not survive if born prematurely, and beyond this point the woman has made their choice and must keep the baby. Your position is the opposite (WRT the woman's degree of control, and whether the baby is 'part' of her body). A logical extension is that once the baby is able to survive outside the womb, the woman should be within her rights to evict it.
A link would be nice though, since we don't really know what kind of search to do for this.
It is most certainly not. The point of viability is the point at which a new independent life has formed, that is why it isn't part of the mother anymore. Until the fetus is independently viable, it is still part of the mother.
My point is that criminals have access to many, many things that law abiding citizens do not. Giving law abiding citizens acess to those many, many things is not the right thing to do. Should RPG's be available to the public because criminals of access to them?
"I might be a little nervous, but it's whatever you want to do I guess."
This is exactly the point. Letting everybody carry around whatever guns they want because the criminals can get access to anything they want with sufficient effort creates a culture of fear, which is directly opposed to the sense of security that you think guns are supposed to give.
It's not sufficient for me to look for a thread I have no idea where it maybe or if it even exsists. If you've already come to the conclusion that we are somehow "closed minded" then I must say I feel the exact same way about you.
Point of viablility? You mean the baby could live outside the womb and be born at any moment? It's still her body.
A question for you, what gives us the right to kill Terri Schavio? Is this basically aborition a to a fetus? There kind of the same thing.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
every sperm is sacred
and there are no shortages of families willing to adopt
there are no orphans. oh wait.. not true 40%(conservative estimate)-to 80% of conceptions end with sponteneous abortion. they are unnoticed, and seen as heavy menstral flows. this is the value placed on conception by the creator himself.
While I agree to an extent with what you're saying, the conclusion you reach is completely out of left field. By extending coverage to every person, you'll essentially be driving down the price associated with a given treatment. I base this on the fact that the government currently pays a small fraction of what a private insurer does for a standard procedure. Do you really think more people will offer the same service when it becomes less profitable to do so? I doubt it.
The only reason I visit these forums is to debate issues. I'm glad you see me as trying to avoid such arguments, simply because I don't jump every time someone has a question in this area. I'm the only person that will argue this viewpoint on this forum and I have to respond to everyone else, since everyone else holds the opposite view. You claim that my statements are just a cop-out? The position that you're supporting is a complete cop-out. You and others ignore the real legal issue on this subject to construct diversions to waste my time rather than discuss the real issue. This is a pretty efficient method of argument when it's all of you against me, I suppose, since there isn't time in a day to argue the same points repeatedly for people who aren't interested in another viewpoint to begin with. In general, you avoid stating your own opinions and continually question everything I say rather than add anything of substance to the discussion. It seems that your goal is to bore everyone to death long before you actually put forth your own opinion on a given subject. You pretend that your word is the final matter on any subject, despite the fact that it is often based simply on your opinion rather than any legal, logical, or factual basis. I'm sorry that I'm taking 3 PhD-level classes and working 60 hours a week so I don't have time to refute all of your bunk positions. This hardly means I'm dodging the argument. In fact, if you'd like to do my take-home exam for me (for a class called transport effects in reaction engineering), I'd be more than happy to spend more time creating an annotated discussion on these issues. Until then, stop trying to make me sound like some idiot high-schooler who doesn't know what he's talking about. It's obvious you have at least thought about these issues on a cursory level, so why don't you actually share something yourself rather than just trying to beat me down?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter