Ducky

Awww, I lub joo

Does that arguement hold though? Of course it is sad when someone is knifed, and that person is close to you. Had my dog been stabbed, I would be quite sad. But a person in australia who gets stabbed and dies.. Do I care? Nah Not even remotely close to me. Or even that persons dog. I don't think the arguement fits.

Omg, Females are real? They use the internet?!?!?! Your input of course is much appriciated, we just don't get many female posters around.

Every life does desearve to live equally. I am no saint, I don't go out of my way far to keep things alive. I won't kill a spider, or a flee, but if something does not fit my fancy, it is killed. The groundhog in iraq is murdered so I can get my oil. Wasn't that mentioned before also? You live the same way. So why is killing one above the other? What I don't do is tell a vegetarian or a hunter what s/he should do because of what I think. I put up two arguements, though I agree with parts of both, they don't necessarily reflect my decision in the situation. I personally would not have an abortion, but I have little say towards those who do; I believe the option should be there along with the choice.

How is my arguement shot? I support abortion, the killing of a fetus before it is born. I eat eggs, And I use alot of electricity. I am not contradicting myself.

Why don't they?

*chuckle* I don't see 'persons' when I look to the streets after waking. I see animals that are still no better than the rabbit lying by the tree. If you support killing of one animal, why not the other? A basic question. My arguement has nothing to do with morality or any of the other various issues argued in your post. If we are no better than one another, why is one more acceptable than the other. It's the simple notion that you are the best, that you are superior in some way. Which is total bull!@#$%^&*. We have comprehension on a higher level, but that does not mean that we will get more enjoyment out of life than that chicken would have. That's the arguement right? It is better to live than to never have lived? You all don't think like me, I respect that. Half of you will eat that chicken and think nothing of it. I can live with that notion. I have no will to change you, because no matter how hard I try, it will not happen. Again, why dictate to other people that they must save a fetus, and yet watch you kill ones yourself. It makes no sense what so ever.

Agreed

Oh !@#$%^&*, here it comes. "Why is it that when it's us, it's an "abortion" and when it's chicken it's an "omelette"? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden?" -Carlin

*Chuckle* Thank you for pointing out what everyone should know already

Michael Badnarik, laff

Correct, bad example on that point. And yet still no different from the other thousands of life forms we slaughter each day for our own gain. I don't see any differance. If we are 'allowed' to kill one 'pre life form' (Though it lives, this is the only phrase that comes to mind), why not others. Btw, that doesn't explain whether or not it is a human at all. It has the potential to become one, that does not mean it is one at the time. Obviously if we can hunt deer, kill rodents and otherwise destroy species without it being called murder, then killing a fetus which is not yet human is no different. A constant reminder is not 9 months, it is a lifetime. Correct, because my story was not one of importance what so ever. I never mentioned your god or religion, and only two others mentioned it briefly in a factual statement. They pointed out why it is an issue. No one said it was wrong because of your faith. I don't believe it to be faith based at all personally. I have seen split opinions in both areas.

Aye, not at all what this country was founded on. Although I do agree with the difficulty in obtaining his goal, dismissing it isn't the proper way. No headway is ever made. That is one of the best solid solutions. I cannot speak for others, but if we can achieve such a thing of equality, I would not mind s-*BAD WORD*-ing out extra money. I don't believe in obtaining more material possession than I need if I am already comfortable. If I worked 30 hours a week to obtain that goal, working 31 would be no trouble if I knew it was going to a solid cause.

I suppose it comes down (like many things) to personal experience. I had an old girlfriend who had gotten pregnant and had intention of delivery. She was sound of mind, had a semi decent future and was motivated to accomplish her goals in life. A life in which revolved around her newer boyfriend that she loved. He was in a car accident soon after conception and killed. Some might argue that she should have had the child as a rememberance. Or that it was god's way of giving her something while taking away something to show human condition. She chose to abort due to heavy depression. Though she weeps today over the decision, she clearly knows it was a correct one, and that her life may not have moved forward without the option. Am I justifying the whole process with my story? nah. Just trying to show again my thoughts on the matter and why I believe that the choice of someone who is able to comprehend 'may' outweigh that of something that cannot.

I suppose this will be my last post also, I won't write anything too controversal. It is my personal opinion, that if you don't know of something, you have no way of determining whether it is good or bad. (Using the 7 week theory) At that time in "life", there is no possibility of knowing the difference between life and death. A person in their 70's have no possible way of knowing the difference between life and death. (All religion aside). If it was proven without a shadow of a doubt that death was better than life, I would gaurentee suicide rates would sky rocket. It is our choice to continue living because we do not know what death has in store, although we know what life has. The early fetus does not have this concept of life, it knows neither of both. So I don't believe it has the capability of deciding it's fate. The next in line is the mother and father to make that decision. Legally speaking, an abortion should not be allowed if the genetic father doesn't agree with the procedure. In the case that the father refuses to 'acknowledge' the child as his own, is unable to make decision due to medical problems, unable to care for the child himself, or deceased; the mother retains sole right of decision. If the father refuses abortion as an option, the child must be born by regular means (though if the mother's health is at risk, etc, it can be halted)And the child should legally become the fathers child alone. The mother should have no right of claim. All cases of rape, etc aside. The very last in line is us. The people who have nothing to do with the birth. This arguement is well enough in short. If the mother does not have right of decision, how did we possibly attain it. Like it or not, that is my simplified logical thought of the situation.

The organism does not yet comprehend free choice. You are !@#$%^&*uming its choice. By default, the choice then becomes the mothers. Remember we are still talking in the 7 preweek area before it is still developed. My arguement still stands.

*shrug*, your choice. You quoted me and attempted to tell me of your opinions. I did just the same.

Life is life, no matter what type. There is no superiority among anything.People who pick and choose the more "important" organisms who suit their own needs are !@#$%^&*anine. If I can solely stop the destruction of life without invading with another's free choice, I will. I don't kill insects purposely. If it happens, it happens. I appologize. Just as if I were to accidently kill a human being. If it was a pure accident, I would have no guilt. This is my choice. Not yours or anyone elses. And in my view, you cannot support killing one thing and not another on purpose. Do you kill a spider when it bites you? Do you smash mosquito's when they do something that doesn't fit your fancy? I smell superiority complex

Sure, and genetically, a Dog and a human are vastly different. An ape and a human are similarly different. Where does your personal line get drawn? Most certainly, breaking a childs neck as soon as it is pulled from the womb is in essence murder. I recognize it as a person at that point. The beginnings of a fetus are nothing more than tissue with "life" properties. SIMILAR TO THAT OF MOLD. No, that is what you are twisting my words into. I believe that the mother has right, (Priority) to choose whether or not to care for a pre-life form because it is dependant upon her alone.

Wow, so you're compairing a human being to mold.. gg They can't be compared? They both are living, is one greater than the other? Didn't you just use that arguement elsewhere that they aren't. Yet she was old enough to have sex... You're still lowering the value of a human life.. Because the human isn't born yet does not make his/her life of ANY lesser value to that life that is already born.. I never once debated the fact that women are not all mature enough to have sex. Read my above arguements, the life values are the same. WHEN IT IS A PERSON. Tissue, to me is not yet a person. Show me how a newborn can sustain life on its own and i'll give your arguement validity... I did not say sustain life on it's own. I said it can be independant from that mother and still live. Are we along far enough to give fetuses to other "hosts" persay and keep the growing process intact? Not really.

No, you cannot possibly deny the arguement that it isn't a life form until a certain stage of development. Abortion can take place before that moment when it is suited. Mold is a living life form, and when your bread gets moldy, you throw it away. MURDERER. It was tissue, it could not yet comprehend and "live" Am I !@#$%^&*ociating a fetus with tissue? Sure am, weren't we all made of cells? If you cannot respect and understand a womans choice to give up something of hers because she is not mature enough in handling, what in the world makes you believe she will make a good parent? So if I were to look at the statistics of Religious murder from say, palinstine compared to the US, there would be no difference? When they are half !@#$%^&*ed statistics, I can argue them. It mentions nothing of total abortions, only legal. Who is to say the general abortion rate didn't drop? You are correct, it is easily done. No the child is not dependant of them. How are they at all?

Those are not nearly as factual as stated though. But it is not yet a seperate en-*BAD WORD*-y. It is purely dependant of the mother. As such, it is often argued that life does NOT start at conception, but rather when the two have seperated. Certain procedures should be disqualified in the arguement, as there are alternatives. The time when the abortion takes place is also a factor. Lol, But lets !@#$%^&* homosexuals over. The arguement is solid on the conservative side. Liberals who state one is more important than the other is silly.But this "equality" comming from conservatives is bull!@#$%^&*. You need first to evaluate when the fetus is a seperate "person" for this arguement to take place. India is a seperate culture than ourselves, with numerous different cir!@#$%^&*stances and beliefs. I don't believe the arguement is valid. I agree with that, it has little to do with population control.

I always thought it was Liberal/conservative stereotypes that clashed. I also would like to see the arguements. I am pro-choice btw

Heh, and to burst your bubble. I am The rich are too highly taxed.

I did not catch the publisized debate on television as I was out. I read the transcript though and only had one problem. More of a hatred toward the statement than all else. Some back story, and my point in bold I don't understand how one can truely rationalize with that statement. It breaks down the boundaries between the Richer classes and the more poor. Who has right to say because you do not make xxx amount of income, you are not en-*BAD WORD*-led to the same care for the same percentile cost. There is a median that must be met so that both sides of our divided classes may see equality. IT most !@#$%^&*uredly will lower the quality of those who can afford supreme treatment and help, but it increases that quality for our poor just as much. We all have but one life, and to say one is greater than another is just unfathomable.