Political Crossfire Forums

[Ransom]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I am going to start this long post by stating that I am pro-life. I don’t believe abortion is a moral issue at all, but a civil liberties issue. It took me a couple days to gather the information and write this out. Please respect that.

A zygote/embryo/fetus is human and is alive
..........................................................................................................................

Conclusion
Since I proved that a prenatal baby is a live person; they should be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment under the law. Since prenatal zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human at the time of conception, no abortion after such time should be allowed. The only reason an abortion should be permitted is if the mother will die due the birth of the baby. The mother is the reason the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. It is not have the right to overrule a mother’s right to life.

Thank you for this piece. It is very well written (I pared it down for size). I agree whole heartedly. I think that in 40 years, at the most, that people will look back on our generation in the same light as they will look back on those who kept slaves. :cry:

[Iandefor]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Blinky wrote: Iandefor wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Rape accounts for like 1% of abortions so lets get real here. Ah, so because they don't happen often means they're not worth seriously considering?

I think it means that it is an ugly truth that makes it more difficult to defend his position and so he doesn't like it.

Ha theres been entire threads devoted to abortion in the case of rape, and Ive been defending my view on them for longer than most anyone who still comes to this section. It sounds like you don't even know my position.

The debate never goes anywhere. Lets focus on 90% of abortions which make up lifestyle abortions before we focus on situational abortions. The poster made a good argument and was deflected by the "what about rape" line. It is the pro abortion people who cant defend their point of view not me. I was only pointing out that the poster made the implicit assumption that the woman had
any say in the matter of whether or not she got impregnated. That's
all I said.

Quote:
Lets focus on 90% of abortions which make up lifestyle abortions "Lifestyle" abortions? What the hell is a lifestyle abortion? At first glance, it looks like it could mean an abortion made solely to preserve a lifestyle... but that's a ridiculous term, since having a child inherently means a lifestyle change. The only probable reason anyone could have to avoid giving birth is to avoid the new lifestyle brought on by having a child, which makes it a superfluous term.

[Iandefor]

Ransom wrote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I am going to start this long post by stating that I am pro-life. I don’t believe abortion is a moral issue at all, but a civil liberties issue. It took me a couple days to gather the information and write this out. Please respect that.

A zygote/embryo/fetus is human and is alive
..........................................................................................................................

Conclusion
Since I proved that a prenatal baby is a live person; they should be afforded the protection of the 14th Amendment under the law. Since prenatal zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human at the time of conception, no abortion after such time should be allowed. The only reason an abortion should be permitted is if the mother will die due the birth of the baby. The mother is the reason the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. It is not have the right to overrule a mother’s right to life.

Thank you for this piece. It is very well written (I pared it down for size). I agree whole heartedly. I think that in 40 years, at the most, that people will look back on our generation in the same light as they will look back on those who kept slaves. :cry: How did you account for the fact that a legal person isn't necessarily just a human? His entire argument rests on the idea that human=person, when he doesn't account for the fact that corporations are also legal persons, meaning the criteria are, in fact, wider than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. In most instances I've seen, a person is more broadly defined to mean any entity with self-consciousness, is capable or moral/ethical decisions and is also able to think rationally. By any of those criteria, his argument crumbles.

[Ransom]

Iandefor wrote: How did you account for the fact that a legal person isn't necessarily just a human? His entire argument rests on the idea that human=person, when he doesn't account for the fact that corporations are also legal persons, meaning the criteria are, in fact, wider than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. In most instances I've seen, a person is more broadly defined to mean any entity with self-consciousness, is capable or moral/ethical decisions and is also able to think rationally. By any of those criteria, his argument crumbles.

It doesn't sound like you actually read the first post because he dealt specifically with the bold portion of your reply.

[straw man]

Iandefor wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest. You don't know that. What of rape? Should she welcome rapeseed into her body as a welcome guest?

Let me just clarify this. I should have said the fetus was a welcomed guest with a * (except in the rare case of rape) which is a whole different situation anyway. I doubt if that is what coolcreep was referring to anyway.

So in the 99% of pregnancies which result from consentual sex like I was talking about, these fetuses are not the same as someone "barging in" because they were clearly invited unlike that burglar in the middle of the night.

[straw man]

Chief Wiggum: Now Sideshow Bob can't get in without me knowing. And once a man is in your home, anything you do to him is nice and legal.

Homer: Is that so? Oh Flanders, won't you join me in my kitchen?

Wiggum: Uh, it doesn't work if you invite them.

Ned Flanders: Hidely Ho!

Homer: Go home.

Ned Flanders: Okily Dokily!

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: I was only pointing out that the poster made the implicit assumption that the woman had
any say in the matter of whether or not she got impregnated. That's
all I said.


And 99% of the time he is right.


Quote: "Lifestyle" abortions? What the hell is a lifestyle abortion? At first glance, it looks like it could mean an abortion made solely to preserve a lifestyle... but that's a ridiculous term, since having a child inherently means a lifestyle change. The only probable reason anyone could have to avoid giving birth is to avoid the new lifestyle brought on by having a child, which makes it a superfluous term. "lifestyle abortions" is a term used to describe mothers who terminate their unborn childrens lives for no other reason than stopping the change in lifestyle. Lifestyle abortions is basically any abortion performed for reasons other than rape, health, and incest. Lifestyle abortions also compose roughly 90% of all abortions. Totalling up to over a million deaths a year in America. Also referred to as abortions for birth control. Many pro lifers are willing to compromise and allow for these situational abortions and just want to prevent the lifestyle ones from occuring.

[Iandefor]

Ransom wrote: Iandefor wrote: How did you account for the fact that a legal person isn't necessarily just a human? His entire argument rests on the idea that human=person, when he doesn't account for the fact that corporations are also legal persons, meaning the criteria are, in fact, wider than just a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. In most instances I've seen, a person is more broadly defined to mean any entity with self-consciousness, is capable or moral/ethical decisions and is also able to think rationally. By any of those criteria, his argument crumbles.

It doesn't sound like you actually read the first post because he dealt specifically with the bold portion of your reply. Oh, you mean the part where he claims that since a baby isn't sentient it isn't a person by the definition I used, and therefore, it's not a valid definition? Please.

If I didn't read the first post, do tell me how it is I might have understood his argument when all the rest of the posts prior to my first post in this thread were merely statements of agreement. I certainly couldn't have gleaned it from those. Would I have simply entered the thread and decided that it would be about such-and-such a thing, and based the rest of my arguments off of that? That statement wasn't there when I first read it. It seems that post was edited once I brought up the matter.

[Iandefor]

AllAmericanMan wrote:
Quote: "Lifestyle" abortions? What the hell is a lifestyle abortion? At first glance, it looks like it could mean an abortion made solely to preserve a lifestyle... but that's a ridiculous term, since having a child inherently means a lifestyle change. The only probable reason anyone could have to avoid giving birth is to avoid the new lifestyle brought on by having a child, which makes it a superfluous term. "lifestyle abortions" is a term used to describe mothers who terminate their unborn childrens lives for no other reason than stopping the change in lifestyle. Lifestyle abortions is basically any abortion performed for reasons other than rape, health, and incest. Lifestyle abortions also compose roughly 90% of all abortions. Totalling up to over a million deaths a year in America. Also referred to as abortions for birth control. Many pro lifers are willing to compromise and allow for these situational abortions and just want to prevent the lifestyle ones from occuring. And if that lifestyle change is, in itself, detrimental?

[AllAmericanMan]

Iandefor wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote:
Quote: "Lifestyle" abortions? What the hell is a lifestyle abortion? At first glance, it looks like it could mean an abortion made solely to preserve a lifestyle... but that's a ridiculous term, since having a child inherently means a lifestyle change. The only probable reason anyone could have to avoid giving birth is to avoid the new lifestyle brought on by having a child, which makes it a superfluous term. "lifestyle abortions" is a term used to describe mothers who terminate their unborn childrens lives for no other reason than stopping the change in lifestyle. Lifestyle abortions is basically any abortion performed for reasons other than rape, health, and incest. Lifestyle abortions also compose roughly 90% of all abortions. Totalling up to over a million deaths a year in America. Also referred to as abortions for birth control. Many pro lifers are willing to compromise and allow for these situational abortions and just want to prevent the lifestyle ones from occuring. And if that lifestyle change is, in itself, detrimental?

It wont be as detrimental as robbing someone of their entire existence. The mother most likely chose to engage in the activity that created a new human being. Now she should not be able to place her comfort above that being's right to life.

We must focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place instead of killing the product of our actions or worrying about the consequences of allowing innocent human life to simply live.

[coolcreep]

straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest.

that simply isn't true. having sex and asking a fetus to attach itself to your uterus are two totally different things. when you take away a woman's right to choose, you are literally enslaving her to the fetus, treating her not as a human being, but as an incubator. the fact is that it doesn't matter how alive a fetus is, as that life relies solely on the woman carrying the fetus, and that fetus has no right to leech off a woman without her permission. abortion should be the woman's choice, and nobody elses.

[AllAmericanMan]

coolcreep wrote: straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: you are only looking at the fetus's rights, you have given no weight to the woman's right to not be invaded by unwanted zygotes. if someone barges into a woman's house in the dead of night, and she shoots said person, self defense and whatnot would be screamed, and the chances of her being convicted of murder would be slim-to-none. why do you value the sanctity of someone's home over that of someone's body? perhaps you could say that you could feel threatened with the first example, but not the second, but how is someone barging into your house more scary than someone barging into your body? if the fetus is a human being (which you say it is) then obviously a woman feeling threatened by someone barging into their body is justified, and if a fetus isn't a human, then it has no right to life in the first place. and just because a fetus doesn't pose a threat doesn't mean you cant feel threatened by it, its about the PERCEIVES threat. lets say the man who barged into ms. woman's apartment was trying to just give her a plate of cookies and a glass of milk, the PERCEIVED threat was still there. you could say perceiving a threat from a fetus is silly, but if a PERSON (which a fetus must be for your argument to hold any weight) barges into a woman's uterus, i think perceiving a threat is rather justifiable.

This is quite a bit different than some intruder encroaching on your property. While the person you shot to death was uninvited, the fetus was a welcomed guest.

that simply isn't true. having sex and asking a fetus to attach itself to your uterus are two totally different things. when you take away a woman's right to choose, you are literally enslaving her to the fetus, treating her not as a human being, but as an incubator. the fact is that it doesn't matter how alive a fetus is, as that life relies solely on the woman carrying the fetus, and that fetus has no right to leech off a woman without her permission. abortion should be the woman's choice, and nobody elses.

Our sexual drive is our drive to reproduce offspring to ensure survival of the species. A woman is natures incubator for human beings. Nature has burdened them with this and no one says it's fair. With freedom comes responsibility. When you say a woman's right to choose you are ignoring what the choice is, and what it's result is. There are alot of choices in life, some of them are illegal.

Our judicial system is built on not infringing upon other's rights. So we must look at abortion and determine if anyone's rights are being violated.
The consensus in embryology is that a new human life is created. Yet the SCOTUS decided that these human lives are not persons. Please come up with a medical or biological source that says they are not human because they are.


Most of the time giving birth does not harm the mother. It is not some unwanted parasite to be cleansed. It's a new life and there are now 2 bodies present. We should concetrate on responsible super safe sex instead of having a million abortions a year.

[coolcreep]

AllAmericanMan wrote:
Our sexual drive is our drive to reproduce offspring to ensure survival of the species. A woman is natures incubator for human beings. Nature has burdened them with this and no one says it's fair. With freedom comes responsibility. When you say a woman's right to choose you are ignoring what the choice is, and what it's result is. There are alot of choices in life, some of them are illegal.

Our judicial system is built on not infringing upon other's rights. So we must look at abortion and determine if anyone's rights are being violated.
The consensus in embryology is that a new human life is created. Yet the SCOTUS decided that these human lives are not persons. Please come up with a medical or biological source that says they are not human because they are.


Most of the time giving birth does not harm the mother. It is not some unwanted parasite to be cleansed. It's a new life and there are now 2 bodies present. We should concetrate on responsible super safe sex instead of having a million abortions a year.

you yourself say it isn't fair. we have the means to make it fair, and yet you think we shouldn't? I repeat my main points, as you have yet to really rebutt either: illegalizing abortion enslaves women to the fetus, and having your body invaded is just cause to retaliate against the invader. the fetus is not invited, the possible result of sex is pregnancy, but that by no means makes having sex an invitation to the fetus to be impregnated. the possible result of crossing the street is getting run over, does that mean crossing the street is an invitation for people to hit you? when you go in for surgery, there is a chance something terrible could happen, does that mean when you go for surgery you are giving the docter the OK to do his best to kill you? The woman's rights supercede the fetus' because the fetus inhabits her womb. If you are renting a house from someone, and they give you 2 months notice, after those two months you have no right to live there. If the family has nowhere else to go, will end up living on the streets and dying, it doesn't matter, the owner has the right to kick them out after those 2 months. I would be fine with the same rule for abortions: Before the abortion, the fetus must be given time to complain about not being given 2 months notice. if it can prove it wasn't given it's 2 months notice, the woman must wait 2 months after that point before aborting. Hell, i could even live with a woman having to say to the fetus it's going to get aborted in 2 months, then wait 2 months, then abort. this would help give women time to really think about the choice.

[straw man]

coolcreep wrote: that simply isn't true. having sex and asking a fetus to attach itself to your uterus are two totally different things.

No. They are exactly the same thing. Sex by design is an act specifically intended for reproduction. The whole purpose of us having the reproductive systems and mingling them is to produce a fetus and have it attach itself to a woman. Thus when both parties willingly have sex, they have done an act which asks a fetus to come on in. Now they may have had the sex for other purposes, but that doesn't change the fact that the act they chose to engage in, is the act of inviting a fetus.

Whether or not the mother wants the fetus there is another story. She may very well not, but that doesn't mean she didn't send it the invitation. You may very well invite someone over to your house that you don't want there. But when they show up, even if you don't want them there, you can't call them an intruder if you mailed them an invitation. No matter WHY you decided to mail out the invitation. Even if you mailed the invitation for a different reason. Maybe you just get pleasure out of mailing invitations. You like the taste of the enevelope glue and the satisfaction from dropping it in the mailbox. You may have not wanted a guest at all. That doesn't change the fact that you did an act which was specifically designed for and whose primary purpose is inviting a guest. Therefore, don't be surprised and then kill the guest who shows up at your door.

coolcreep wrote: ...the possible result of crossing the street is getting run over, does that mean crossing the street is an invitation for people to hit you? when you go in for surgery, there is a chance something terrible could happen, does that mean when you go for surgery you are giving the docter the OK to do his best to kill you?

Bad examples. Unlike sex, in these examples the "possible result" isn't the outcome which is the quintessential purpose of the activity. The very purpose of crossing the road is to get to the other side, NOT to get run over. Getting run over could happen, but road crossing isn't designed for getting run over. Road crossing is for being on the other side. So it would be more like if one chose to cross the road, for whatever reason, and then when they wound up on the other side (like should be expected) decided the need to terminate a human life because they don't want to be on that side (even though they willingly engaged in road crossing intended to get them to that other side).

[coolcreep]

straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: that simply isn't true. having sex and asking a fetus to attach itself to your uterus are two totally different things.

No. They are exactly the same thing. Sex by design is an act specifically intended for reproduction. The whole purpose of us having the reproductive systems and mingling them is to produce a fetus and have it attach itself to a woman. Thus when both parties willingly have sex, they have done an act which asks a fetus to come on in. Now they may have had the sex for other purposes, but that doesn't change the fact that the act they chose to engage in, is the act of inviting a fetus.

Whether or not the mother wants the fetus there is another story. She may very well not, but that doesn't mean she didn't send it the invitation. You may very well invite someone over to your house that you don't want there. But when they show up, even if you don't want them there, you can't call them an intruder if you mailed them an invitation. No matter WHY you decided to mail out the invitation. Even if you mailed the invitation for a different reason. Maybe you just get pleasure out of mailing invitations. You like the taste of the enevelope glue and the satisfaction from dropping it in the mailbox. You may have not wanted a guest at all. That doesn't change the fact that you did an act which was specifically designed for and whose primary purpose is inviting a guest. Therefore, don't be surprised and then kill the guest who shows up at your door.

coolcreep wrote: ...the possible result of crossing the street is getting run over, does that mean crossing the street is an invitation for people to hit you? when you go in for surgery, there is a chance something terrible could happen, does that mean when you go for surgery you are giving the docter the OK to do his best to kill you?

Bad examples. Unlike sex, in these examples the "possible result" isn't the outcome which is the quintessential purpose of the activity. The very purpose of crossing the road is to get to the other side, NOT to get run over. Getting run over could happen, but road crossing isn't designed for getting run over. Road crossing is for being on the other side. So it would be more like if one chose to cross the road, for whatever reason, and then when they wound up on the other side (like should be expected) decided the need to terminate a human life because they don't want to be on that side (even though they willingly engaged in road crossing intended to get them to that other side).

what about pleasure? there are 2 out of 28 days in the menstrual cycle where the ovum is viable and a woman can get pregnant during. that is 1/14 chance that she can get pregnant. over 1/4 of all pregnancies end in stillbirth during the first trimester (the embryo doesn't attach to the uterine wall) so if you have sex the woman has a 1/56 shot at getting a fetus that would be around long enough for abortion to even be considered (cant abort what you dont know about). now, lets see how often sex is pleasurable. hm.....1/1? well maybe not for everyone, but...its a hell of a lot higher than 1/56 aint it? maybe 50/56. anyways, who are you to tell me or anyone else why they are having sex? the "reason" for having sex if for the participants to decide, not you.
and while we are on the topic of "bad examples", a guy who crosses the street has no right to harm the other people, they arent infringing on his rights in any way. oh and you didn't even touch my landlord/tenant example, did your forget to, or did you get flabberghasted at the thought that i just might be right?

[straw man]

coolcreep wrote: what about pleasure? there are 2 out of 28 days in the menstrual cycle where the ovum is viable and a woman can get pregnant during. that is 1/14 chance that she can get pregnant. over 1/4 of all pregnancies end in stillbirth during the first trimester (the embryo doesn't attach to the uterine wall) so if you have sex the woman has a 1/56 shot at getting a fetus that would be around long enough for abortion to even be considered (cant abort what you dont know about). now, lets see how often sex is pleasurable. hm.....1/1? well maybe not for everyone, but...its a hell of a lot higher than 1/56 aint it? maybe 50/56. anyways, who are you to tell me or anyone else why they are having sex? the "reason" for having sex if for the participants to decide, not you.

I'm not talking about people's individual personal reasons for having sex. That could be anything from money to fun to stress relief to reproduction to no reason at all. I was referring to the purpose for which sex was designed. As far as that is concerned the purpose is clear: reproduction.

And the pleasure evolved as a motivator for our species to seek reproduction. If you understood evolution you would know that a species has a better chance for survival with plentiful reproduction. Therefore it's no surprise that the act would be enjoyable. That doesn't circumvent the need for a mentrual cycle however, so your math isn't really relevant.

Someone could say, "It is a good thing we have a nose, because it allows us as a species to have somewhere to prop up our sunglasses". Now that may be the use they get out of their nose, but it doesn't change the fact about WHY the nose is there. The nose did not evolve for propping sunglasses, it is there for detecting environmental abnormalities (e.g. a fire) to assist in survival. So whatever the reason one has sex, to say that they are engaging in an act meant for any other purpose than reproduction is scientifically dishonest.

Therefore when two people voluntarily have sex, on a biological level, they are inviting a fetus.

As far as your landlord example, it doesn't compare so it's no good. People have a right to evict someone from their property. People don't however (or shouldn't) have the right to KILL (or committ child endangeremant). That is the difference when a landlord evicts someone; he's not killing them as his method to getting rid of them. Not to mention that a fetus is unable to verbalize a request for two months notice. I'm sorry that comparison was so out there I never figured you needed me to address it.

[coolcreep]

straw man wrote: coolcreep wrote: what about pleasure? there are 2 out of 28 days in the menstrual cycle where the ovum is viable and a woman can get pregnant during. that is 1/14 chance that she can get pregnant. over 1/4 of all pregnancies end in stillbirth during the first trimester (the embryo doesn't attach to the uterine wall) so if you have sex the woman has a 1/56 shot at getting a fetus that would be around long enough for abortion to even be considered (cant abort what you dont know about). now, lets see how often sex is pleasurable. hm.....1/1? well maybe not for everyone, but...its a hell of a lot higher than 1/56 aint it? maybe 50/56. anyways, who are you to tell me or anyone else why they are having sex? the "reason" for having sex if for the participants to decide, not you.

I'm not talking about people's individual personal reasons for having sex. That could be anything from money to fun to stress relief to reproduction to no reason at all. I was referring to the purpose for which sex was designed. As far as that is concerned the purpose is clear: reproduction.

And the pleasure evolved as a motivator for our species to seek reproduction. If you understood evolution you would know that a species has a better chance for survival with plentiful reproduction. Therefore it's no surprise that the act would be enjoyable. That doesn't circumvent the need for a mentrual cycle however, so your math isn't really relevant.

Someone could say, "It is a good thing we have a nose, because it allows us as a species to have somewhere to prop up our sunglasses". Now that may be the use they get out of their nose, but it doesn't change the fact about WHY the nose is there. The nose did not evolve for propping sunglasses, it is there for detecting environmental abnormalities (e.g. a fire) to assist in survival. So whatever the reason one has sex, to say that they are engaging in an act meant for any other purpose than reproduction is scientifically dishonest.

Therefore when two people voluntarily have sex, on a biological level, they are inviting a fetus.

As far as your landlord example, it doesn't compare so it's no good. People have a right to evict someone from their property. People don't however (or shouldn't) have the right to KILL (or committ child endangeremant). That is the difference when a landlord evicts someone; he's not killing them as his method to getting rid of them. Not to mention that a fetus is unable to verbalize a request for two months notice. I'm sorry that comparison was so out there I never figured you needed me to address it.

so if the docter were to simply remove the fetus, and not actually kill it inside the womb, it would be ok? and it is the fetus's problem it cant verbalize anything, not the mother's. as for your sex is designed for this or that, i still don't see the relevance. with that logic its wrong to use birth control, because it is untrue to what was "designed". and i don't really care if it was "designed" for or not, women aren't incubators. you have told me 0 times how forcing a women to carry the fetus isn't enslaving her to it. having sex does not invite a fetus, whatever sex was designed for, the person has the choice to have sex for reasons other than what it was designed for, and ignore that intended purpose. even if that were to invite the fetus, the woman should have the right to kick the fetus out. if i invite you over for dinner, that doesn't give you the right to stay here for 9 months. even if i invite you over for 9 months, if you start pissing my off 3 months in, i have every right to ask you to leave. if you refuse i have the right to force you out. you will probably be thinking "you cant ask a fetus to leave, it cant comprehend" etc etc etc. how is that the fault of the mother? if there is a man in my house who i cannot communicate my wishes to in any way, even if he was invited to come over, i have the right to remove him from my house. what happens to him afterwords is not my responsibility, nor my concern. all this means is that the form of abortion should change.

[straw man]

coolcreep wrote: so if the docter were to simply remove the fetus, and not actually kill it inside the womb, it would be ok?

Of course not. I said no such thing. In taking it out of its habitat that it needs to survive you are killing it via child endangeremant. Do you not consider child endangerement a way of killing a child? I suppose you could leave a little kid inside a sealed up car on a hot summer afternoon while you go to the mall, then when you come back to the baby who is cooked alive, you could say, "I didn't kill the baby. For all intents and purposes the sun killed the baby. I did nothing wrong, all I did was go shopping".

I suppose the answer to this question depends on what the abortionist does after the abortion. Does he put it in an artificial incubator where it can live? Does he punt it like a football into the wastebasket? Just drop it in the dumpster and close the lid? As you can see it is easy to tell how you can kill a child in this way.

Let me ask you this about your logic. You seem to think that simply kicking a person out is within your rights and you would have no responsibility for what happens after you kick them out. By this logic, what if a mother and her one year old baby are sitting on a boat in the middle of the lake. Obviously the baby can't swim. The boat belongs to the mother. The title is in her name. So the baby is crying too much and pissed her off, the mother drops the baby overboard because this is her property, she has every right to kick the baby out. Well the baby drowns to death. So are you saying the mother is not responsible for this and has every right to do so because it's her boat? Nevermind that she's the one who decided to take the boat ride to the middle of the lake and put the baby in this situation.

coolcreep wrote: and it is the fetus's problem it cant verbalize anything, not the mother's.

You were suggesting that we give the baby a chance to complain. I was merely responding to that, wondering how in the heck is the baby supposed to complain? They can't, therefore you weren't really granting the baby any consessions or being fair about it with that two month idea.

coolcreep wrote: ...as for your sex is designed for this or that, i still don't see the relevance...

I was very clear about this. Sex is the process which biologically invites a fetus into the mother's womb, and was designed for that purpose and that purpose alone. Think of it like mailing out a wedding invitation.

coolcreep wrote: ...with that logic its wrong to use birth control, because it is untrue to what was "designed".

The whole reason I brought up "design" was explaining to you that sex is by design a natural invitation for new human to be created. It was to shoot down your notion that the fetus was not invited, because the very process which conceived it was a natural invitation. I would not bring up the design for any other purposes, like to object to birth control. The reason for my objecting to an abortion isn't there for birth control. A condom doesn't destroy an innocent human life like an abortion does.

coolcreep wrote: ...women aren't incubators...

Sure they are! They aren't artificial, they are natural, but whatever created them, either God or coincidental science, made them SPECIFICALLY to have the capability to provide all the right conditions and nourismnet, temperature etc. for the developing human until it is capable of survival in our environment. They are by definition nature's incubators so this comment was rather silly. (No I'm not saying they all MUST serve this purpose, I'm just saying that's the way they are built).

coolcreep wrote: ...you have told me 0 times how forcing a women to carry the fetus isn't enslaving her to it.

This is true. I have told you 0 times how this was not enslaving the woman, because I have made the claim that this is not enslaving the woman 0 times.

Obviously by not allowing abortions we would be forcing the mother to carry the baby to term. I never suggested this however. I claim abortion is wrong, I didn't claim we should outlaw it or force women to carry the baby. But even if we did, yes I suppose that would be "enslavement". I think of it more like obligatory responsibility. Kind of like if you have kids in your house, you can't just kick them to the street when they are six years old. You have to still feed them until they are eighteen. Hell forbid we should force parents to be responsible. We should allow parents to starve their young children to death and not provide them food or clothing so as to not enslave them, right?

coolcreep wrote: ...having sex does not invite a fetus, whatever sex was designed for, the person has the choice to have sex for reasons other than what it was designed for, and ignore that intended purpose.

Doing the act is what makes the invitation. Not WHY you did it. Just THAT you did it. Otherwise if I write a letter saying to come to my house, stuff it an envelope addressed to someone and drop it in the mailbox, no matter why I did it, I still invited them. It doesn't matter if my motive was the yummy glue, or perhaps I just wanted the exercize from my walk to the mailbox. I still did the act of inviting, for whatever reason. Therefore I invited them, whether I actually wanted them there or not.

[Iandefor]

I've asked a lawyer/legal researcher I know of the legal definition of a person, and specifically how it applies to this question. Essentially, the statement that a fetus is a person is wrong. The statement that it isn't a person is also wrong. It varies from case to case. The way the law currently stands, a fetus is not defined as a person in the instance of an abortion, but in the instance of, say, someone assaulting a pregnant woman in such a way that a miscarriage is caused, the fetus is considered a person. A fetus' personhood is a little arbitrary in law, in other words, and in the case of an abortion, it isn't considered a legal person. Also, the cases of when a fetus is a person and when it isn't vary from state to state- it's just that, in most states, this is how it goes.

[coolcreep]

straw man: you mean you dont think it should be illegal? oh snap. i thought you did. my feelings on abortion are that it should be legal, but it is morally wrong. all my arguments are trying to point out that abortion should be legal, not that it is right. perhaps i didnt outline that clearly, or at all. my bad.