Political Crossfire Forums

[Prog]

esight wrote: Prog wrote: esight wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't pro-abortion and pro-choice in the same camp?

From the gist of your posts I believe it's safe to assume that you would emphatically choose not to abort your fetus given a relevant (hypothetical) situation and opportunity...am I correct?

In light of the choice that has been bestowed upon you and subsequently elected by you.....are you "in the same camp" as these pro-abortionists?

Pro-choicers advocate ...... a free-choice in regard to abortion, not necessarily abortion per se.

I see the semantic distinction. But going by the end result, the distinction fades.

The end result IS the distinction!

[Alyssa M.]

esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

[Obilisk18]

Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

Why the 3rd week? As far as I know that's not a terribly significant week in development. Also, as a practical matter, I can't imagine how allowing women to have abortions for up to 3 weeks into the pregnancy would help anyone. You oftentimes have to wait a month before realizing your pregnant due to a lack of ovulation (pregnancy is more likely to occur after ovulation anyway). And how would the man, who apparently has no say whatsoever over what is done with the fetus, be liable for murder? At best, that analogy would be like blaming beef producers for high cholesterol or something to that effect.

[esight]

Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

You support abortion up to the third week?

Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

A human egg, once fertilized, begins its journey to become a human being, unless someone or something stops it. People would call it a "non-human" during certain stages of its development, but that is such a convenient excuse for them to justify terminating its existence.

When a mother who wasn't responsible enough to safeguard against pregnancy decides to terminate the development of this fertilized egg, that's murder because it is premeditated.

[LostSoul3412]

esight wrote: Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

Don't have to... you just said yourself that a fertilized egg is not a full being.

[esight]

LostSoul3412 wrote: esight wrote: Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

Don't have to... you just said yourself that a fertilized egg is not a full being.

Talk about missing the point.

[LostSoul3412]

esight wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: esight wrote: Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

Don't have to... you just said yourself that a fertilized egg is not a full being.

Talk about missing the point.

Not at all, you said it yourself that a fertilized human egg is not a human being; and I agree.

[Alyssa M.]

Obilisk18 wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

Why the 3rd week? As far as I know that's not a terribly significant week in development. Also, as a practical matter, I can't imagine how allowing women to have abortions for up to 3 weeks into the pregnancy would help anyone. You oftentimes have to wait a month before realizing your pregnant due to a lack of ovulation (pregnancy is more likely to occur after ovulation anyway). And how would the man, who apparently has no say whatsoever over what is done with the fetus, be liable for murder? At best, that analogy would be like blaming beef producers for high cholesterol or something to that effect. obviously they would have to know if they're pregnate. and as for the man not having to be charged with the murder, I still say both of them should pay because it's both parent's child.

[Alyssa M.]

esight wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

You support abortion up to the third week?

Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

A human egg, once fertilized, begins its journey to become a human being, unless someone or something stops it. People would call it a "non-human" during certain stages of its development, but that is such a convenient excuse for them to justify terminating its existence.

When a mother who wasn't responsible enough to safeguard against pregnancy decides to terminate the development of this fertilized egg, that's murder because it is premeditated. If God left the men with the responsibility, then why would the woman need an abortion in the first place? if the man was responsible she never would have been in the situation. refute that.

[straw man]

The rapist is responsible for CREATING the baby, and putting the woman in that situation. If said baby must be killed, then said killing is not the fault or responsibility of the rapist. The child's creation and the child's killing are two completely separate actions.

[Obilisk18]

Alyssa M. wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

Why the 3rd week? As far as I know that's not a terribly significant week in development. Also, as a practical matter, I can't imagine how allowing women to have abortions for up to 3 weeks into the pregnancy would help anyone. You oftentimes have to wait a month before realizing your pregnant due to a lack of ovulation (pregnancy is more likely to occur after ovulation anyway). And how would the man, who apparently has no say whatsoever over what is done with the fetus, be liable for murder? At best, that analogy would be like blaming beef producers for high cholesterol or something to that effect. obviously they would have to know if they're pregnate. and as for the man not having to be charged with the murder, I still say both of them should pay because it's both parent's child.

So then if a father murders his son, the mother should go to jail as well? Or if a random homicidal maniac on the street murders that child, both parents should go to jail as well? I mean after all, this is their child. To be honest I'm not quite sure what to say about that philosophy. It's new. I'll grant you that.

[esight]

Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

You support abortion up to the third week?

Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

A human egg, once fertilized, begins its journey to become a human being, unless someone or something stops it. People would call it a "non-human" during certain stages of its development, but that is such a convenient excuse for them to justify terminating its existence.

When a mother who wasn't responsible enough to safeguard against pregnancy decides to terminate the development of this fertilized egg, that's murder because it is premeditated. If God left the men with the responsibility, then why would the woman need an abortion in the first place? if the man was responsible she never would have been in the situation. refute that.

Who said God left the "men" with the responsibility? Pregnancy takes a man and a woman to create. God gave us free will to do what we choose. If you are blaming an unwanted pregnancy solely on the man (barring rape), then that would be an erroneous assumption.

[Obilisk18]

Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it. You have absolutley no clue what you're talking about. If an embryo has a brain it is able to be considered a human. I support abortion up to the third week, past that I think that they would have to be raped. What is all this about murder? Wouldn't the man have to be charged since he was the one to impregnate her? Or are the judges just that bias?

You support abortion up to the third week?

Refute this: "A fertilized human egg, barring acts of God, will inevitably become a sentient human being."

A human egg, once fertilized, begins its journey to become a human being, unless someone or something stops it. People would call it a "non-human" during certain stages of its development, but that is such a convenient excuse for them to justify terminating its existence.

When a mother who wasn't responsible enough to safeguard against pregnancy decides to terminate the development of this fertilized egg, that's murder because it is premeditated. If God left the men with the responsibility, then why would the woman need an abortion in the first place? if the man was responsible she never would have been in the situation. refute that.

You do realize they have these wild new things called "female birth control devices". I hear they're really catching on in Europe. IUD's, female condoms, the pill, or diaphragms just to name a few. Is this some sort of weird egalitarian thing where the man, because he has absolutely no say after the pregancy begins, is burdened with all the responsibility before-hand?

[Alyssa M.]

hey, if he can bring religion into this, so can I.

[Obilisk18]

Alyssa M. wrote: hey, if he can bring religion into this, so can I.

Are you replying to me? What religion says that only the man can possibly choose to create the baby and only the woman can possibly choose to terminate it? I mean, what religion says that. The religion of the criminally insane?

[Alyssa M.]

Obilisk18 wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: hey, if he can bring religion into this, so can I.

Are you replying to me? What religion says that only the man can possibly choose to create the baby and only the woman can possibly choose to terminate it? I mean, what religion says that. The religion of the criminally insane? No I'm not talking to you.

[Corona]

esight wrote: I will never understand the abortion arguments. Science has somehow figured out a way to determine when an embryo is considered "human" and sentient.

The way I see it, an egg cell, once fertilized, is destined to be a human being. Regardless of what stage of growth it's at, it is undeniable what it will become. So I don't see the point of even determining when a fetus is considered abortable or not.

We are a country that heavily penalizes an accused for premeditated murder. I find it hard to see abortion as anything but such. In fact, it is the worst kind of premeditated murder, because a mother premeditates on killing her baby who can't defend himself/herself either by speech or action.

Having said that, I certainly wouldn't know how to respond to a woman who was raped and was resultantly impregnated. Clearly this issue isn't entirely black or white. But it certainly isn't as gray as people want to make it.

So don't have an abortion.

[letfreedomring]

Obilisk18 wrote: Alyssa M. wrote: hey, if he can bring religion into this, so can I.

Are you replying to me? What religion says that only the man can possibly choose to create the baby and only the woman can possibly choose to terminate it? I mean, what religion says that. The religion of the criminally insane?

This is the whole point I've been wondering. Why should the woman have the unilateral decision to terminate the pregnancy if the man (the father) won't agree to it?

[LostSoul3412]

letfreedomring wrote: Why should the woman have the unilateral decision to terminate the pregnancy if the man (the father) won't agree to it?

She shouldn't. If there's a disagreement about having an abortion, it should be brought before a judge in the same way a custody case would be.

[Alyssa M.]

[quote="LostSoul3412"] letfreedomring wrote: Why should the woman have the unilateral decision to terminate the pregnancy if the man (the father) won't agree to it?

because it is in her body not the man's. therefore it is still a part of her.