Abortion

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

If its before the first trimester, it isnt developed enough to think or ever breathe in the first place. Several states use the ability (or likelihood of ability) to breathe as a marking point for whether terminating a pregnancy (by violence or otherwise) can be considered murder. It's not a fully developed human being until it has most of the right parts, and the ability to use them in *some* capacity. You cant be forcing a belief on something that has never had the ability to think, feel, etc. On the other hand, you, a seperate entity, telling someone (another seperate entity) who feels they cannot deal with having a child (who is, for at least the first few weeks of its existance a dependant part of its mother's body) what they can and cannot do with something that for all intents and purposes is a part of their own body is a bit unsettling.

choose whether you are terminated or not, so essentially, depending on your condition, in many ways you are the same.

It's considered human when it has HUMAN DNA..which it has in the First Trimester...and in the last 2 weeks of the first trimester, yes...it has brain wave functions.

your going to tell me that it has to have most of the "right parts" to be considered human...what about that girl that was gorn with 8 working limbs...is she human?...or is she some monster??

what about a child that is born deformed??...we don't like to think of it's future...but because it was born without arms...does it make it unable to be considered human??

We are only human because our DNA and ability to reason dictate it so....if it were not for those...we would be no better then our primate cousins in the jungles.

and Phee...there are ppl with memories of what it was like in the womb....it's rare to hear of such cases...but it is there....

[freydis]

It's considered human when it has HUMAN DNA..which it has in the First Trimester...and in the last 2 weeks of the first trimester, yes...it has brain wave functions.

your going to tell me that it has to have most of the "right parts" to be considered human...what about that girl that was gorn with 8 working limbs...is she human?...or is she some monster??

what about a child that is born deformed??...we don't like to think of it's future...but because it was born without arms...does it make it unable to be considered human??

We are only human because our DNA and ability to reason dictate it so....if it were not for those...we would be no better then our primate cousins in the jungles.

and Phee...there are ppl with memories of what it was like in the womb....it's rare to hear of such cases...but it is there....

Now you're being absurd on purpose. What defines us as human (as most will postulate), and not animals is the ability for higher reasoning. Arms and legs do not determine higher reasoning. Brain function does. Furthermore, organism who cannot survive on their own under law will often have their right to life determined by others, unless at some point they had the higher reasoning function to express their wishes.

And human DNA defines us as human? So skin grafts have rights as seperate human entities? I assume then you are against stem cell research as well?

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Now you're being absurd on purpose. What defines us as human (as most will postulate), and not animals is the ability for higher reasoning. Arms and legs do not determine higher reasoning. Brain function does. Furthermore, organism who cannot survive on their own under law will often have their right to life determined by others, unless at some point they had the higher reasoning function to express their wishes.

And human DNA defines us as human? So skin grafts have rights as seperate human entities? I assume then you are against stem cell research as well?

I am not being absurd on purpose...I am using your own words.

And children under the age of 4 often don't have the higher reasoning function to express most of their wishes...so they must not be human???

and yes...HUMAN DNA defines us as HUMAN.

and stem cell research is tricky....I don't think you should be able to perform an abortion to get the baby for that...and yes...that did happen before...but I believe that if you use a child that HAD to be aborted, as in having to be an emergancy medical proceedure, then there is no harm in the child still having a purpose.

[phee]

I am not being absurd on purpose...I am using your own words.

And children under the age of 4 often don't have the higher reasoning function to express most of their wishes...so they must not be human???

and yes...HUMAN DNA defines us as HUMAN.

and stem cell research is tricky....I don't think you should be able to perform an abortion to get the baby for that...and yes...that did happen before...but I believe that if you use a child that HAD to be aborted, as in having to be an emergancy medical proceedure, then there is no harm in the child still having a purpose.

Just curious... not in an argumentative way.

Who does decide when life actually begins? Is it black and white?

[phee]

Oh and by that definition.... a piece of skin is a person?

[Nienna]

Here's a question not really looked at yet and directed at the pro-lifers on here. What if the pregnancy could potentially endanger the mother?? Is it worth endangering a person who is already carrying on their life, contributing to society, etc, for the life of a child not yet born? I always feel this thrill of fear whenever it is discussed that abortion or birth control should be limited, because if I get pregnant - it could very well be a death sentence. At best it would mean around 6 months flat on my back and a very dangerous labor. So, if the choice came down to potentially kill the mother, or kill the fetus, do you still stand by the "abortion is bad mmm'kay? rigamarole?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I touched on that with Ectopic pregnancy's.

[Goth Brooks]

Here's a question not really looked at yet and directed at the pro-lifers on here. What if the pregnancy could potentially endanger the mother?? Is it worth endangering a person who is already carrying on their life, contributing to society, etc, for the life of a child not yet born? I always feel this thrill of fear whenever it is discussed that abortion or birth control should be limited, because if I get pregnant - it could very well be a death sentence. At best it would mean around 6 months flat on my back and a very dangerous labor. So, if the choice came down to potentially kill the mother, or kill the fetus, do you still stand by the "abortion is bad mmm'kay? rigamarole?

I already brought this up via the 11yr old Catholic girl, and was ignored.

Apparently only healthy people get pregnant; accidental, raped, or otherwise.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Here's a question not really looked at yet and directed at the pro-lifers on here. What if the pregnancy could potentially endanger the mother?? Is it worth endangering a person who is already carrying on their life, contributing to society, etc, for the life of a child not yet born? I always feel this thrill of fear whenever it is discussed that abortion or birth control should be limited, because if I get pregnant - it could very well be a death sentence. At best it would mean around 6 months flat on my back and a very dangerous labor. So, if the choice came down to potentially kill the mother, or kill the fetus, do you still stand by the "abortion is bad mmm'kay? rigamarole?

I've actually covered this.

Abortion USED to be an emergancy medical precedure..and I, for one, think it should return to that...not a method of "got preggers...don't want the kid...honey, get the vaccumn" that it has turned into now.

[Rev.Reverence]

personally I'm agaisnt it myself. If I was a girl that got preggers, I'd keep it honestly.. and if I ever get a girl preggers... I'll stay with her the best I can (as a friend at least if we don't work out) and actually be there to be a fucking dad the best I can.. if she gets it aborted.. I'm probably going to drop all contact with her.

However.. I will not PREACH what any girl should do. I live life with the philosophy, "live and let live" wich means if someone has a different opinion than me, I'm not going to bastardize them for it. I will not hold judgement onto them and tell them how wrong they are. It's their life, i sure as hell don't want anyone jumpin in my koolaide tellin me how I should take care of my own personal body, so I won't do it to others. However as far as a relationship goes.. I can't be serious with someone who could go that route.. just personaly it's a red flag to me that the she won't have the emotions i require of her to have to have a serious relationship. But as far as friends go.. she can get her shit scraped 3 times a year for all i care, if she's fun to hang out with so be it.. I'll just never hook up with her.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Then please tell me what IS being suggested, because I am confused. I have heard from several people so far (Phee, KBK) that to be dead is better than to have been abused. See Phee's point above that he can think of about 20 things worse than murder. So, if you or anyone else could explain this point further, I would greatly appreciate it.

Obviously you live with blinders on.....

There is nothing anybody can say, save the Pope, to make you see that your view is a bit skewed.....

I don't knock your beliefs, I just don't agree.....

[phee]

The problem with a debate such as this (and maybe it deserves another thread) is the assumptive starting ground.

Most people who are pro-life have already decided that abortion = murder.

So instead of arguing against abortion, they are actually arguing against murder....

If I started a debate off by ("more or less") saying "as we all know, the color purple causes health and longevity, and the color orange causes death and unhappiness, so knowing this we have to put an end to the color orange and spread purple as much as possible." Well at that point I have already made the assumption about the colors.... so arguing with me no longer matters. And when someone stands up and says "But hey I like orange! I don't think its that bad!" And my response is "Why on earth would you WANT to be around orange when it causes death and unhappiness?" No argument... I have already made up my mind, and it is no longer a debate... it is me stating my opinion as truth... with no room to move.

I have experienced this with a GF, that was convinced that I was having an intimate "relationship" with a girl I met online (the old DGN site to be exact) she lived in Texas and I had never met her, and she was a single mom, and I was a single dad.... My GF at the time decided to read my email and decided that every phrase in my email was about me cheating.... her question to me was "why?" not "is this cheating?" and they were phrases like "Contact Me if you need anything" To my GF that was unquestionably an invitation she was giving me for sex.....

I ramble I threadjack... but the point being in this thread.... There is no point in discussing something with someone who already has this amount of assumptions carved in stone as to "how it is"....

Me? Abortion? I know enough to know that I don't know....

[freydis]

The problem with a debate such as this (and maybe it deserves another thread) is the assumptive starting ground.

Most people who are pro-life have already decided that abortion = murder.

So instead of arguing against abortion, they are actually arguing against murder....

If I started a debate off by ("more or less") saying "as we all know, the color purple causes health and longevity, and the color orange causes death and unhappiness, so knowing this we have to put an end to the color orange and spread purple as much as possible." Well at that point I have already made the assumption about the colors.... so arguing with me no longer matters. And when someone stands up and says "But hey I like orange! I don't think its that bad!" And my response is "Why on earth would you WANT to be around orange when it causes death and unhappiness?" No argument... I have already made up my mind, and it is no longer a debate... it is me stating my opinion as truth... with no room to move.

I have experienced this with a GF, that was convinced that I was having an intimate "relationship" with a girl I met online (the old DGN site to be exact) she lived in Texas and I had never met her, and she was a single mom, and I was a single dad.... My GF at the time decided to read my email and decided that every phrase in my email was about me cheating.... her question to me was "why?" not "is this cheating?" and they were phrases like "Contact Me if you need anything" To my GF that was unquestionably an invitation she was giving me for sex.....

I ramble I threadjack... but the point being in this thread.... There is no point in discussing something with someone who already has this amount of assumptions carved in stone as to "how it is"....

Me? Abortion? I know enough to know that I don't know....

Exactly. Then you get people relying on faulty arguments, fallacies, etc..... mostly because the debate is just as much emotional as cerebral. I think its getting a little ridiculous. Stating skin cells are as human life is where I bow out.

[Shade Everdark]

There is so much rich, fallow soil here for the plowing, I don't even know where to begin.

The wonderfully ironic thing about arguments like this one is that it perpetuates vehement emotions, and therefore, responses, on both sides of the issue, and yet by that same virtue practically ensures that no one's mind will change, save through visceral and traumatic personal experience.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

Exactly. Then you get people relying on faulty arguments, fallacies, etc..... mostly because the debate is just as much emotional as cerebral. I think its getting a little ridiculous. Stating skin cells are as human life is where I bow out.

Who stated that skin cells considered human life?? not I

what I said was that, a defining characteristic of being human was having HUMAN DNA....chimps don't have human DNA....dogs don't...birds don't....fish don't have human DNA....only a HUMAN has HUMAN DNA...thats not a faulty arguement or a fallacy...thats just scientific fact and common knowledge.

I have not, once, made any of my arguements in a religious or emotional nature. What I have done is point out that, according to scientific fact that a fetus is a human being because it has human DNA...and that according to judicial definition, that makes abortion a form of homicide.

arguing the choice is all fine and good...but to argue the facts when their black n white....thats like kicking a bull between in the nuts....you can do it...but it doesn't make you look like their is an IQ present.

[freydis]

So now because I disagree with you I'm stupid?

I'm done.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

So now because I disagree with you I'm stupid?

I'm done.

no...I said that if you are ARGUING FACTS....it's not what I believe....it's flat fact....by scientific definition, a human fetus carries Human DNA, which is a defining characteristic of being human.

Then, according to the definition, the judicial defintion of Homicide would include abortion.

you can argue against my beliefs and opinions all you want....but if you argue fact, whats the point?

[freydis]

no...I said that if you are ARGUING FACTS....it's not what I believe....it's flat fact....by scientific definition, a human fetus carries Human DNA, which is a defining characteristic of being human.

Then, according to the definition, the judicial defintion of Homicide would include abortion.

you can argue against my beliefs and opinions all you want....but if you argue fact, whats the point?

The "facts" are fluid here, because by the letter of the law, not all states consider a fetus a human being, and even the ones that do have very specific requirements to render a judgement of murder. So telling me the facts are black and white, from the beginning, is a flawed arguement. They're not. Legally, spiritually, scientifically and philosophically, there is no single determination as to whether abortion is murder. What defines us as people, what seperates us from animals, has forever been under debate. Even truth has been rendered changeable, imprecise, and ambiguous by philosophy.

ANd YES, you pretty much called me stupid. Own up.

but to argue the facts when their black n white....thats like kicking a bull between in the nuts....you can do it...but it doesn't make you look like their is an IQ present.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

The "facts" are fluid here, because by the letter of the law, not all states consider a fetus a human being, and even the ones that do have very specific requirements to render a judgement of murder. So telling me the facts are black and white, from the beginning, is a flawed arguement. They're not. Legally, spiritually, scientifically and philosophically, there is no single determination as to whether abortion is murder. What defines us as people, what seperates us from animals, has forever been under debate. Even truth has been rendered changeable, imprecise, and ambiguous by philosophy.

ANd YES, you pretty much called me stupid. Own up.

see...thats where your mixing things that I don't think you know that your mixing....I said that abortion is HOMICIDE...not murder.

I will repost, just in case anyone missed it

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are both examples of criminal homicide.

while Murder is INCLUDED under Homicide, it is not the end all and be all that homicide entails.

Also

A: Feticide or foeticide is an act that causes the death of a fetus.[1] In a legal context, "fetal homicide" refers to the deliberate or incidental killing of a fetus due to a criminal human act, such as a punch or kick to the abdomen of a pregnant woman. As a medical term, feticide is destruction of a fetus,[2] for example as the first phase of a legal induced abortion.[3] Feticide does not refer to the death of a fetus from entirely natural causes, or through the spontaneous abortion of a pregnancy where the life of the fetus could not be maintained artificially ex utero.

B: In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.[4][5] These laws do not apply to legal induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion.

C: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which recognizes the "child in utero" as a legal victim if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of 68 existing federal crimes of violence. These crimes include some acts that are federal crimes no matter where they occur (e.g., certain acts of terrorism), crimes in federal jurisdictions, crimes within the military system, crimes involving certain federal officials, and other special cases. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

and for everyone information....

In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

that quote states that an abortion is legally available up to the last trimester, WAY AFTER the fetus has developed a seperate set of brainwave and heart beat activity.

[freydis]

see...thats where your mixing things that I don't think you know that your mixing....I said that abortion is HOMICIDE...not murder.

I will repost, just in case anyone missed it

while Murder is INCLUDED under Homicide, it is not the end all and be all that homicide entails.

Also

You are still using definitions that arent universal. It is still under debate as to when it moves from destruction of a fetus/embryo/zygote to destruction of human life. Not everyone defines a collection of cells as a human life. Most define a human as something that has a developed brain. Hell, its not even a FETUS until the 8th week of gestation. Most people will not consider a zygote a human life. Not yet.

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

You are still using definitions that arent universal. It is still under debate as to when it moves from destruction of a fetus/embryo/zygote to destruction of human life. Not everyone defines a collection of cells as a human life. Most definate a human as something that has a developed brain. Hell, its not even a FETUS until the 8th week of gestation. Most people will not consider a zygote a human life. Not yet.

Munin....I used the base definitions for "Homicide" "Feticide" and "legalized Abortion"

how much more "universal" do you want/need me to get??

[phee]

As I said earlier.... once someones mind is made up about something like this... it makes it very hard to have a discussion.... it turns into opinion stating...

Not that the rules have been broken but please.... keep it civil... the IQ comment comes a bit too close to the line

[Guest GodfallenPromos]

As I said earlier.... once someones mind is made up about something like this... it makes it very hard to have a discussion.... it turns into opinion stating...

Not that the rules have been broken but please.... keep it civil... the IQ comment comes a bit too close to the line

well damn Phee...I stopped using my opinions a while ago...like the second page when I brought the word "judicial" into all this. Stating my opinion is only going to be that...but if I use universal and base definitions that we all know...then I'm not sure how it becomes anything less then me posting facts.

[phee]

well damn Phee...I stopped using my opinions a while ago...like the second page when I brought the word "judicial" into all this. Stating my opinion is only going to be that...but if I use universal and base definitions that we all know...then I'm not sure how it becomes anything less then me posting facts.

Like I said... it was NOT over the line.... just close

[freydis]

well damn Phee...I stopped using my opinions a while ago...like the second page when I brought the word "judicial" into all this. Stating my opinion is only going to be that...but if I use universal and base definitions that we all know...then I'm not sure how it becomes anything less then me posting facts.

once again, you are using malleable definitions and stating them as universal "fact". And using strong-arm argumentative tactics to attempt to make me appear ignorant. You're failing.

Good night, sir.