Political Crossfire Forums

[Bdwatkins]

I believe everyone is free to choose whether or not to have sex. If you women do not want babies, do not be sluts. Simple as that. If you men do not want to be fathers, learn to control your urges. In those regards I am pro-choice. But when it comes to abortion, I am firmly pro-life. Abortion is barbaric and immoral, and should be 100% illegal. Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these wackos. :evil:

http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM

Women who've had abortions should be sterilized. I see no reason why they should be permitted to reproduce.

[Proton]

Until a full brain is formed, (not to mention have cells differentiated into neurons etc) and higher function EEG is detecte (around the 20 weeks... 24 actually but I like to include a safety period which also puts it symbolically in the middle of the gestation period), there is no conciousness. (Something we can test easily by extracting your brain). No conciousness, no Individual. Something that does not exist, and did not exist until then... never existed, and it is still in the power of the actual (as opposed to potential but non existant) Individuals of the present, to decide which future their wish to realise. (one of the quirks of being an actual individual, and in the present).

It has always been that simple.

Thus I call your opinion BS. Execution of an (actual/present) Individual would of cource be a crime.

Similary, sterlization would be a violation of liberty by third parties, aka another crime. In fact the first crime is a murder, the second is mutilation. Of cource present Individual do have (by living in the present, and being actual) the right to decide over the fate of non-sentient yet bodies inside them, and enjoy sex as much as they want, the effects of which are of cource, correctable.

As simple as that.

God it must suck for you to know that under my society, we can both have our cakes, eat it too, AND our arguments make sense, while you would still not get laid, no? :twisted:

[Captain Lovebird]

Proton wrote: Until a full brain is formed, (not to mention have cells differentiated into neurons etc) and higher function EEG is detecte (around the 20 weeks... 24 actually but I like to include a safety period which also puts it symbolically in the middle of the gestation period), there is no conciousness.


There is by no means an expert consensus on this. Why present it as absolute fact? What if babies this age can sense touch, sound, taste, if they can hear, and move with expression? (See below) This requires consciousness.

Proton wrote: No conciousness, no Individual.


Even if I am to accept your equation at face value, which I am hesitant to do, there is lots of evidence that the unborn baby meets the definitions for both.


con•scious adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.


Excerpted from:
http://www.eheart.com/cesarean/babies.html by David Chamberlain, PhD, a pioneer in birth psychology, and one of the founders of APPPAH (Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health)


Quote: We have learned so much about babies in the last twenty years that most of what we thought we knew before is suspect, and much of it is obsolete....

Sensitivity to touch begins in our faces about seven weeks gestational age (g.a.). Tactile sensitivity expands steadily to include most parts of the fetal body by 17 weeks....

One of the surprises is that movement commences between eight and ten weeks gestational age. This has been determined with the aid of the latest round of ultrasound improvements. Fetal movement is voluntary, spontaneous, and graceful, not jerky and reflexive as previously reported. By ten weeks, babies move their hands to their heads, face, and mouth; they flex and extend their arms and legs; they open and close their mouths; and they rotate longitudinally. From 10 to 12 weeks onward, the repertoire of body language is largely complete and continues throughout gestation. Periodic exercise alternates with rest periods on a voluntary basis reflecting individual needs and interests. Movement is self-expression, an expression of personality.
Twins viewed periodically via ultrasound during gestation often show highly independent motor profiles, and, over time continue to distinguish themselves through movement both inside and outside the womb. They are expressing their individuality. (bold mine)

Many other sensory perceptions are developed quite early:

Quote: Close observation has brought many unexpected behaviors to light. By 16 weeks g.a., male babies are having their first erections. As soon as they have hands, they are busy exploring everywhere and everything, feet, toes, mouth, and the umbilical cord: these are their first toys.
By 30 weeks, babies have an intense dream life, spending more time in the dream state of sleep than they ever do after they are born. This is significant because dreaming is definitely a cognitive activity, a creative exercise of the mind, and because it is a spontaneous and personal activity.

By only 14 weeks gestational age (g.a.), the taste buds are formed, and ultrasound shows both sucking and swallowing. A fetus controls the frequency of swallowing amniotic fluid, and will speed up or slow down in reaction to sweet and bitter tastes. Studies show babies have a definite preference for sweet tastes. Hearing begins earlier than anyone thought possible: at 16 weeks.

Proton wrote: Something that does not exist,

What doesn't exist? The fetus? Clearly it exists, it's alive, and it's human. Do you mean its consciousness? As I have shown, according to the above defintion of conscious, a strong case can be made for consciousness much earlier than you claim.

Proton wrote: and did not exist until then... never existed,

This is remarkable! Then what are you examining for signs of consciousness? Something that doesn't exist?

Proton wrote: and it is still in the power of the actual (as opposed to potential but non existant)

You are trying to equate consciousness and physical existence. Even if consciousness did not exist at all in the early fetus, (though I have shown that it does) it does not negate the physical existence of the living fetus.

Proton wrote: Individuals of the present, to decide which future their wish to realise. (one of the quirks of being an actual individual, and in the present).

Proton wrote: It has always been that simple.

Obviously, it hasn't.

Proton wrote: Execution of an (actual/present) Individual would of cource be a crime.

Ok.

Proton wrote: Of cource present Individual do have (by living in the present, and being actual) the right to decide over the fate of non-sentient yet bodies inside them,

I have already showed how a even a babies movement is an expression of individuality, so this point is moot.

Proton wrote: and enjoy sex as much as they want, the effects of which are of cource, correctable.

So a pregnancy is something that requires "correction." Good to know.

Proton wrote: As simple as that.

Not so simple.

Proton wrote: God it must suck for you to know that under my society

your society???????

Proton wrote: we can both have our cakes, eat it too,

Nope.

Proton wrote: AND our arguments make sense

Double nope.

Proton wrote: while you would still not get laid, no?

While this is not directed at me... if it were it would be wrong... usually (!)

[name]

<quote> Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. </quote>

That's what we call hypocrisy.

Early abortions do no harm to any thinking, feeling organism. Abortions should be controlled, but legal. If I wasn't ready for a pregnancy, I would definitely abort.

[spearsy23]

I am pro-life, i support that all earth worms should be given the chance at survival and anyone who goes fishing with worms should be pushed through a kangaroo court. I have no sympathy for these wackos.

See how silly it sounds.

[Selfish_Meme]

Captain Lovebird wrote: Proton wrote: Until a full brain is formed, (not to mention have cells differentiated into neurons etc) and higher function EEG is detecte (around the 20 weeks... 24 actually but I like to include a safety period which also puts it symbolically in the middle of the gestation period), there is no conciousness.


There is by no means an expert consensus on this. Why present it as absolute fact? What if babies this age can sense touch, sound, taste, if they can hear, and move with expression? (See below) This requires consciousness.

Proton wrote: No conciousness, no Individual.


Even if I am to accept your equation at face value, which I am hesitant to do, there is lots of evidence that the unborn baby meets the definitions for both.


con•scious adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.


Excerpted from:
http://www.eheart.com/cesarean/babies.html by David Chamberlain, PhD, a pioneer in birth psychology, and one of the founders of APPPAH (Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health)


Quote: We have learned so much about babies in the last twenty years that most of what we thought we knew before is suspect, and much of it is obsolete....

Sensitivity to touch begins in our faces about seven weeks gestational age (g.a.). Tactile sensitivity expands steadily to include most parts of the fetal body by 17 weeks....

One of the surprises is that movement commences between eight and ten weeks gestational age. This has been determined with the aid of the latest round of ultrasound improvements. Fetal movement is voluntary, spontaneous, and graceful, not jerky and reflexive as previously reported. By ten weeks, babies move their hands to their heads, face, and mouth; they flex and extend their arms and legs; they open and close their mouths; and they rotate longitudinally. From 10 to 12 weeks onward, the repertoire of body language is largely complete and continues throughout gestation. Periodic exercise alternates with rest periods on a voluntary basis reflecting individual needs and interests. Movement is self-expression, an expression of personality.
Twins viewed periodically via ultrasound during gestation often show highly independent motor profiles, and, over time continue to distinguish themselves through movement both inside and outside the womb. They are expressing their individuality. (bold mine)

Many other sensory perceptions are developed quite early:

Quote: Close observation has brought many unexpected behaviors to light. By 16 weeks g.a., male babies are having their first erections. As soon as they have hands, they are busy exploring everywhere and everything, feet, toes, mouth, and the umbilical cord: these are their first toys.
By 30 weeks, babies have an intense dream life, spending more time in the dream state of sleep than they ever do after they are born. This is significant because dreaming is definitely a cognitive activity, a creative exercise of the mind, and because it is a spontaneous and personal activity.

By only 14 weeks gestational age (g.a.), the taste buds are formed, and ultrasound shows both sucking and swallowing. A fetus controls the frequency of swallowing amniotic fluid, and will speed up or slow down in reaction to sweet and bitter tastes. Studies show babies have a definite preference for sweet tastes. Hearing begins earlier than anyone thought possible: at 16 weeks.

Proton wrote: Something that does not exist,

What doesn't exist? The fetus? Clearly it exists, it's alive, and it's human. Do you mean its consciousness? As I have shown, according to the above defintion of conscious, a strong case can be made for consciousness much earlier than you claim.

Proton wrote: and did not exist until then... never existed,

This is remarkable! Then what are you examining for signs of consciousness? Something that doesn't exist?

Proton wrote: and it is still in the power of the actual (as opposed to potential but non existant)

You are trying to equate consciousness and physical existence. Even if consciousness did not exist at all in the early fetus, (though I have shown that it does) it does not negate the physical existence of the living fetus.

Proton wrote: Individuals of the present, to decide which future their wish to realise. (one of the quirks of being an actual individual, and in the present).

Proton wrote: It has always been that simple.

Obviously, it hasn't.

Proton wrote: Execution of an (actual/present) Individual would of cource be a crime.

Ok.

Proton wrote: Of cource present Individual do have (by living in the present, and being actual) the right to decide over the fate of non-sentient yet bodies inside them,

I have already showed how a even a babies movement is an expression of individuality, so this point is moot.

Proton wrote: and enjoy sex as much as they want, the effects of which are of cource, correctable.

So a pregnancy is something that requires "correction." Good to know.

Proton wrote: As simple as that.

Not so simple.

Proton wrote: God it must suck for you to know that under my society

your society???????

Proton wrote: we can both have our cakes, eat it too,

Nope.

Proton wrote: AND our arguments make sense

Double nope.

Proton wrote: while you would still not get laid, no?

While this is not directed at me... if it were it would be wrong... usually (!)
Sentience is not consciousness, also the ability to feel depends on three conditions, a nerve to sense, a connection to a processor and obviously a processor to percieve the input. The axons that extend through the body to hook up to the brain stem are attached at first to decoy cells, once the brain stem is established they transition to the proper cells on the brain stem. This doesn't happen until after the 4th month. Nerves may send signals and local changes to environment may happen but there is nothing percieving it at the other end except some dummy attachment points.

http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/scheibel.htm

Thereafter going into the fifth month and onwards the delta brainwave begins, this is the deepest brainwave and doesn't stop unless the brain stops. Towards birth the brain is getting more organised and other brainwaves appear, when the alpha wave appears this signifies the first appearance of what could be termed pre-conciousness.

http://www.med.howard.edu/physio.biophys/MILLIS%20HOME%20PAGE_files/Biomed/12PPT_lect/12-03_pptlect.ppt

[Izzibeth]

Bdwatkins wrote: If you women do not want babies, do not be sluts. Simple as that. If you men do not want to be fathers, learn to control your urges.

this is my favorite part of your paragraph.

you call us women "sluts" for having sex. and you tell your fellow man to simply "control their urges". "sl**" implies wrong-doing and unnatural. "urges" implies a natural impulse that you tell men to just "control". this is quite a telling statement.

oh, and also you call for women who have abortions to be sterilized. yet, you make no mention of what should happen to a man who say, forces a woman to get an abortion or who fully supports the woman's choice to get an abortion if the two of them were to be the parents. just women should be punished. you know... for being "sluts".

[Middletoes]

Bdwatkins wrote: I believe everyone is free to choose whether or not to have sex. If you women do not want babies, do not be sluts. Simple as that. If you men do not want to be fathers, learn to control your urges. In those regards I am pro-choice. But when it comes to abortion, I am firmly pro-life. Abortion is barbaric and immoral, and should be 100% illegal. Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these wackos. :evil:

http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM

Women who've had abortions should be sterilized. I see no reason why they should be permitted to reproduce.


I think people like YOU should be promptly sterilized.
Or shipped to Africa where you are forced to help women in garbage communities give birth to babies that they aren't allowed to abort because YOU said they would go to hell for it even though the mother has AIDS and will die in just a few years time to leave that same child desperate, alone, poor and without a family.

Having sex doesn't make you a sl**. ITS PART OF NATURAL URGES AND YOU DONT GET PREGNANT EVERYTIME YOU HAVE SEX. There are condoms and birth control. Or is it that GOD told you that sex is wrong and birth control methods will give you diseases and he is the only one to believe?

When you have an opinion that doesn't involve using your own mind-numbing principles of "anyone who isnt like me is f**king wrong" than I will weigh what you have to say against what I think. Until than my stance is that I think everyone has a choice to EVERYTHING that happens to them in their lives and people like you have no say in it.


By the way, I won't take any response with this that involves mentioning "God" or "Jesus" as an answer. I firmly belive that answering a question in such respects has nothing to do with what you as a person think and will not accept it.

[Selfish_Meme]

Middletoes wrote: Bdwatkins wrote: I believe everyone is free to choose whether or not to have sex. If you women do not want babies, do not be sluts. Simple as that. If you men do not want to be fathers, learn to control your urges. In those regards I am pro-choice. But when it comes to abortion, I am firmly pro-life. Abortion is barbaric and immoral, and should be 100% illegal. Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. I have no sympathy whatsoever for these wackos. :evil:

http://abortionviolence.com/INDEX.HTM

Women who've had abortions should be sterilized. I see no reason why they should be permitted to reproduce.


I think people like YOU should be promptly sterilized.
Or shipped to Africa where you are forced to help women in garbage communities give birth to babies that they aren't allowed to abort because YOU said they would go to hell for it even though the mother has AIDS and will die in just a few years time to leave that same child desperate, alone, poor and without a family.

Having sex doesn't make you a sl**. ITS PART OF NATURAL URGES AND YOU DONT GET PREGNANT EVERYTIME YOU HAVE SEX. There are condoms and birth control. Or is it that GOD told you that sex is wrong and birth control methods will give you diseases and he is the only one to believe?

When you have an opinion that doesn't involve using your own mind-numbing principles of "anyone who isnt like me is f**king wrong" than I will weigh what you have to say against what I think. Until than my stance is that I think everyone has a choice to EVERYTHING that happens to them in their lives and people like you have no say in it.


By the way, I won't take any response with this that involves mentioning "God" or "Jesus" as an answer. I firmly belive that answering a question in such respects has nothing to do with what you as a person think and will not accept it.
Just so youknow, even though I loathe the opinions expressed in the Original Post as much as you do, attacking someone personally for their opinion will net you a short lifetime ion these forums.

[Plodder]

Life is not worth living because of living standards. Life is worth living because it is life. To take it away is a crime since you will be denying that individual not only Life, but allso liberty by taking its ability to live away from it. You also take away its pursuit of happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness in the constitution. we are guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. we are granted the ability to pursue happiness. If the world were simple people wold have sex when they were married so that they could not only make love for the pleasure of it, but alos be open to hildre. most peope that say children are horrible, have either had a bad choldhood or they have never experienced the joy of caring for a child. For those poor chldren in Africa, they are given the incredible gift of life even if that life is miserable. For myself, if I were to have been brought up starvi, i would have prefered to starve rather than be killed. One of the biggest problems in today's society is that we are once again reducing other humans to property. The old in Europe can now be killed without recourse to that individual. We now kill our unborn babies, claiming that they belong to us and we have a right to their life. Now we want to begin harvesting cells from embryos, even when we can get the same cells from adult cells. If this keeps going i expect that we will have newborn babies and young chldren put in organ farms all designed to "lessen or eliminate" the suffering of another older individual. We are now saying that klling is justifiable if it takes away pain or disease. We are not making those that have dark skin property. We are making the very young property, whether they are black, white, asian, hispanic, ect.

[Middletoes]

Vote republican: They can't spell.



Okay I have another idea. Let's make abortions completely illegal. and than EVERYONE can have babies. Whether they want to keep it or not. This way there will orphans and children being put up for adoption constantly because of unwanted pregnancies and not having the abortion.

When the orphanages get too full we can out source them all to factories and reinstate child labor! :P Of course it'll be better conditions than those olden days, they 'll still have to wear diapers. But you know what!! At least they have life!

Also, the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is a government presented idea. It didn't come from natural human/animal being. It was created for people who couldn't defend themselves or ideas and needed something to fall back on.

[JayDubya]

Middletoes wrote: Also, the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is a government presented idea. It didn't come from natural human/animal being. It was created for people who couldn't defend themselves or ideas and needed something to fall back on.

Reread your copy of The Declaration of Independence.

Quote: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness." Preamble, original draft, Jefferson 1776.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Preamble opening, final draft, Jefferson, 1776.

Said rights are argued to be unalienable and inherent to all human beings. Governments don't create these rights, governments are supposed to respect their existence and protect them - and when they don't, those governments need to be overthrown.

Jefferson was a deist so please spare us further anti-Christian contempt. I am not a Christian but I vehemently disagree with you.

* * *

I'm going to pretty much disregard your overpopulation / child labor camp scenario at the ludicrous hyperbole that it is. Let's just say there's a lot of things this country wastes money on, orphans are perhaps the most deserving use of a lot of reformed socialist waste and military overspending.

[JustDucky]

Bdwatkins wrote: Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. Translation: I see abortion as killing. Killing is wrong. So if you do it, you should be killed. :roll:

No hypocrisy there.

[JayDubya]

JustDucky wrote: Bdwatkins wrote: Aborionists should be pushed through a kangaroo court and promptly executed. Translation: I see abortion as killing. Killing is wrong. So if you do it, you should be killed. :roll:

No hypocrisy there.

Innocent life deserves protection. Murderers deserve prosecution.

This is not, by neccessity, hypocrisy.

The consistent life ethic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_Life_Ethic ) is only one argument against abortion. It is not the only valid one.

I too believe that in the absence of medical neccessity, abortion doctors (and their patients) are be guilty of the crime of premeditated murder. In Texas, that's murder in the first and carries a life sentence or execution as the penalty.

Associated medical staff are accessories to commit murder.

However, I certainly don't approve of dispensing justice vigilante style. Even the worst bastards (see Hussein) deserve a trial and presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Unfortunately the system not only sanctions this activity but partially supports it with tax monies going to Planned Parenthood, so I can see why certain individuals find this so unbearable they find vigilante action to be palatable.

[KamikazeTara]

If there are women out there that believe abortion is murder, then fine. Don't abort. Bear your rapist's baby for 9 months, give birth to it, raise it, tell it what you will about its conception. I won't bother debating the life of an unwanted child, ie a child whose mother would have liked to have an abortion.

But by God, don't you dare try to take away another women's right to have an abortion if she wants to. We talk about the rights of the foetus, the humanity of the foetus, the consciousness of the foetus - what about the mother? We write off any effects on her life, just because women were made to have babies and it's natural, right? Not nearly enough respect for the mother, but then again we live in patriarchy, what more can I expect?

As for the biology, pro-"life"ers (I hate this terminology, I prefer pro-abortion and anti-abortion) talk about life beginning (or the soul residing in the body or whatever) at conception. What they might be interested to know is that a large percentage of zygotes and embryos are naturally aborted by the mother's reproductive system, poor souls. Mother Nature committing murder on a regular basis.

Another interesting tidbit: indentical twins actually become two embryos some time after conception (one original zygote splits into two). If the case is that life begins at conception, than by all accounts twins should be considered to be one person, and have the same "soul".

You can believe what you want. My concern is that there are people out there, especially in the US, trying to take away a women's right to abort if she wants to. I'm all for monitoring and rules and regulations and information (I don't support aborting a baby after the second trimester, except in the most dire situations). But the situation there is terribly biased at the moment. Please stop trying to take away the basic human rights of women in your nation. Actual real women, full-grown human beings that are definitely sentient.

[JayDubya]

It is quite fair to take away something that never should have been granted, as it is quite morally impermissable. If it's morally impermissable, then it cannot be a right. It's not misogynistic by default for any man to express an opinion on this issue, so don't try and marginalize.

From my perspective, it's all about rights, and whether or not you think an stable, implanted life connected to its mother has them.

I'd say yes, you'd say no, and we argue forever while getting nowhere and vote and hope our way becomes or stays reality. That is simply the way of things.

I don't care about souls, and don't believe in them. As a biologist, I realize every bit of what you said in your post and quite a bit more. I draw the line at implantation, where pregnancy begins, and cells begin to differentiate. It seems less arbitrary (at least to me).

Again, for me it comes down to rights. Civil liberties are very important - but your rights always end when they infringe on someone else's, especially violently.

The growing child is the textbook definition of innocence and fragility. It has unalienable rights and deserves protection under the law.

[KamikazeTara]

Morally "impremissable" in whose opinion? Who gets to decide what is morally "permissable" for women to do with their bodies (and it IS their bodies - as a biologist you must know that most of the matter of the embryo is provided by the mother, as is its food etc). I think only women, and individual women at that, should decide for themselves.

Which is why I excluded men from the above argument - because they seem to be most vocal on the subject, despite the fact that the situation is not one they could directly find themselves in, ever. So logically it is easier for them to say "Yeah, sure, abortion is murder" when they would never have to carry an unwanted child. Men have a right to an opinion, sure, everyone does. But they should not have the power to influence the legality and availability of abortions for women... since women are the only ones having them!

And I will retort with "deadbeat dad" statistics if anyone brings up the rights of the father. Until fathers in this society are just as responsible for children as mothers are expected to be, they can't tell me what to do.

Quote: Again, for me it comes down to rights. Civil liberties are very important - but your rights always end when they infringe on someone else's, especially violently.

The growing child is the textbook definition of innocence and fragility. It has unalienable rights and deserves protection under the law.

That's all very nice and well, can't help but agree. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, your rights don't always end when they infringe on someone else's, even violently. People kill people for the smallest excuses, under the protection of the law, and with international law turning a blind eye.

Many women having abortions in the US will die if your government makes them illegal. It's bad enough as it is - as we speak, hundreds of women across america are being scared away from abortions they want/need by pseudo-medical "facts" - lies and deceit, and intimidation. Abortion clinics and doctors are being threatened and worse. How on earth do you hope to safeguard the life and rights of an unborn foetus when you cannot even ensure rights for half of the current population? The unborn child has unalienable rights, but its full-grown mother has barely any, since you, a faceless male, and others like you, get to decide what happens to her body and the rest of her life. Well done, that makes perfect sense.

[WeThePeople]

KamikazeTara wrote: Morally "impremissable" in whose opinion? Who gets to decide what is morally "permissable" for women to do with their bodies (and it IS their bodies - as a biologist you must know that most of the matter of the embryo is provided by the mother, as is its food etc). I think only women, and individual women at that, should decide for themselves.

Lets see... since the baby is really just made up of matter from the mother, as you say... then is it ok to kill the baby, as long as you do it before it has its first meal? Does the ingestion of something other than it's mother's food consitute the point at which it finally has human rights? Because by your reasoning... the baby remains part of the woman until it is...made up of something other than nutients provided by her? I'm not entirely sure i understand...

Perhaps you claim that the baby is no longer a "body part" once it leaves the womb? What about right before it leaves, in the final week(s) of pregnancy? Could it be the... light of day (?) which confers upon it all the rights that you and I enjoy?

I can understand the argument about when the baby aquires individual thought and whatnot, but by your reasoning... a living, thinking baby is merely an extension of the mother, to be discarded on a whim.

Quote:
Which is why I excluded men from the above argument - because they seem to be most vocal on the subject, despite the fact that the situation is not one they could directly find themselves in, ever. So logically it is easier for them to say "Yeah, sure, abortion is murder" when they would never have to carry an unwanted child. Men have a right to an opinion, sure, everyone does. But they should not have the power to influence the legality and availability of abortions for women... since women are the only ones having them!


So men should not be able to influence this issue because... by some cruel twist of fate... they find themselves unable to commit the crime (murder)? Perhaps the poor should not speak out on the issue of insider trading...


Quote:
And I will retort with "deadbeat dad" statistics if anyone brings up the rights of the father. Until fathers in this society are just as responsible for children as mothers are expected to be, they can't tell me what to do.


So... becasue of a few "deadbeat dads," the entire male gender cannot speak out for the lives of their sons and daughters? And before you make your no-doubt spectaculuar 'retort,' let me hit you with a few statistics of my own.

Over 70 percent of julvenile delinquents come from fatherless homes
In fact, fatherless teens are ten times as likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs, and make up three out of four teen suicides
In fact, a whopping 72 percent of teenagers who commit homocide are raised in fatherless homes.

Its not really related to abortion, but i just thought you should know... dads do matter, thank you very much.

Quote: Quote:
Again, for me it comes down to rights. Civil liberties are very important - but your rights always end when they infringe on someone else's, especially violently.

The growing child is the textbook definition of innocence and fragility. It has unalienable rights and deserves protection under the law.

That's all very nice and well, can't help but agree. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, your rights don't always end when they infringe on someone else's, even violently. People kill people for the smallest excuses, under the protection of the law, and with international law turning a blind eye.

Many women having abortions in the US will die if your government makes them illegal. It's bad enough as it is - as we speak, hundreds of women across america are being scared away from abortions they want/need by pseudo-medical "facts" - lies and deceit, and intimidation. Abortion clinics and doctors are being threatened and worse. How on earth do you hope to safeguard the life and rights of an unborn foetus when you cannot even ensure rights for half of the current population? The unborn child has unalienable rights, but its full-grown mother has barely any, since you, a faceless male, and others like you, get to decide what happens to her body and the rest of her life. Well done, that makes perfect sense.

Well, actually, i just checked in the mirror, and i do, in fact, have a face :lol:
A full-grown woman has all the same rights as her child. But committing murder isnt one of them.

[Selfish_Meme]

JayDubya wrote: Said rights are argued to be unalienable and inherent to all human beings. Governments don't create these rights, governments are supposed to respect their existence and protect them - and when they don't, those governments need to be overthrown.
That is an American document and Americans have no right to apply it to anyone else in the world. No one else signed it or agreed with it.

[Selfish_Meme]

WeThePeople wrote: Well, actually, i just checked in the mirror, and i do, in fact, have a face :lol:
A full-grown woman has all the same rights as her child. But committing murder isnt one of them.
If it is not legally defined as murder then they do have the same rights to discard of unwanted pregnancies.

Since the United Sates does not define Abortion as illegal, then it can't be first degree murder or any type of murder. If you would like to change this go see your local polling booth. If you can't get a majority then move somewhere that does make it illegal, like Ireland.